My involvement in this part of the discussion revolves around this idea. I'm really not firmly on one side or other about the wall, but I do think illegal immigration is a big problem that needs solved. Is the wall a solution? I tend to be on the side of not, or at least not a complete solution, or a cost effective solution. The kind of wall Trump described sounds to me like it's really more of a monument to the failure of the US dyslexic immigration policy. But anyway, regardless of our opinions about solutions, we could have that discussion in a way that is more reasoned, less ideologically derived, than the argument that seems to have taken place.
So, context...
To which I replied:
One thing I want to make clear, the subject of "there was a solution offered" is not just JK offering one, but Kut has in the past said he supports holding employers accountable for hiring illegals. That's a solution offered. You may not agree with it, but that's just your opinion. Other people get to have their opinions too. We haven't seriously put any solutions in place in a serious way, to have enough facts to supersede opinions yet, because we have two factions in government that really don't want to solve the problem, for different reasons. So we have a really crappy immigration non-policy. But back to the main point...
It was argued that JK's post about strawman was "posturing" as well as (I think Kut's) criticism against the wall, with no better solutions offered. Well, "better" is in the eye of the beholder. You guys can argue about which solutions might be more effective/efficient at solving the problem. But when you get into the realm of "if you don't like my solution, you must not really be against the problem", it is plainly, factually, literally illogical. That was the only reason I posted. Please argue about the solutions. Give your honest pros and cons. Because there are many pros and cons in all the solutions. But, argue well. Just because someone disagrees with your favorite solution isn't cause to make judgements about their motives. What you said above doesn't address any of that. The post you replied to made no reference to which solutions are actually better. If you want to make a counterpoint to my complaints about the logic of the judgement of motives based on disliking a solution, fine. But this isn't that.
First a little rant about paragraph #1 & 2. it's not Ockham's Razor. Which is most likely to be successful? That's opinion. You can give rationale for yours. Others can give their rationale for theirs. From my perspective there isn't an uncomplicated solution. It isn't an uncomplicated problem. The wall isn't uncomplicated. People crossing the border illegally is just one of many issues that contribute to the overall problem, and a wall would mostly address just that sub-issue. The wall isn't trivial to build. It will take years and billions of dollars to finish. There are plenty of ways to get around a physical barrier, probably some you haven't thought about, and these all need to be mitigated. That's complicated. Another complicated solution is is punishing employers who hire illegal aliens. That's not a simple solution either. There are plenty of ways to get around that too, which also have to be mitigated. This is just one of those areas where Ockham's Razor does not apply. Both are complicated solutions, and I think people are making assumptions about both solutions so that their favorite solution sounds like it's THE solution.
The numbered paragraphs in your reply don't have to be competing solutions. Maybe walling off strategic parts of the southern border in conjunction with other programs to discourage illegal entry, like e-verify and mandatory penalties against companies who hire illegals, would be more effective than any single solution implemented fully. It is a multi-facited problem, for which there is no single solution. Arguing about which single solution is the silver bullet doesn't seem productive to me. It sounds like you're arguing competing ideologies rather than arguing to synthesize a solution. Take the weak parts of someone's argument, and make it better. Allow the competing participants to argue the weak points of your argument to make it better. The synthasis of which could be really great, but it seems we're more interested in our side's solution being the winner.
But opinions about all that aside, down to the point which was more about the unnumbered paragraph, but even more about the "strawman" JK was talking about. My issue was that he presented a sound argument which you ignored. Don't take that personally that I'm pointing that out. I'm not doing it to be an *******, or to win a side. As you know, I think sides are stupid.
You're essentially implying that because Kut doesn't agree with YOUR solution, regardless that he continually says that he does not want illegal immigration, he must not really be against it, otherwise he would see the error of his judgment and want a big magnificent, beautiful wall, a big wall, with a big magnificent gate, which the Mexicans will pay for.
JK was absolutely correct about the faulty logic of judging motives. It's attributing a position to a person that doesn't actually hold that position, then attacking that position. And that was all my post was about. Make your argument stronger by saying what are the actual weaknesses with Kut's position, and not making up things that are wrong with a position he doesn't hold. I mean, if we were all not on sides (and I mean "we" as in all humanity) we could crowd-source some really good solutions. But we let ideology and identity get in the way. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of us vs them if "us" were the set of people who just want the most workable solutions that solves problems to the extent that we agree they are problems. The "them" is everyone else who doesn't want that.
Last edited:
