VincentRJ

Crikey! This is a 19 year old girl who made a wrong decision when she was 15, and now regrets it. I suspect there are many youngsters who are foolishly inspired by ISIS, then realize within a few years or less, what a mess they've got themselves into, and what a bad mistake they made.

Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK if she is prepared to admit her mistake and advertise in the media what an awful organisation ISIS is, so that that might discourage other naive teenagers making similar mistakes to join ISIS.

5 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You have answered my point yourself.

'The purpose of the fence or wall is to make it more difficult for people to intrude, but we should all know that a burglar who is really intent on entering the house, because he thinks there might be a few diamonds lying around, inside the house, will devise strategies to climb over fences or walls, and pick locks to get into the house'.

Now imagine if that 'burglar' was a family fleeing persecution and destruction in their home country and getting into the US means literally life or death? How determined do you think they might be to get over a mere wall? If the wall is 50 foot, you only need a 50 foot ladder. If it's buried 20 foot into the ground you only need to build a tunnel that goes 21 foot underground. 

The vast amount of illegal immigrants get into the US with the help of 'coyotes'. These are people who do this for a living. Do you think they won't work out how to get over/under/around a wall? There's already 650 miles of fencing in place on the border and that doesn't stop illegal immigration so why would another 1,000 miles do it? And please don't say they are using the bit not protected by the wall as that is not true either. The vast majority come through areas already covered https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us.

Okay! You make some reasonable points, so let's examine them in more detail. I assume any substantial wall, especially one that costs $70 billion or more, as you suggest, will be continuously monitored. There would presumably be many stations along the wall, at regular intervals, video cameras, and monitoring devices that can penetrate the ground to detect any tunnels that are being excavated.

A wall by itself with no monitoring would definitely be less effective because, as you point out, ladders could be used. However, such a process is more difficult and more time-consuming than skipping through a hole in a broken fence,  or simply walking across a section of the border with no fence or wall at all, so the wall would serve some purpose even if it wasn't thoroughly and continuously monitored. But I can't imagine the US spending so much money on a wall without a continuous monitoring system in place.

People who are fleeing a country as a matter of life or death are in a different category. These people are genuine refugees, such as the Rohingya from Myanmar and people fleeing the ongoing conflict in Syria. These people should be placed in well-maintained refugee camps and processed over time for emigration to their country of choice, or any country that will take them. Hopefully, criminals and potential terrorist can be weeded out.

I read your linked articles, by the way, and came across some interesting facts. For example, I didn't know that 'Mexican immigrants annually send $26 billion to their families in Mexico, and only half of the Mexican immigrants in the United States are here legally'. The same article also mentions an estimate of the construction cost of the wall at $31.2 billion.
"For the full 1,000 miles, Trump’s 30-foot wall (with a 10-foot tunnel barrier) would cost $31.2 billion, or $31.2 million per mile, according to the best estimate from Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers."

There's no information on whether the illegals send as much money back to Mexico as the legal immigrants. However, if we assume they do, the entire cost of the wall would be approximately equal to the amount of money sent out of America by the illegal Mexican immigrants during a period of just 2 and a 1/2 years.

Here's an alternative view from the Wall Street Journal, relating to the effectiveness of a wall.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-silly-arguments-against-a-border-wall-11547165119
 

"They’ll just climb over it, dig under it or break through it. Just like that huh? I spent 10 years as a Navy SEAL, and people often say, “Dan, you know better than anyone how ineffective a wall is.” Actually, I know how effective walls are, even against skilled SEALs. Planning to scale a 30-foot steel slatted barrier is a daunting challenge. Do you bring an enormous ladder all the way there? How do you get down from the top? Jump? Rappel? This isn’t a Tough Mudder course. A few skilled and well-equipped people may figure it out, but the reality is that most will be deterred."

"The same goes for “digging” or “breaking.” Tunneling would require special equipment and hundreds of hours to dig under the barrier, the base of which would penetrate many feet underground. To break through it, you’d need specialized circular saws, torches or explosives. Typical equipment for a special-ops team, but not exactly on the packing list for a migrant. And Border Patrol agents would easily detect such a ruckus."

Have I not convinced you yet? ????

Then there is the problem of land rights (much of the border is private land), water rights (how do you stop lands on the Mexico side getting much needed water), ecological, environmental issues not to mention the vast costs of maintaining said wall.  

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work  

I don't know. It's not my speciality. I'd have to consult hydrologists. But it might be an opportunity to build a new dam with the dam wall along the border. That adds to the expense of course, but dams tend to have economic benefits, especially in areas subject to floods and droughts.

Here's the Wall Street Journal's view on that issue.  "You can’t put a wall on the Rio Grande. Fair enough—there are places where a physical barrier can’t work, such as private land along the river in Texas. You can’t build a wall everywhere—but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build one anywhere."

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Are you suggesting the border wall needs go around the entire country?  Because that's the only thing that makes your comparison work.

Of course not. Is there a problem with Canadians rushing to the USA for a better lifestyle? ????

7 minutes ago, attrayant said:

I don't care how cheap it is.  It won't work.

Refer to my reply to Jonnybangkok. The wall by itself will not be sufficient. All potential points of entry have to thoroughly checked. A border with no fence, wall or scrutiny is a serious loophole. I don't understand why some people cannot see this. Seems like an excellent example of denial.

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Hello VincentRJ.

You are coming to this discussion very late as your point is a prime example of false equivalence and has been discussed in depth before (see my post number 66 on page 5).

If we were to take your point at it's face value the easy refute would be that if these people trying to steal your 'fruit' were as determined as illegal immigrants, they would be tunneling under your fence, flying over your fence and driving through the main gateway of your property, therefore negating the fence altogether. Also, you might want to think twice about a fence that costs 50 times more than the value of the fruit it is protecting.  

It is tempting to boil down very complicated arguments to something that you can personally relate to (and a fence around your own property certainly looks similar) but there is no real equivalence, as a fence around your property probably would deter people from stealing your 'fruit', whilst there are much more effective ways for Trump to deter people from entering the US illegally than building an ineffectual and VERY expensive wall.  

 

Hello Jonnybangkok,
I've read your post #66 and see nothing which describes my point of view as a false equivalent. People build fences and walls around their property, not just to protect any fruit and vegetables they might be growing, but to deter people from stealing anything that is lying around, especially when they are away from there property, when they sometimes lock the gate, as well as locking the house.

The purpose of the fence or wall is to make it more difficult for people to intrude, but we should all know that a burglar who is really intent on entering the house, because he thinks there might be a few diamonds lying around, inside the house, will devise strategies to climb over fences or walls, and pick locks to get into the house.

The point you seem to have missed is, if entry through normal channels such as airports are subjected to increased scrutiny to prevent drug smuggling and illegal entrants, then such people will revert to border crossings where there are no checks and no wall.

The wall is not the whole solution, but a major and necessary part of the solution.

38 minutes ago, candide said:

People build walls around their private properties for different reasons, which can be economic, protective or even cultural.

Exactly! Good point! People build walls for economic, protective, and cultural reasons, whether it's a personal, individual property that's being protected, or a much larger community, such as an entire country like the USA. The principle is the same in all cases. The difference is in the scale and the cost of the protective wall.

The Mexican border wall is estimated to cost 5.7 billion. Let's agree that that is an underestimate and that the true cost will be 10 billion dollars, or more.

In the USA, according to my internet search, there are approximately 128 million households, many of which will have fences or walls costing perhaps a minimum of several hundred dollars, and sometimes thousands of dollars.

If we divide 10 billion by 128 million, we get $78. That means that every householder in America would have to contribute just $78 for the Mexican border wall to be built, if the full cost were gathered directly from all householders. The entire cost will not be attributed to them, so the cost should be no major concern, just a one-off charge of a very few dollars for each individual tax payer.
 

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

That has been discussed many times already.

Then please provide the links to the specific posts that have discussed the ethics. I seem to have missed them.

11 minutes ago, candide said:

The pro and cons have been extensively discussed in various threads. I hope you have time to read them.

I have.

About your comparison: people are free to do what they want with their own money, I.e. build a wall around their house.

Of course they are. I'm not disputing that. The point I'm making is that I've seen very few properties in Australia with no fence, or wall, and gate.

In this case it is about taxpayer's money. Trump promised Mexico would pay for his wall and now wants taxpayer's to pay for it. All polls show that a large majority of citizen does not want to pay for it.

That is a separate issue. It's obvious that Trump has no authority to instruct Mexico to pay for the wall. I agree that that was just a political ploy to address any concerns that the American voters would have about the expense of building a wall.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect Mexico to even contribute to the cost of building the wall, just as I wouldn't expect any property owners adjoining a gated community, housing the wealthy, to contribute towards the cost of building the wall surrounding that community.
 

I'd like to discuss the ethics of Trump's proposal to build a wall along the Mexican border.
I'm not American, but Australian, so I'm not very familiar with American practices and lifestyles. However, in Australia, most people have fences or walls surrounding their property, whether it's a suburban home or a farm, and I assume that is also the case in America.
Some properties are in gated communities, surrounded by a high wall, with access only through a gate which opens after entering a specific pin number.

Many owners of properties keep dogs, and put warning signs to deter any intruders, like, 'Beware of dangerous dogs', or, 'This property is continuously monitored by video cameras', and 'Private property; Intruders will be prosecuted', and so on.
I assume this situation is similar to that in the USA, is it not? However, Australia is a large island and doesn't have a land border with another country. Even without a land border, we have had a lot of trouble with refugee boat people who have paid smugglers to 'unsafely' transport them to Australia, often with loss of life at sea. But let's not get into that discussion.

The issue that concerns me is the 'apparent' hypocrisy of those who are against the building of the wall along the Mexican border. I say 'apparent' because I don't know their precise circumstances. Perhaps someone like 'Bristolboy', on this forum, who is clearly against the building of the wall, actually lives on a property with no fence or wall, grows fruit trees in his garden, and allows anyone to walk into his garden and help themselves to the fruit. I don't know.

However, if those who are against the building of the wall, are not also against surrounding their own property with a secure fence and gate to deter intruders, then it seems irrefutable that such people must be hypocrites when they attack Trump's agenda to build a wall along the Mexican border.

Just a point for discussion. ????
 

37 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

"If you are attempting to make a joke, it's better to add an emoticon to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part due to my lack of concentration."

 

fixed

 

insert smiley face

Oooh! So very Buddhist of you. ????

7 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Besides that there is some basis, some evidence possibly--even if certainly no where yet fully proven--leading to what I'd said, which means it is not pure speculation, besides that I told you (just in case not caught) that I'd said it as a joke to make a point and I'm pretty sure Buddhism allows for humor, even if you don't like mine, Hotei, science is early still in studying quantum physics so we don't yet know all of what might be found there though we can conjecture with care based on what it has so far found. How surprised was science that observation affects experiments?

 

If you are attempting to make a joke, it's better to add an emoticon to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind my quoting only part of your very long-winded post. ????

I don't see anything necessarily wrong with speculation. In fact, all scientific hypotheses contain at least some speculation before the hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

The essential point, in my opinion, is to be able to distinguish between what we know and what we don't know, and be aware of the grades of certainty or uncertainty that lie in between the two extremes of reasonable certainty and mere speculation.

I was also impressed, years ago, by the logic behind the concept that when we attempt to observe the behaviour of very small wave/ particles, such as photons, the actual act of observation will affect the behaviour of the particles that are being observed, which might explain some of the weirdness.

I have no objection to speculation in general. It can be fun and does not have to cause any stress. I've always been impressed, and quite amazed in fact, by the current hypothesis regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy. That about 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe is currently undetectable and invisible, despite our advances in technology, really puts our knowledge of the universe into perspective. ????
 

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A more effective and cheaper way? That's easy. Put enough funding into E-Verify to make it an effective tool. And then make it a serious crime punishable with a prison sentence for an employer to hire undocumented workers. 

Good. Thanks for that. At least you've described an alternative solution.

I'm not American, but I get a sense that the main issue with illegal immigration in the USA, and elsewhere, is not so much the provision of cheap labour, which can make American products more competitive, but the potential increase in the crime rate.

Imprisoning people is expensive, and what happens to the other legal workers in a company when the employer is put in prison for 'perhaps' mistakenly hiring a few illegals? What about the legal costs of determining who is to blame? 
Wouldn't such a system also increase the incentive for illegals to seek identity fraud, and provide more work for criminal gangs who specialize in identity fraud and other illegal activities? Is it likely that a fairly honest bloke who is prepared to work as a cheap farm labourer might decide to work for a criminal gang instead, for the sake of survival?

I agree that normal checks and procedures should always be in place, but by themselves they might not be sufficiently effective. A more practical solution might be to have both a wall and more stringent E-Verification.

You don't make a country great again simply by providing more work for more lawyers, unless the lawyers are working for overseas people who bring money into the country. ????
 

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If you would have quoted the post in full, you would have seen there are many reasons not to build the wall.

Of course there can be many reasons not to build the wall. No money is the obvious one. I saw the list of them in the post. But my question is, 'what is a more effective way to tackle the problem of illegal immigration?', and I'll add to that, 'why is, whatever is proposed, likely to be more effective?'

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

No sensible person opposes border security or clamping down on illegal immigration. They just oppose the ineffectiveness of this wall and the complete waste of money it will be. There are far better ways to spend this vast amount of money to get much better results. Trump and his people must know this and since he has had 2 years when Republicans controlled both houses and still didn't get it passed, the only conclusion must be this is a political stunt to re-animate his illiberal base who love nothing more than to blame immigrants for all their problems. 

That's a good point, but just what are the more effective ways to achieve the result of fewer illegal aliens getting in the USA?

I understand well that just a wall by itself, with no continuous monitoring and no personnel at various stations along the wall, would not be effective. However, I assume if several billion dollars are spent building a wall, it will have access by roads and numerous monitoring station in order to make it effective.

