The News Thread

[viewerfromnihil]

Trump broke down and endorsed John McCain. Does anyone really think this guy is anything more than a lot of talk?

How could a "self-made businessman" be mere talk?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

What is dangerous about deportations? Just the supposed hit to the economy? This is an argument you could trace out very simply, and could pull in various citations to support.

1. Trump says he will push for mass deportations
2. X experts say mass deportations will damage the economy.
C: Trump says he will push to damage the economy.

Maybe you have other ideas of how he would be dangerous as well.

In addition to the economic concerns there are serious human rights dangers in play. Pause and think for second: if you are no longer targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal records, but instead going after them all, how do you find them? You're gonna have to invade Brown communities and places of employment and start demanding proof of residency. Of course, that's unconstitutional, since it's racial profiling; so either any citizen can be commanded to prove their citizenship at the government's request, or we blatantly violate the 14th amendment.

Moreover, picture a community as these mass deportations are happening. For example, Los Angeles county has 815,000 undocumented immigrants in a population of about 11 million. Where are you gonna put 7% of population as they're being processed and deported? Where are you gonna put them where they are gonna have sanitary conditions, running water, food and shelter before they are deported? What are you gonna do with the elderly, pregnant women, those with disabilities and medical needs? The risk for human rights violations is terrifyingly massive, especially with the level of hate vitriol coming from the right. In this process, US citizens would inevitably get placed in deportation stations and have their civil rights violated. Naturally, these citizens would be disproportionately Brown.

Furthermore, he's talked about taking away citizenship from US citizens who are children of undocumented immigrants. Let's not cut around corners here: this is about decreasing the brown population in this country. When you combine that with his statements about Muslims (systematically ban them from immigrating, create a database, etc.) and you have a clear and systematic targeting of minority populations. If you examine the 8 Stages of Genocide, Trump has engaged in or suggested policy that would enforce all aspects, save extermination.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf

While I do not think this would go as far as genocide, it is clearly eliminationism [the systematic elimination of a minority group within a populous], plain and simple. What he is suggesting is a radical transformation of what this country is and what it stands for, as well as threatening key aspects of the Constitution.

Your statement was less than ambiguous in that regard but fine. An appeal to emotion though, does not require the entire argument to subsist of the fallacy.

Agreed, though if an argument has multiple isolated points (i.e. a three point claim) then the validity of one reason can have no impact on the other reasons. That said, there was no fallacy to begin with, so I'm nit interested in dragging out this point.

I already addressed the economic aspects of deportation above so skipping that.

No you didn't. Your counterargument was laughably general. It was basically, "Well sometimes experts are wrong," which doesn't address a single specific aspect of the issue.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-says-us-has-93-milion-people-out-work/



I would argue that plenty of the 16-24 year olds should be working, and that some work is healthy both mentally and physically for those already physically capable at 65+. But let's say the number is between 40 and 56 million. 12.5 to 17.5% unemployment. There are people out there that can be productive. We could even use Politifacts number: 21 million. How many jobs are possibly freed up by deportations? 11 million - if every single immigrant were working a job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nuing-nearly-decade-long-decline-report-says/

So there are (many) less jobs to be freed up than people needing work.

Yes, I am aware of this and these are important factors to keep in mind when considering the unemployment rate. However, it is not as simple as saying "oh, well if we deport all the undocumented immigrants, then other unemployed/underemployed people can take their jobs!" A couple things have to be taken into consideration: 1. location and 2. education/field

1. Location: It doesn't matter if there's tons of job openings in the farms of San Joaquin Valley to the unemployed in Detroit. For the jobs to be filled, there needs to be a viable workforce in the area. So the question needs to be more specific: is there a local or semi-local workforce willing and able to take over the jobs currently filled by undocumented immigrants?

2. education/field: A computer engineer who is unemployed is not gonna start working for minimum wage washing dishes at a restaurant. Similarly, a computer engineer could very well lack the skills to take over a construction job. Therefore, it's far too simplistic to say "well there's 21 million people looking for work, to some degree or another; therefore, getting rid of immigrants would get those citizens jobs."

The actual analysis would need to be this: Considering the fields the majority (though certainly not all) of undocumented immigrants work in, and considering the regions in which they are most prevalent, is there an interested unemployed/underemployed populous that could fill said positions?

However, even if the answer is "yes," it doesn't erase the immediate impact the move would have.

