I wonder if there's a tarot card that's capable of reading people's minds if they were of a different ethnicity....

I wish there was a batsignal for punkdavid.

I think I agree with you more than I disagree within this thread, by the way. It just seems pointless to inject both race and sex into the debate when nationality is what's really in focus.

Yeah, but his point remains. It's really easy to take the moral high ground on something that will never affect you.

You could just as easily look at it as "Its really easy to say something is wrong and if you're not going to do anything to change it". It goes both ways.

You're right, it is easy to have opinions.

exactly.

Isn't using his pulpit as a journalist to bring more attention to the human aspect of the issue doing something to change it?

Having a debate on an issue on a message board is, generally speaking "taking the moral high ground on something that will never affect you"- no matter which side of a debate you're on.

Way to respond to what I actually said.

No it isn't.

Your implication is that me and mecca are taking a moral high ground position, which is easy because we'll never have to deal with it.

I was trying to be nice in not pointing out that the actual moral high ground viewpoint is you, mickey, beef, etc. Your side of the arguement is entirely to do with morality, where is my side has law backing it up (or the morally neutral side of the debate) . So it is real easy for you to come on a message board, and talk about how wrong something is when you don't ever have to do anything about it. So yeah, CHUD, you tell me how easy it is to take a moral high ground on something that doesnt affect you.

No, you're taking the moral high ground by ignoring the very real human elements of situations like this, washing your hands of the whole thing, and just saying "welp, the law is the law".

How can ignoring human elements be moral high ground, when morality is entirely an interpretation of human societal behaviors? If anything, my position is morally corrupt, as I am washing my hands of the morality of the situation and basing it entirely on law?

And At least im consistant, be it drunk driving, speeding, downloading music, or knowingly and continually breaking immigration laws.... Im not mad at you for doing it, but don't complain about the enforcement of the law you know you're breaking.

That's my exact problem with the whole issue. The laws are unjust. Beyond the DREAM Act, there is a very real immigration issue, and it's much easier to bury our heads in the sand about it. Let's face it, most people who are participating in this thread are never going to be challenged or burdened by these laws. So coming along and saying, "too bad, that's the law, they broke it, they now have to pay the consequences" is the easy way to handle it.

Laws don't change unless they are challenged. Illegal immigrants have no legal ground to challenge the law. Most American have no interest in challenging it, because it doesn't impact them. So what now?

now that is moral high ground.


Its just as easy to come along and say "That really sucks that the law is so crappy, too bad they had to break it, I hope they dont have to pay the consequences".

The fact that you don't understand how these are two completely different approaches to the debate speaks volumes. Moral? When did I ever say that my approach was moral? I used the phrase "unjust" and talked about justice, neither of which carries any implication of morality. Justice depends on government; morality is a metaphysical idea. I don't understand how I could possibly be taking the moral high road by arguing that a law is unjust and that the author is not wrong. I'm arguing, essentially, for moral equality.

On the other hand, we have you over here saying that his actions were wrong, which inherently implies that you would perform differently, that you are right, and that you are thus more moral than Vargas. That's the goddamned definition of moral high-road. That's the high-horsing. But okay, you're right. You're better because you didn't break the law. Pat yourself on the back, white store manager. You are right because you would hypothetically do the "right thing" in a situation you know goddamn well you'll never, ever be in.

As far as this being easy, sure, it's easy for me to have a point-of-view on this without doing anything about it. Except that having a forward-thinking, engaged point-of-view is precisely what you should be doing about an unjust law. The next step is voicing that point-of-view. Oh, look--did that too. What, you want me to march on goddamned Congress? I've emailed my senator before about immigration. I've emailed about gay rights. I'm not in public policy, I'm not in government, so voicing my opinion to the people who are is exactly the right thing to do, regardless of how easy it is. You know what's easy? Sitting around saying, "Man, it sucks that our laws unfairly punish people brought into this country of someone else's accord. Oh well, shouldn'ta broken the law, playa. Now I'll go order some more beer and browse the internet, just like God intended."

Mickey, I would raise a child with you.

You didn't. Chud did. I agree with your statement above 100%. Just like i cant understand that saying "following the law" is taking moral high ground like I was accused of.

I dont think I said "wrong," and if i did, i didn't mean it. The guy did what he had to do, and ive acknowledged that. I just said i dont feel sympathy for his whole "living my life in fear" tone. He was aware of what he was doing, and made the choices he made. I am sympathetic to the fact he had to make those tough decisions, but ultimately he made the choice he made.



Nope. Not at all. Just pointing out that taking the affirmative on an internet debate is no easier, no harder then taking the negative, in response to all the "It sure is easy for an employed 'has it made' white american to say that" responses. How is your opinion as a white, male american any more difficult to hold than my opinion? Having opinions, as you stated is easy... and all opinions are equally easy to have.

Yeah, I totally agreed with the point he was making, it just didn't need to be about white males, it should have just been about Americans. I have never been able to get myself worked up about illegal immigration. I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to have been born in Mexico.