Did you just...excuse the human right's violation of separating kids a the border from their families?
Which right is being violated here? I'm curious.
Also, is the potential harm from violating that right better or worse than NOT separating kids in order to process any adults they are being accompanied with in order to verify that they are actually who they claim they are? What if they're grooming or trafficking the kid in question? Should we just let groomers go unquestioned without ensuring the safety of the kid?
Also, they have broken the law, which is normally enough to separate a child from their family in question for citizens. The fact the length of time is so short before the kid is returned if the adult is fully processed also needs to be considered. If it were months long, that would be one issue, but it's less than a week, which is incredibly short all things considered.
Yeah, I think I'm done with you. It's very clear to me that we are not on the same page morally, ethically, or logically.
So, does that not mean we can't have a discussion to hammer out those moral, ethical, or logical disagreements?
It's not like I justified the Holocaust, but instead I laid out a series of contentions I had with your framing of the border situation which seems to undermine the issue of human trafficking, which seems to me to be a much bigger human rights violation than temporarily denying people who illegally crossed the border from seeing their kids until we are certain they do not pose a danger to said child.
Also, it's interesting that you threw in the towel on my first argument of that post and did not address the others because I feel those are much more solid than the first one. I wish you would engage with those arguments and tried to discuss the point in good faith instead of brow beating me over this relatively insignificant contention.
@kaldrak
Basically I’m speaking as a complete utilitarian molarity[sic] wise.
I have a lot of issues with utilitarianism because it can be used to justify a lot of atrocious shit. (The go-to example is that if five people need organs to live, and one person has all those organs and is compatible, the utilitarian justification would be that he should die in order for all of his organs to go to those people. This hypothetical highlights the biggest problem with utilitarianism in that it not only negates the idea that you can't violate a person's rights, but that all humans are able to do a cost/benefit analysis through consequentialism by knowing the outcomes and picking the best ones before they occur, which is impossible) But that's not really important to this conversation, because I want to reiterate a point:
As a utilitarian, which is more unethical: passively facilitating human trafficking or temporarily removing kids from their families before returning them a short time later in order to vet them?
The answer is simple if you know anything about utilitarianism.
Also illegally immigrating shouldn’t even need to be a thing.
You need to be able to control who goes into your country and who is allowed to vote and receive government benefits. If they respect the laws and customs of your nation, they can do it the legal way, rather than simply violating the law and inserting themselves into the country, which is unfair to the legal immigrants and means that you don't know who is entering your country for what business and for what reasons.
To use your philosophy against you again:
Would you rather deny some people access to your country because they came in without permission OR allow a potentially unlimited amount of people to come in, drive down wages for poor, unskilled workers, put a burden on the social programs and tax systems, and potentially risk them not integrating into the culture, which could cause social unrest and conflict?
Utilitarianism is definitely not on your side, my dude.
@immortalartisan
