"You set up a rhetorical siutation where you presented a lady that would die without treatment--treatment she could not get in her own village--thus making those that disagreed with your postion essentially responsible for her death. Good rhetoric--seriously--but it lacks logic."
Actually, CXT, I didn't set up the situation. The situation was created by a huge economic gap between the USA and central America, our relatively free society, the ability to work in the USA without citizenship (ie, get paid by people who don't know or care to check your citizenship), our western diet, the physiological susceptibility of this woman to diabetes, its consequences, and the nature of healthcare reimbursements in the USA. I set up nothing. I just reported what happened; it's a true story! I'm sorry you're bummed that my anecdote illustrates that imprisoning and deporting people for seeking medical care will injure or kill some of them, but those are the facts.
"The "simplfied" point was in the differences in how you treat someone that broke into your personal home in equally in dire need of longterm treatment..........and how you suggest we treat someone that breaks into our country and is in dire need of medical treatment."
Yes, I see your simple point, and it's invalid because of all the distinctions. She was working in the states, harder than most of the citizens, many of whom were supporting her, and following our other laws. That's hardly comparable to a home invasion who is an immediate and constant threat to life. The burdens of care are obviously far greater for a single homeowner than for a nation. Maybe you could have asked me to confront that dilemma if I'd suggested we each write a check for thousands of dollars to members of terror cells, but I didn't.
"Its just a question of scale not fundemental ethics ---if you are not ready and willing to take personal responsibity in terms of money and time and effort for the longterm healthcare of a person that breaks into your home------then casting people whom disagree with you as unfeelings monsters because we are also unwilling to shoulder the burden of long term medical care for those that break into our county........is....to say the least a pretty neat example of rhetorical gymnastics."
There are some commonalities. Of course, there are some commonalities in deciding not to feed a morbidly obese person an extra meal, deciding not to feed a person who refuses to work, deciding not to hand out food to a well appearing beggar, deciding not to feed a maimed beggar, and not stopping to aid someone who appears to be starving, helpless on the street. Just because there are some commonalities does not give you license to have thresholds for action. As you are perfectly well aware, some people eat everything, some eat only fish and poultry, some won't kill anything, some won't eat any animal products, and all have a reason. Some permit abortion under any circumstance, some allow it for rape, or early in pregnancy, some not at all, and other won't permit oral contraceptives or even condoms. If you, on the other hand, choose to say you either have to eat endangered species or become a vegan, and have to either perform abortions or side with the Pope on birth control, you make a fool of yourself. At least, visiting the forums you have acquainted you with the force continuum, right? Do you want to insist that if I say I wouldn't shoot a teen to stop a robbery, I might as well welcome a rapist-murderer with AIDS into my house by offering a significant other? One hopes not. The ability to appreciate distinctions and shades of gray without resorting to absurd hypotheticals is crucial to sound argument. Or, you can persist in your reductio.
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/ar ... urdum.html
"I personally don't find much logical reason to treat people that break into ones personal home much differently than someone breaking in ones nation.......I feel somewhat the same way about both places."
Really? Because I would whack anyone who broke into my house in the middle of the night with a bokken. You wanna drive down to my medical center and go door to door beating undocumented patients? Hmm? I'm having some fun with you here since I'm employing one of your extreme analogies. As we all know, you were KIDDING when you said you felt having an illegal within our borders and a criminal in your house were comparable.
"I don't have access to your personal charitable givings---I do have access to stats on charitable giving demographics especially those of the people in leadership postions in the Republican/Conservative and Democratic/Liberal parties---the differences are sometimes striking."
Nice. So you refuse to justify any of your statements just as a matter of principle? I looked into the issue myself when you raised it. But I'm not going to enable your practice by posting the results.
"For the record----we are not talking about "antismoking laws" were talking about illegal immigration---its a confllation of the issue to make such a comparision---outside the context of the discussion."
No, it's really not outside the context of the discussion to point out that there is more than one way to solve a problem. As a matter of fact, it's a fundamental tool of negotiation. Here's how you reference something: that's according to the strategy of expanding the pie in "Getting to Yes" by Fisher and Ury.
"Its a conflation---but again, you personally would have an unnivited person in your home escorted off by the cops----telling you personally something like "but I was not commiting a crime---I was just sleeping there---and besides I watered IJ's plants!" does not seem to me be an excuse you would "buy" and allow the squatter to stay.......again, one set of rules for you ....another expecation entirely for everyone elses behavior."
Did you, you know, read my post? It explains how my response depends on the threat and the need. You don't need to fake-expose how I would actually call the police because I've said until I was blue in the face (and I said that) (oh and I had to say THAT too) that I believe a nation can deport illegals and defend its borders and that I'd call the police on home invaders. So... Nice strawman!!! But no thanks.
Anyhoo, let's move on to your completely asinine statement that I would do one thing myself and expect something different from others. I have never said anything of the sort. I FIRST have very clearly explained that I would and DO shoulder burdens related to providing care of illegal immigrants, so I have not excused myself from anything. SECOND, I have pointed out ways the USA can better handle this ethical dilemma and I certainly have not asked anyone to let illegals squat in their house, which is how you allow your statement to read, and beyond that, I have never asked anyone to do anything I would not do myself here, and I challenge you to admit your claim was total BS, or tell me specifically what I told someone else to do and refused to do myself. Enuff with this total keerap about how I won't accept my own rhetorical stance personally; I've merely said we shouldn't turn people's doctors into agents of their patient's harm but may defend our homes and borders. There is nothing inconsisent there, and if you have a problem with my position, well, just about every healthcare provider in America besides special agent JR is insane along with me. What's more likely? Millions of people who actually deal with this problem in their lives or share those opinions and would like to be able to trust their doctor are insane, or you're having a blabber fit. Ball --> your court.
As for the rest of your hot air about how I've avoided the ethical issues (huh?) and I'm pretending to be so compassionate (huh?) and won't accept my own conclusions (huh?) and how focusing on the scope of the problem is a dodge (huh?)... well, it all just wafted out my window and into the stratosphere. But I'll always remember this post as a perfect example of how you can blabber on about nothing, champion ludicrous and strained rhetorical points about how the millions of illegals in the US are basically the same as home invaders, and basically argue about nothing for the sake of making noise.
