Mexicans provide humanitarian aid to migrant caravan

[Yukaphile]

I still think "complexity" is sometimes a coward's word. The world is grey, can't deny that. But there's always some situations that ARE very clearly black and white, and people try to make them seem grey, or reverse the roles of those involved. I've seen it. Is this situation grey and complicated? Probably, given the feelings of people here who want to uphold the law, that aren't really racist against Latinos like the most hard right fringe. But... I still feel sorry for them, that they got so desperate to escape their war-torn countries, which the US is arguably responsible for, that they want to head here to this land that was guilty of those crimes, just so they could improve their standard of living. I mean, as I've said, I feel these people would appreciate the US more than we do.

[LittleRaven]

But there's always some situations that ARE very clearly black and white, and people try to make them seem grey, or reverse the roles of those involved.

There are issues that are black and white to you, or to me...but 99% of the time, there are people to whom those very same issues are complicated. Because we're all very limited creatures with very limited perspectives.

All you can do is the best you can.

Is this situation grey and complicated?

Depends on what you call 'this situation.' The global issue of mass migration? Oh, hells yes that's complicated. Humanity has been dealing with this for a very long time, and it generally ends with lots and LOTS of people dead. We've managed to avoid the kind of scale of death that usually accompanies these movements with this particular wave...so far...but the situation is young.

A few hundred people storming a border fence? That's not a particularly complex situation.

But... I still feel sorry for them, that they got so desperate to escape their war-torn countries, which the US is arguably responsible for, that they want to head here to this land that was guilty of those crimes, just so they could improve their standard of living.

Wait...which group of refugees are you talking about?

Syria is a war-torn country. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are not. Those countries have many problems, but war is not one of them.

[Yukaphile]

More like there are people willing to defend anything, no matter how awful it is, or spin the victims and the attackers into their own personal views of the world. I think there's 80% grey in the world, 20% black and white. Just how I see it.

I meant their reasons. Their reasons make it more complicated. Then again, when someone chooses a clearly evil action against another (like sexual assault or the murder of an unarmed innocent), their reasons always muddy it up. Is it genetics, or just sadism? Did they think it was fun, or were they slaves to their impulses like some people and even scientists suggest? We still don't know yet.

Just wait, give it time now Bolsonaro has won. Though yeah, I actually got it confused with Syria. Sorry.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

So you haven't answered my question.

I did. You just didn't like the answer. Like most things in life, it's complicated and conditional.

Tear gas was justified on Saturday. It would not have been justified today. Does that mean I draw my line at tear gas, or not?

Okay then. You wanna engage moral particularism?

Tear gassing them was wrong. I think there's something they could have done that would be less harmful, but even if there wasn't, just letting a few hundred asylum-seekers bum-rush them and get into this country wouldn't have done any harm.

Let's go further and set aside Legality. What is your moral argument for doing this? What is your moral defense for macing children so they can't cross this line? Let's ignore the lines in the sands and laws on books and tell me what's so bad about letting these people into the country.

[Yukaphile]

Gotta agree with Fuzzy here. Let them come in, under heavy guard, apply, get rejected or approved, and then that's it. It hurts no one.

Then again, there can be an argument made for... what is your moral reason for killing here? And that's a wide and complex topic that... it really depends on the situation. In a perfect world, there'd be no need to kill, but that's not the world we live in. And sometimes you gotta kill. Like... imagine this. What if someone is threatening your loved ones, or a whole building of people? Hundreds? Thousands? And to save them, you must kill someone. Perhaps even someone who is not entirely culpable, there are extenuating circumstances. Do you do it? Pure, cold logic says yes, but some people, like me, might hesitate, because I don't want to kill, and I'm afraid it could become too easy once you start, like it does for some soldiers who can't stop, whether out of guilt or sadism.

[LittleRaven]

Okay then. You wanna engage moral particularism?

Vis-a-vie tear gas? Sure.

Tear gassing them was wrong.

Now, to be clear, are you saying that tear gassing this particular crowd was wrong or tear gassing anyone ever is wrong? I mean, police used tear gas to protect gay marchers in Zuk just a couple of months ago. Was that wrong? I would say no, but then, I am the moral particularist.

I think there's something they could have done that would be less harmful, but even if there wasn't, just letting a few hundred asylum-seekers bum-rush them and get into this country wouldn't have done any harm.

I notice you say 'something.' You're a smart guy, with the power of the internet at your fingertips. A few minutes of google will familiarize you with every form of crowd control we have at our disposal. What kind of 'something' did you have in mind?

Let's go further and set aside Legality.

Oh, we went past legality a LONG time ago. Tear gas in this situation is recognized as legal by virtually everyone everywhere. The most libby-lib government on the face of the planet has zero compunction about deploying tear gas to control mobs.

