ADVERTISEMENT

Ponca Dan and other no wall liberals

So I'm going to conclude that you fully understand why we don't agree with your fantasy world.
Fully understand. My “fantasy world,” as you so indelicately put it, is exactly that: a notion of how the world should be, knowing fully well human nature will never allow it. But even knowing it one must argue on its behalf and try to persuade as many people as possible of its correctness. That’s pretty much all I’ve ever done on this board, try to persuade people of the correctness of individual liberty coupled with acceptance of personal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
The Nirvana fallacy is a logical fallacy in which one imagines a perfect solution exists, and rejects realistic answers in favour of it.
Interesting concept. Am I falling prey because Trump’s border wall is a “realistic answer” to the immigration debate? That is, after all, what started this whole thread, with Harry implying women are being enslaved and raped because there is no wall. That if only there could be a wall none of the harmful things happening today would ever happen again. Is that the realistic answer? If it is I admit to being a practitioner of the Nirvana Fallacy!
 
And now my wife is telling me to come to bed (ahem). I think I’ll take her advice. I enjoyed the discussion!
 
Interesting concept. Am I falling prey because Trump’s border wall is a “realistic answer” to the immigration debate? That is, after all, what started this whole thread, with Harry implying women are being enslaved and raped because there is no wall. That if only there could be a wall none of the harmful things happening today would ever happen again. Is that the realistic answer? If it is I admit to being a practitioner of the Nirvana Fallacy!

The realistic answer would’ve ideally been addressing border security many administrations ago. It’s bizarre that Trump had to be the one to say enough.

You are wrong that border security is what is causing these women to hire coyotes and endure rape and God knows what though. It is the lure of sparse security on our border.

The relatively good odds of making it past security and being home free are what draws them.

If it were significantly less likely to be successful fewer people would attempt it. Obviously.

The wall / fence is part of that solution - but it could’ve been avoided if previous admins had done something proactively to discourage illegal aliens from making the trip.

Your Nirvana fallacy is simply the idea that in the real world, a nation can survive without defined and enforced borders. It’s the similar to the well intentioned mistake socialists make about a lot of things.
 
To be clear it’s the half measures and token security that is the problem. Just enough of an obstacle to need the services of a coyote but not so much that a coyote couldn’t likely get them across - at a price.
 
The realistic answer would’ve ideally been addressing border security many administrations ago. It’s bizarre that Trump had to be the one to say enough.

You are wrong that border security is what is causing these women to hire coyotes and endure rape and God knows what though. It is the lure of sparse security on our border.

The relatively good odds of making it past security and being home free are what draws them.

If it were significantly less likely to be successful fewer people would attempt it. Obviously.

The wall / fence is part of that solution - but it could’ve been avoided if previous admins had done something proactively to discourage illegal aliens from making the trip.

Your Nirvana fallacy is simply the idea that in the real world, a nation can survive without defined and enforced borders. It’s the similar to the well intentioned mistake socialists make about a lot of things.
1) “The realistic answer would’ve ideally been ...”. It is unfair for you to condemn me for arguing on “Nirvanic” idealist grounds only to do so yourself.

2) I disagree. With open borders none of the horrific treatment of those women would take place. They fall prey to men claiming to know how to get them across the border without getting caught. Open the borders and the need for their services is eliminated.

3). While there is an element of truth in what you say the primary draw is not the perceived ease of getting across the border. The primary interest is the perceived life that awaits them once across. For one thing, if they thought it is so easy to get across they wouldn’t hire people to show them how.

4). Yes, that is obvious. Also obvious would be fewer coming when they understand there will be no “welcome package” of free goodies waiting for them when they get here.

5). Some people, myself included, do not regard a wall as a solution, but just another government-inspired “solution” to a crisis ginned up to make citizens feel vulnerable, in greater need of government protection, willing to sacrifice a portion of their liberty to achieve safety. Some people, myself included, smell a rat: a “crisis” made out of whole cloth by our President to make himself look like a savior.

6). Throughout a sizesble portion of our history we have not had the “enforceable borders” which you seek. That was an example of the real world. The notion that spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall is looked upon by people like me as the real Nirvana Fallacy.

I feel like I’m playing the role of Grumpy of the Seven Dwarfs, always cautioning that disaster is around the corner of every government-inspired adventure. But in the story even Grumpy had a role to play.
 
Last edited:
Is that from a dictionary? If so I believe the first definition is the one most people would think of when hearing the word “invasion.” That’s not to deny the other definitions apply, they certainly do. But I believe the man in the street would offer up the first definition if he were asked. That’s certainly what I think of, which is what I said earlier.
Yes, the Oxford Dictionary. The first, which you claim is the preferred one, is labeled as 1 in this dictionary. The next two are labeled 1.1 and 1.2 signifying Oxford believes they are equal. Home invasions aren't conducted by national armies yet they are considered "an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain".

Frankly, I think you're trying to convince yourself of your position more than anyone on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: okcpokefan12
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT