posted
If you put it to a vote here, people would absolutely prefer the 'redundant' process of using a new quote tag, not just because it does not put text a person did not say into a text region understood to be 'the text that this person posted'
Go ahead!
Get people to weigh in about what they think!
Hey guys what do y'all think about capaxinfiniti's quote response style.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... I honestly don't know the answer to the following question, if anyone else does, enlighten me. What other nations grant citizenship to people just for being born there?
quote:States that observe jus soli include:
* Antigua and Barbuda[3] * Argentina[3] * Barbados[3] * Belize[3] * Bolivia[3] * Brazil[3] * Canada[3] * Chile[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) * Colombia[3] * Dominica[3] * Dominican Republic[3] * Ecuador[3] * El Salvador[3] * Fiji[5] * Grenada[3] * Guatemala[3] * Guyana[3] * Honduras[3] * Jamaica[3] * Lesotho[6] * Malaysia[3] * Mexico[3] * Nicaragua[3] * Pakistan[3] * Panama[3] * Paraguay[3] * Peru[3] * Saint Christopher and Nevis[3] * Saint Lucia[3] * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3] * Trinidad and Tobago[3] * United States[3] * Uruguay[3] * Venezuela[3]
posted
Canada, Chile, United States are all advanced nations. Brazil is no slouch either. Funny how you preach about the Constitution not being a "living" document but you want to change it. Ironic too since Hispanic immigrants tend to be socially conservative.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal: I'll let George Washington answer your last,
"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." (emphasis mine)
So those who wish to come and avail themselves of the security of citizenship in this great country, let them come, Washington seems more than willing to stamp their papers.
quote:Thanks. How many first world nations are on that list?
Hey, Mal...how many 'first world' nations are on a list of nations that permit capital punishment, at-will private gun ownership, abortion, tax rates on the wealthy, etc. etc...
Yeah, that's about what I thought. This is another transparent BS statement of yours. You don't really care what other 'first world' nations are doing, because if you did, your politics would be a helluva lot different. Just to be clear, though, I'm not saying you should, I'm saying that your argument on this point as in many others is totally, fundamentally flawed.
Can we skip ahead now to the part where you behave as though this part of the discussion never happened, please?
quote:So those who wish to come and avail themselves of the security of citizenship in this great country, let them come, Washington seems more than willing to stamp their papers.
Don't be silly, BlackBlade. What the Founding Fathers would have wanted doesn't matter in cases like this! It only matters when it leans towards a conservative agenda. I mean, duh!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Generally speaking when people quote the founding fathers I often have a reaction of, "OK so?" I care far more for the salience of their ideas rather than accepting their will as something akin to what God wants.
In this case, I think Washington is expressing a sentiment I couldn't agree with more. But if he'd said something like, "I think it best that this country be comprised of as homogeneous a populace as we can possibly employ efforts to accomplish." I'd respond with something like, "I admire the guy, but he's wrong."
Mal on the other hand I imagine has more respect for Washington's words than for most posters here.
edit: I think it completely sucks that none of our current politicians are worthy to shine many of our founding father's shoes. There's absolutely no good reason for our leaders today to not be as talented, hard working, and responsible as that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Thanks. How many first world nations are on that list?
Canada, Chile, and the US are OECD.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... This is another transparent BS statement of yours. You don't really care what other 'first world' nations are doing, because if you did, your politics would be a helluva lot different.
posted
Heh, thanks Mucus. Though with malanthrop, the net is at about waist level, so swishes are much easier.
quote:Rakeesh: Generally speaking when people quote the founding fathers I often have a reaction of, "OK so?" I care far more for the salience of their ideas rather than accepting their will as something akin to what God wants.
Likewise. If the Founding Fathers could make such gigantic mistakes as permitting slavery and not permitting women to vote - just to name two big ones - that throws them right out the window as an infallible resource in my opinion. We have to pick and choose. That's what they wanted. They gave us a mutable Constitution.
Plus, y'know, they're human beings.
That doesn't mean I don't respect them. Their vices were the vices of their time, after all, as they were men of their time. Ahead of their time in many respects.
quote: edit: I think it completely sucks that none of our current politicians are worthy to shine many of our founding father's shoes. There's absolutely no good reason for our leaders today to not be as talented, hard working, and responsible as that.
I do too, but personally I believe many of the politicians back then were pretty venal and sleazy and self-serving too. The Founding Fathers were a pretty extraordinary bunch among their contemporaries, after all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Or for sure, which is why I said "many of." Were we to talk about politicians from the last 50 years, I struggle to think of one who holds a candle to some of the greats. But maybe I'm just thinking of big name politicians when there may be quite a few who worked very hard, but did not feel the need to toot their own horn.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The title of this thread was the original title of the article she linked. While it was definitely an example of bombastic and ill-thought lack of consideration, it wasn't a lie. She just copy/pasted a headline from a blog post and assumed it was true because it confirmed her biases.
This begs the question if a lie can exist on its own, or does it require the malicious intent of the one purveying it?
Yes, the traditional quote tag system is better.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The title of this thread was the original title of the article she linked. While it was definitely an example of bombastic and ill-thought lack of consideration, it wasn't a lie. She just copy/pasted a headline from a blog post and assumed it was true because it confirmed her biases.
This begs the question if a lie can exist on its own, or does it require the malicious intent of the one purveying it?
I do believe that a lie does have to have malicious intent, or at least must be deliberately trying to mislead someone. In Lisa's case what she said was simply not true. She even had something that she considered "evidence" to go along with it. So i wouldn't think that the title falls under the lie category as much as being false.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's an important distinction between personal and intellectual integrity.
Someone telling a lie is saying something they know isn't true with the intent to deceive. This is usually a case of a problem with personal integrity.
Some saying something that is not true, but they don't know is not true often has not put in a reasonable effort to determine if something is true or not or is using unreliable sources. This is usually a case of a problem with intellectual integrity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
or, more to the point, a commitment in whole or in part to address things one has said that are false after they are shown to be false, rather than just letting them stand without comment.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sort of thing straddles the line between personal and intellectual integrity, I think, with the more strident and certain the initial statement was, the more certain it turns out not to have been true, and how important it was to the speaker pushing it further and further into a personal integrity issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