But legal is one thing, right is another. I'm still pretty comfortable in calling this particular action right as well as legal, so let's continue.

What is your moral argument for doing this?

You probably recognize this bad boy. He's over 700 feet tall, 1200 feet long, and boasts a jaw dropping volume of over 3 million cubic yards of concrete. He generally holds back something in the neighborhood of 15 million acre/feet of water. He is, by any reckoning, massive.

And yet if an engineer were to spot a tiny trickle of water flowing down the spillface, they would panic. Why? It's a tiny trickle of water! They'll never even notice it's missing from the reservoir! It'll probably evaporate before it even gets all the way down the spillway? What's the fuss?

But you know exactly why they would panic. A tiny trickle of water is not, in and of itself, anything to fret about, but in this particular context, it indicates a potential failure of the system, and THAT could be catastrophic...and could develop VERY quickly.

Letting a few hundred people storm the border and get through is of course negligible when it comes to the number of illegal immigrants in our country, but that's not the real danger. The real danger is the message it sends, on both sides of the border. There are thousands of people patiently waiting in sub-optimal conditions for their turn, because they believe in following the rules. You would have us make those people into chumps and fools. And even more dangerously, it would tell people on THIS side of the border that the government is either unwilling or unable to enforce the law. That's REALLY dangerous, because when people lose faith in the system, they start taking things into their own hands. Remember what I said about migrations being excellent ways to get a LOT of people killed? That's a fantastic way to start down that road.

I realize that order is frustrating sometimes, particularly when it seems to conflict with justice. But you sacrifice order at your EXTREME peril. People are not nice when systems collapse.

[Yukaphile]

The bureaucratic process shouldn't take decades. And these people do fit the legal definition of "refugees." It should be illegal to gas refugees, or we should just close down our borders to EVERYONE. When a friend of mine has been trying to get here since 1996, you know your system's fucked up. In this sense, is maintaining what's legal more important than doing the right thing, and the right thing is not to hurt desperate people? Can't just say "the world's unfair" and leave it at that because we all know that. But upholding the law here makes no difference. Why? There's numerous people worldwide who got away with some of the worst crimes of humanity EVER. Never faced international justice for their sins, and never will. They died never facing their karma. About sending a message that people should try to jump the border more... you think it will embolden criminals to try or something? Because these people aren't criminals, though many people are acting as if they are. We should take them into custody, calmly march them to the offices to apply, let it take its course, and if it's rejected, deport them. That's what would happen in a nicer world, even an "unfair" one. And then once that's processed, make getting here easier. Again, my friend from the Philippines. She's been trying TWENTY GODDAMNED YEARS to get here. Hell, 22 years. How is that justice? She'd appreciate this country way more than any natural-born citizen who never travels abroad and takes our First World privileges for granted. Just... ugh.

[Darth Wedgius]

Let's go further and set aside Legality. What is your moral argument for doing this? What is your moral defense for macing children so they can't cross this line? Let's ignore the lines in the sands and laws on books and tell me what's so bad about letting these people into the country.

Fuzzy, why does the caravan want in? Seriously. What makes the U.S. better than where they left? Not "in what ways is it better," but why do those changes exist? Is there something in the water? Something in the soil? Is it at just the right latitudes when the earth is just the right distance from the sun for those yellow sun rays?

Maybe it's the same reason Europe is where a lot of people from the middle east try to get into?

I know you didn't want to answer my last question, but maybe this will appeal to you better. There's certainly an assumption you could make about my motives that might thrill you a little.

[Yukaphile]

Well, not to make this sound cruel, but some of it is probably entitlement. They know the US fucked with their countries a couple decades ago that led to the current problems they have now, know we have a greater standard of living, and just want a slice of the pie from the place that screwed them over. It's their version of the American Dream.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Let's go further and set aside Legality. What is your moral argument for doing this? What is your moral defense for macing children so they can't cross this line? Let's ignore the lines in the sands and laws on books and tell me what's so bad about letting these people into the country.

Fuzzy, why does the caravan want in? Seriously. What makes the U.S. better than where they left? Not "in what ways is it better," but why do those changes exist? Is there something in the water? Something in the soil? Is it at just the right latitudes when the earth is just the right distance from the sun for those yellow sun rays?

Maybe it's the same reason Europe is where a lot of people from the middle east try to get into?

I know you didn't want to answer my last question, but maybe this will appeal to you better. There's certainly an assumption you could make about my motives that might thrill you a little.

So is the idea I say "to get away from the gangs menacing them and people persecuting them", and you go "Aha! You see, if we let EVERYONE in, the gangs will follow!"?