As another disclaimer: I don't vote. Even if I did it wouldn't be for Trump. Many of the negative things about Trump are true and generate valid concerns.

Yeah, I mistakenly attributed a TB post to you earlier, which is why I thought you were voting for Trump.

 

[Dak]

In addition to the economic concerns there are serious human rights dangers in play. Pause and think for second: if you are no longer targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal records, but instead going after them all, how do you find them? You're gonna have to invade Brown communities and places of employment and start demanding proof of residency. Of course, that's unconstitutional, since it's racial profiling; so either any citizen can be commanded to prove their citizenship at the government's request, or we blatantly violate the 14th amendment.

This is a hackneyed argument. Any citizen already can be commanded to provide proof of citizenship. It's a matter of fact that cannot be helped that the illegal immigration problem in the US significantly overlaps with the "Brown" population as you put it. There is no legitimate reason a criminal should be able to use his skin color as a shield. The 14th amendment guarantees due process to citizens born and naturalized - not non-citizens. Requesting proof of citizenship does not violate the 14th amendment.

Moreover, picture a community as these mass deportations are happening. For example, Los Angeles county has 815,000 undocumented immigrants in a population of about 11 million. Where are you gonna put 7% of population as they're being processed and deported? Where are you gonna put them where they are gonna have sanitary conditions, running water, food and shelter before they are deported? What are you gonna do with the elderly, pregnant women, those with disabilities and medical needs? The risk for human rights violations is terrifyingly massive, especially with the level of hate vitriol coming from the right. In this process, US citizens would inevitably get placed in deportation stations and have their civil rights violated. Naturally, these citizens would be disproportionately Brown.

Fortunately Los Angeles is a short drive from the border and according to your number, contains 10% of the estimated illegal immigrants. I imagine most are within less than a days drive of the border. There are ways to run a deportation program that doesn't involve holding areas, as well as ways to encourage much less messy self-deportations. I would of course be against building some stupid deportation holding place and rounding everyone up and then deciding what to do with them. I never liked Mitt Romney on multiple levels, but his comments on self-deportation didn't deserve the mockery they received. As that link I listed earlier noted, illegals have been self-deporting anyway as economic conditions have continued to limp along in the US, especially in areas like construction.

Furthermore, he's talked about taking away citizenship from US citizens who are children of undocumented immigrants. Let's not cut around corners here: this is about decreasing the brown population in this country. When you combine that with his statements about Muslims (systematically ban them from immigrating, create a database, etc.) and you have a clear and systematic targeting of minority populations. If you examine the 8 Stages of Genocide, Trump has engaged in or suggested policy that would enforce all aspects, save extermination.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf

While I do not think this would go as far as genocide, it is clearly eliminationism [the systematic elimination of a minority group within a populous], plain and simple. What he is suggesting is a radical transformation of what this country is and what it stands for, as well as threatening key aspects of the Constitution.

There's no reason to legitimate the anchor baby motive for illegal immigration. I don't think he'd be able to pull it off, but it wouldn't bother me if there were an additional stipulation regarding being born in the US. Your pearl clutching about minority targeting gets shot down immediately when you realize there are dozens of other minority groups in the US no one is talking about, and aren't contributing either to terrorism or attempting to "jump the fence" as it were. We don't have a huge problem with Asian, Indian, and Islander populations.

Yes, I am aware of this and these are important factors to keep in mind when considering the unemployment rate. However, it is not as simple as saying "oh, well if we deport all the undocumented immigrants, then other unemployed/underemployed people can take their jobs!" A couple things have to be taken into consideration: 1. location and 2. education/field

1. Location: It doesn't matter if there's tons of job openings in the farms of San Joaquin Valley to the unemployed in Detroit. For the jobs to be filled, there needs to be a viable workforce in the area. So the question needs to be more specific: is there a local or semi-local workforce willing and able to take over the jobs currently filled by undocumented immigrants?

2. education/field: A computer engineer who is unemployed is not gonna start working for minimum wage washing dishes at a restaurant. Similarly, a computer engineer could very well lack the skills to take over a construction job. Therefore, it's far too simplistic to say "well there's 21 million people looking for work, to some degree or another; therefore, getting rid of immigrants would get those citizens jobs."

The actual analysis would need to be this: Considering the fields the majority (though certainly not all) of undocumented immigrants work in, and considering the regions in which they are most prevalent, is there an interested unemployed/underemployed populous that could fill said positions?

However, even if the answer is "yes," it doesn't erase the immediate impact the move would have.

I agree these are all relevant considerations. I will point out that unemployment is the highest amongst younger people. This the most mobile/flexible group, and the group lacking skills developed over long careers in other fields that would make change difficult. There is a problem though with simply assuming that people need to be super interested prior to any changes to the economy, or that it's simply unacceptable that someone who trained for one career might have to suck it up and do something else.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

This is a hackneyed argument. Any citizen already can be commanded to provide proof of citizenship. It's a matter of fact that cannot be helped that the illegal immigration problem in the US significantly overlaps with the "Brown" population as you put it. There is no legitimate reason a criminal should be able to use his skin color as a shield. The 14th amendment guarantees due process to citizens born and naturalized - not non-citizens. Requesting proof of citizenship does not violate the 14th amendment.

It's not hackneyed at all. Yes, people can be required to provide proof of citizenship, but they cannot be targeted based on their race per the equal protection clause. An American Latino/a has the right to not be stopped on the street just because of their heritage and be required to show citizenship. I have trouble seeing how 7-10% of the population of citizen could be removed without racial profiling.

Fortunately Los Angeles is a short drive from the border and according to your number, contains 10% of the estimated illegal immigrants. I imagine most are within less than a days drive of the border. There are ways to run a deportation program that doesn't involve holding areas, as well as ways to encourage much less messy self-deportations. I would of course be against building some stupid deportation holding place and rounding everyone up and then deciding what to do with them.

This is terribly thought out. Just dump millions of people at the border? That's bound to result in monstrous human's right violations. The Mexican border just have a massive ghost town that can hold several million people who are just dumped there. Sure, some would be able to head back to their old homes or families, but many may not have a place to return to. The issue would still stand of elderly, disabled, pregnant women, etc. This would also not address the breaking up of families. It's not plausible unless you just simply don't care about the health or safety of these people at all.

There's no reason to legitimate the anchor baby motive for illegal immigration. I don't think he'd be able to pull it off, but it wouldn't bother me if there were an additional stipulation regarding being born in the US.

So you're OK with revoking the citizenship of Americans who have grown up as citizens of the USA because of the immigration status of their parents?

Your pearl clutching about minority targeting gets shot down immediately when you realize there are dozens of other minority groups in the US no one is talking about, and aren't contributing either to terrorism or attempting to "jump the fence" as it were. We don't have a huge problem with Asian, Indian, and Islander populations.

That is factually incorrect.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...icans-in-terms-of-undocumented-growth/432603/

And my statement about trying to whitewash the political power in this nation should be obvious to anyone who isn't biased.

1. Deport undocumented immigrants, thus decreasing Latino and Asian populations
2. Revoke the citizenship of children of undocumented immigrants
3. Ban Muslims
4. Systematically target Black and Brown people with the police force/ criminal "justice" system, thus increasing the felon population, and in most states, causing them to lose their voting rights.
5. Create voting requirements that systematically target the voting strategies used by minority groups (c.f. the slew of explicitly racist "voting protection laws" that popped up the second the Voting Rights Act was knocked down).
6. Redistrict so that minority voters have less of an impact

The writing is on the wall (no pun intended) for anyone with an unbiased eye. Or you can just listen to the words of Supreme Leader Trump.

I agree these are all relevant considerations. I will point out that unemployment is the highest amongst younger people. This the most mobile/flexible group, and the group lacking skills developed over long careers in other fields that would make change difficult. There is a problem though with simply assuming that people need to be super interested prior to any changes to the economy, or that it's simply unacceptable that someone who trained for one career might have to suck it up and do something else.

This is probably true for the for the uneducated and those with limited opportunities; this group will have more motive to take what they can get. On the other hand, those with more education/opportunities are more likely to be able to hold out (live on savings or credit), settle for a more meager lifestyle while being underemployed, or go into early retirement.

 

[CiG]

People are racially profiled all the time, I didn't know that profiling was unconstitutional. Is it sexist that profiling mostly involves men?

im voting republican in cali

 

[Dak]

It's not hackneyed at all. Yes, people can be required to provide proof of citizenship, but they cannot be targeted based on their race per the equal protection clause. An American Latino/a has the right to not be stopped on the street just because of their heritage and be required to show citizenship. I have trouble seeing how 7-10% of the population of citizen could be removed without racial profiling.

There's no lack of due process or equal protection under the law in racial profiling when there's a known criminal profile as it relates to race and geography. In fact, a crackdown offers a degree of social protection to those of that race in that location that are not breaking the law. I'm sure you're confused as to why there is any support for Trump amongst Latinos.

This is terribly thought out. Just dump millions of people at the border? That's bound to result in monstrous human's right violations. The Mexican border just have a massive ghost town that can hold several million people who are just dumped there. Sure, some would be able to head back to their old homes or families, but many may not have a place to return to. The issue would still stand of elderly, disabled, pregnant women, etc. This would also not address the breaking up of families. It's not plausible unless you just simply don't care about the health or safety of these people at all.

You have a real problem with consequences/repercussions, and agency in non-whites don't you?

So you're OK with revoking the citizenship of Americans who have grown up as citizens of the USA because of the immigration status of their parents?

You mean "why shouldn't I be OK with revoking the citizenship of people who committed a criminal act to get them 'citizenship"? Why shouldn't I be?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...icans-in-terms-of-undocumented-growth/432603/

"Now outpace".....and Mexicans have been leaving more than showing up due to the economy and less so the atmosphere. No wonder. And I wonder through what border the Asians are coming in?

And my statement about trying to whitewash the political power in this nation should be obvious to anyone who isn't biased.

1. Deport undocumented immigrants, thus decreasing Latino and Asian populations
2. Revoke the citizenship of children of undocumented immigrants
3. Ban Muslims
4. Systematically target Black and Brown people with the police force/ criminal "justice" system, thus increasing the felon population, and in most states, causing them to lose their voting rights.
5. Create voting requirements that systematically target the voting strategies used by minority groups (c.f. the slew of explicitly racist "voting protection laws" that popped up the second the Voting Rights Act was knocked down).
6. Redistrict so that minority voters have less of an impact

The writing is on the wall (no pun intended) for anyone with an unbiased eye.

"Unbiased." I guess it's goddamn self-evident ammirite? The only legitimate point to be found in your Huffpo Hitlist is the War on Drugs.

Or you can just listen to the words of Supreme Leader Trump.

Which are so numerous you simply couldn't find any right?

This is probably true for the for the uneducated and those with limited opportunities; this group will have more motive to take what they can get. On the other hand, those with more education/opportunities are more likely to be able to hold out (live on savings or credit), settle for a more meager lifestyle while being underemployed, or go into early retirement.

Or live on the gimmedats. I specifically said "prior to a change in the economy". Using the examples of the "major demand/decent paying" careers in the last 20 years, I would love to know how many people were/would have been otherwise interested in IT/lawyering/nursing before the economy changed to create a well-paying demand.[/QUOTE]

 

[Einherjar86]

You have a real problem with consequences/repercussions, and agency in non-whites don't you?

Agency is not some profound wellspring of rational action that comes solely from within; it is part of a social arrangement that permits an acceptable range of action.

There is a qualitative difference between suggesting that a subject qua subject is incapable of exercising agency and arguing that social conditions deprive a subject of agency. You really need to stop making this equivocation because you do it all the time.

 

[Dak]

Agency is not some profound wellspring of rational action that comes solely from within; it is part of a social arrangement that permits an acceptable range of action.

There is a qualitative difference between suggesting that a subject qua subject is incapable of exercising agency and arguing that social conditions deprive a subject of agency. You really need to stop making this equivocation because you do it all the time.

Given the difference when comparing the populations of Mexico et al and illegal immigrants, a massive amount of people do not feel so deprived, you're making a pretty weak argument in this case. I would counter argue that illegal immigrants display significantly more agency than those who stay.

 

[Einherjar86]

Given the difference when comparing the populations of Mexico et al and illegal immigrants, a massive amount of people do not feel so deprived, you're making a pretty weak argument in this case. I would counter argue that illegal immigrants display significantly more agency than those who stay.

I would like to respond, but I can't parse the grammar of this first sentence.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you can claim to know whether or not people feel deprived. Socioeconomic conditions can speak volumes, but I doubt that you're personally connected with all these haplessly deprived people.

 

[Dak]

I would like to respond, but I can't parse the grammar of this first sentence.

Furthermore, I have no idea how you can claim to know whether or not people feel deprived. Socioeconomic conditions can speak volumes, but I doubt that you're personally connected with all these haplessly deprived people.

