One problem with so many of you "progressives" is the tendency to assert that something is a "lie," (or calling someone a liar) simply because you chose not to believe them
It's a lie that "very few people hate immigrants". Clearly, a sufficient number of people hate them enough to see them starve or die from violence rather than allow them to cross the border to safety. What is it, if not hate, to stand by as others suffer? Since when do our actions not indicate our mental state and since when are they not worth considering? If your daughter is being raped and I stand there and watch, would you not assume that I had a strong dislike of her, easily called hate? If we don't act for their benefit, we have acted against them. Deal with it.
I don't know where you got this definition from, but Hate is not an "action," nor is Love, both of those are "
emotions." The definition of emotion is:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emotion
Well, so much of shameless conservative apathy is explained by your lazy way of defining love. Love, then, according to you, is an abstract concept with no real meaning or moral continuity. Therefore, when some conservative says "god is love", what they mean is that god is an abstract, indefinable emotional need. Yes, I can see now how they excuse so much suffering that way. There is no moral standard for their love.
I bet you are using SJW definitions that change the meanings of things, ex. words are violence, free association is racism, and emotion is action. But words have meanings and hate is a feeling that can lead to action...or not.
What good are meanings when they mean nothing, like your definitions of love and hate? Hate, by the way, is a feeling that can lead to IN-ACTION, too, which is a choice as well, like the apathy I just spoke of. Ignoring suffering is immoral, period. Watching children starve is not morally neutral and you know it.
Why do you think WE are responsible for what happens in any other part of the world?
The right claims we are a Christian nation, correct? What part of "love thy neighbor" is confusing? The right wingers are hypocrites to pretend to be Christians and ignore Jesus' most primary demand of them. The choice is even more clear for the atheists and humanists, as basic morality demands we not ignore this massive human need. We have to care about other people because we expect them to care about us. Their problems are OUR problems when injustice is done and we claim to be a country of the brave.
Yes, to make microphalic, ethnocentric elitists feel better.
Why do you have walls around your home? A truly dedicated criminal, given time and no fear of either police or your own actions, can break in eventually. Yet you still have walls to protect both you and your property from weather, bugs, snooping, criminals, and squatters to name a few of the threats to your safety and well-being. You also have doors to channelize visitors so you can control entry to those you WANT to enter. You can call the police for aid, and you have a right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself until the police arrive.
How ironic that you see your walls as the way to keep out the homeless, the police a force to punish them and our guns to murder them if all else fails. What a rich tapestry of paranoia and moral irony you weave. Do I assume that anyone who breaches our border you consider the equivalent of a home invader, subject to death?
If walls did not work, we simply would not use them at all.
They don't work. They're constantly finding tunnels beneath them. Like I said, they only work to placate the simple minded. No wall can resist human need. It's naïve to believe they can.
I did not say "these people are not hated," I said "very few people hate them." (Very few being a relative term when discussing over 300 million people).
I certainly don't hate them, an no one of my acquaintance hates them. We may be angered at their attempts to break our laws for their own gain, just like we would any criminal who tries to rob us, assault us, or otherwise violates our laws.
Are you OK with the law being used to justify our apathy to suffering? I think that's a pretty petty cop out.
That leads to the last point. If any of these alleged "refugees" are truly fleeing then Mexico is the first safe harbor and they should stay there. If any want to immigrate then like anyone else around the world they should follow the legal methods of immigration.
Refugees are people in need. Whether we accept them as citizens is irrelevant to whether we should give them aid and not just paperwork to fill out. Using the law to excuse your apathy cheapens the law.