Re:the parsing: Yeah that was a little fucked but I wasn't sure how to better punctuate it. There are millions in Mexico, as well as the rest of Central and South America. I can't find "annual flow" numbers for illegals (makes sense), but let's assume thousands if not tens of thousands. Quite a huge discrepancy.

Obviously I am not personally connected to these deprived people who can't immigrate, and why would that matter? My inlaws are mostly either legal or illegal immigrant descendants. As I've mentioned before, they are all Cruz and/or Trump supporters. I'm personally connected to many people who are too deprived to emigrate away from the US (like myself!). Of course there is a mirror to this, that those that are super wealthy often have no reason to emigrate.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, you're saying that there are far more people who choose to stay in Mexico, suggesting that arguments of deprivation are flawed since obviously those who choose to stay don't feel deprived (if that's not what you're saying I apologize, but that's what it seems like you're saying).

First, that's not necessarily the case; they may still feel deprived and choose to stay. Hell, maybe they choose to respect policies of legal immigration. Their choice to stay in Mexico doesn't translate into content or comfort. Every single one of them (obviously I'm being hyperbolic) might decide that their living conditions are tolerable, and that risks to their livelihood are acceptable, and still think to themselves that they would prefer to live in a more hospitable or comfortable environment.

Second, even if that is the case, it really doesn't pertain to the comment that I made, which you called weak. I'm saying that agency is always dictated by social arrangements; and while certain individuals and/or groups may experience good fortune against all odds, this doesn't change the fact that agency is not reducible to the individual's actions or choices.

When you accuse me, or Crimson in this case, of denying agency in other subjects, you distract from the argument at hand by drawing attention to a misperceived quasi-racism: that is, you accuse us of saying that certain subjects are incapable of exercising agency. This is not at all what we're saying though, and you make a mockery of the entire conversation when you suggest it.

Anyway, you've made the comment to me before, and now I see you making it here again. I'm telling you that it has no effect on our positions (and I'm making an assumption on the part of Crimson here, so I apologize if he feels differently).

 

[Dak]

So, you're saying that there are far more people who choose to stay in Mexico, suggesting that arguments of deprivation are flawed since obviously those who choose to stay don't feel deprived (if that's not what you're saying I apologize, but that's what it seems like you're saying).

First, that's not necessarily the case; they may still feel deprived and choose to stay. Hell, maybe they choose to respect policies of legal immigration. Their choice to stay in Mexico doesn't translate into content or comfort. Every single one of them (obviously I'm being hyperbolic) might decide that their living conditions are tolerable, and that risks to their livelihood are acceptable, and still think to themselves that they would prefer to live in a more hospitable or comfortable environment.

Second, even if that is the case, it really doesn't pertain to the comment that I made, which you called weak. I'm saying that agency is always dictated by social arrangements; and while certain individuals and/or groups may experience good fortune against all odds, this doesn't change the fact that agency is not reducible to the individual's actions or choices.

When you accuse me, or Crimson in this case, of denying agency in other subjects, you distract from the argument at hand by drawing attention to a misperceived quasi-racism: that is, you accuse us of saying that certain subjects are incapable of exercising agency. This is not at all what we're saying though, and you make a mockery of the entire conversation when you suggest it.

Anyway, you've made the comment to me before, and now I see you making it here again. I'm telling you that it has no effect on our positions (and I'm making an assumption on the part of Crimson here, so I apologize if he feels differently).

I'm not distracting from the argument at all, I'm challenging the key assertion. It does apply, or "have an effect". When one insinuates or outright claims that someone(s) should bear no consequences or face no repercussions for their actions, they are denying them agency. Now it is possible for someone to entirely lack agency. But one cannot simply blanket this on those from Mexico. I mean, this is a semi-developed country "stealing jobs from the US". The drug war has of course created some violence (mostly on the border, and mostly between cartels) but this isn't some inescapable reason to hop to the other side of the border - one could flee inward instead.

Just because someone prefers to live in a more hospitable environment (and I assume the US is generally more hospitable in theory), doesn't grant them the right to flaunt the law. Being able to murder people you hate is something some prefer, and we don't generally suffer that either.

 

[rms]

When you accuse me, or Crimson in this case, of denying agency in other subjects, you distract from the argument at hand by drawing attention to a misperceived quasi-racism: that is, you accuse us of saying that certain subjects are incapable of exercising agency. This is not at all what we're saying though, and you make a mockery of the entire conversation when you suggest it.

I haven't seen you post an opinion in awhile so I may be misrepresenting you, but CF's opinion seems to be "It's really unfair or shitty to do X to illegals, so let's not do it."

It's kinda shit that this is the governing ideology of the 'left,' that inconvenience for any % of the population should be 'corrected.'


But we're wasting a lot of time since deporting illegals will never happen

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not distracting from the argument at all, I'm challenging the key assertion. It does apply, or "have an effect". When one insinuates or outright claims that someone(s) should bear no consequences or face no repercussions for their actions, they are denying them agency.

Entire specifics of the argument aside, this is a fallacious statement. It does not follow from the suggestion that a subject should face no repercussions that said subject is being denied agency.

 

[Dak]

Entire specifics of the argument aside, this is a fallacious statement. It does not follow from the suggestion that a subject should face no repercussions that said subject is being denied agency.

The only other option is that they didn't break any law, or at least any legitimate law. They obviously broke the law, so please explain either an option I hadn't considered, or explain how there should be no citizenship laws.

 

[Einherjar86]

The only other option is that they didn't break any law, or at least any legitimate law. They obviously broke the law, so please explain either an option I hadn't considered, or explain how there should be no citizenship laws.

I'm so confused as to how you arrived at these options. Here's my response:

People may commit crimes and go their entire lives without suffering any repercussions, but this doesn't mean they haven't exercised any agency. Additionally, a legal system may adapt to treat a specific action differently over the course of decades or centuries. Homosexuality was a crime for years, and punishable by imprisonment; but if homosexuals weren't caught and punished this doesn't mean they weren't exercising agency. And if they had been caught and somehow not punished, they still would have been exercising agency. And they're still exercising their agency now, even though it's no longer illegal to be gay.

Imprisoning subjects because of homosexuality and prohibiting them from practicing it is a denial of agency, however; but you can't blame gay rights advocates from the 1930s of denying gays agency because they argued that gays should be able to practice homosexuality without being punished for it.

I haven't seen you post an opinion in awhile so I may be misrepresenting you, but CF's opinion seems to be "It's really unfair or shitty to do X to illegals, so let's not do it."

It's kinda shit that this is the governing ideology of the 'left,' that inconvenience for any % of the population should be 'corrected.'

I don't know what Crimson's opinion on the specific topic of immigration is. I'm simply saying that Dak's characterization of Crimson's approach to agency (which mirrors his criticism of my own approach to agency) is a red herring in the entire argument and a misguided tactic.

 

[Dak]

I'm so confused as to how you arrived at these options. Here's my response:

People may commit crimes and go their entire lives without suffering any repercussions, but this doesn't mean they haven't exercised any agency. Additionally, a legal system may adapt to treat a specific action differently over the course of decades or centuries. Homosexuality was a crime for years, and punishable by imprisonment; but if homosexuals weren't caught and punished this doesn't mean they weren't exercising agency. And if they had been caught and somehow not punished, they still would have been exercising agency. And they're still exercising their agency now, even though it's no longer illegal to be gay.

I didn't argue against/for any of this. I specifically said that arguing that people shouldn't be punished for breaking the law is denying agency. The only outs for this are challenging the law or explaining how persons were practically forced into their decision.

Imprisoning subjects because of homosexuality and prohibiting them from practicing it is a denial of agency, however; but you can't blame gay rights advocates from the 1930s of denying gays agency because they argued that gays should be able to practice homosexuality without being punished for it.

Dude. I totally ripped the logic on this and I erased it because I want you to think about it. Unlike some I argue with on the interwebs I know you're better than this. This is a terrible argument.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then enlighten me wizard.

 

[Internally Deformed]

If I can jump in here... Dak, are you arguing that choosing not to punish someone for a crime implies that the cause of a given criminal action is societal rather than self motivated? That's my interpretation, anyway.

 

[Dak]

Then enlighten me wizard.

You didn't even try.

If I can jump in here... Dak, are you arguing that choosing not to punish someone for a crime implies that the cause of a given criminal action is societal rather than self motivated? That's my interpretation, anyway.

In a way or potentially anyway; choosing not to punish or arguing one should not be punished.

Imprisoning subjects because they broke the law is a denial of agency

Trace out the logic on that one.

but you can't blame gay rights advocates from the 1930s of denying gays agency because they argued that gays should be able to break the law.

"No homosexuality" is a law you can't argue socioeconomics against.