Sounds to me a bit like the Great Wall of China, although not quite as long. Wasn't that effective? ????

Another point, which I don't think has been raised yet, is that Trump's stated agenda is to 'make America great again'. You might think that's a load of nonsense and that he'll never achieve that, but at least building a wall is consistent with that policy. If America does become great again, there will be many more people screaming to get in.

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

I did not say what you've said I said that "you ought not believe" as I was not telling you what to believe and so it is a bit disingenuous of you to present that snip out of context. What I said was: "Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe...." as a pun on what you'd said, by here utilizing the concept of quantum consciousness or quantum mind, for there are numerous ways of thinking about consciousness, not just yours even if you think the one you googled is the most realistic.

 

Here's a google on the Buddhist take of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijñāna#Dependent_origination

And that's what I quoted you as saying, the part in bold. It's true that this time I missed out the part, "Quantum physics might one day show', for the sake of brevity, but that should be no problem because I previously quoted that full statement of yours in post #134 on page 9.

What might eventually be shown one day is currently pure speculation. It might one day be shown that there is a Creator God, or perhaps that some advanced civilization visited our planet about 3.5 billion years ago to sow the seeds of life in our soupy seas.

However, as I understand, the Buddha did not recommend speculation on matters that were impossible to determine. He was all about giving full attention to the present moment. The Buddhist concept of Rebirth is controversial. It seems to be heavily influenced by the Vedic concept of Reincarnation.

There are many highly respected Bhikkhus with an academic background who interpret the concept of Rebirth as applying to the arising and falling of thoughts, rather than the physical birth of a new person or creature.

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It was as easy as you say, why has there been a huge reduction in illegal immigration? Why are would be illegal immigrants paying coyotes thousands of dollars to get them across the border? E

Do you mean there's been a huge reduction in 'recorded' illegal immigration? If that's the case, it's probably because illegal immigrants are now taking full advantage of the wall-less sections of the border, before the wall is built, and are reluctant to take the conventional routes through customs-controlled entry points because of all the current government publicity against illegal immigration. Isn't that obvious? ????

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No there aren't.

 

Yes there are. Here are some of the studies. Read them all, then get back to me.

"More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

Better for who?

Better for most people, including those who live in the tropics. James Lovelock retired in Singapore, which is on the equator. He has no problem with the warming climate, and now thinks the hype is a load of rubbish.

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, at the El Chapo trial no mention at all was made of transport of drugs in areas unprotected by the wall.

And as I will point out again, no mention of it means no knowledge of it, or perhaps a reluctance to admit it for political reasons.

Isn't it obvious. If there is no wall, or customs personnel (or soldiers), then everyone has free access.

Do you have a fence around your own property, or do you just allow anyone to walk into you garden and take whatever they fancy?

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once again. As anybody who watched the El Chapo trial knows, no mention was made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border. It all came in via legal points of entry.

 

Excellent point! No mention is made of transporting drugs across unwalled portions of the US border because such traffickers are rarely caught.

If you were a drug smuggler, which would you rather do; risk detection by transporting drugs through legal points of entry with all the customs checks that are in place, or carry your drugs across unwalled and unmanned sections of the US border?

There are pros and cons of course. Crossing an unmanned, or unwalled border, with probably no roads, is physically challenging, perhaps requiring a lot of hiking, or at least a rough ride on a 4WD. But the success rate is probably higher.
 

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It wasn't arrived at by compromise but by scientific procedure. And the fact is that the MWP was only slightly warmer on average. No paleoclimatologists have detected anything like the current sharp and accelerating rate of climate change. At least not since the last asteroid hit the planet.

Well, that's obviously not true. There are hundreds of studies that imply that both the MWP and the RWP were at least as warm as today, globally, and that even during the LIA there were fairly rapid changes from cool to warm and back again. But such studies are based upon proxy records and written reports of the times, so one cannot be certain of the precise temperatures.

In the context of such uncertainty, the alarmists with there own agenda, will cherry pick the data to underestimate the degree of past temperatures. However, the skeptics will also tend to gravitate towards the studies which imply the temperatures were higher during the RWP and MWP.

Perhaps the truth is in the middle. Both the RWP and MWP were about as hot as today.

The other issue is, does it matter? Are warm periods not better than cold periods? I emigrated from England to Australia. I much prefer the warmer climate of Australia.

On 2/17/2019 at 11:34 AM, bristolboy said:

Mann and others now do agree that there was a slight global warming during the Medieval Warm Period and slightly more Global cooling during the little ice age. 

Very sensible. At least it's a compromise in view of the overwhelming evidence that both the MWP and LIA were global events. However, if we go back further, to the cold Dark Ages, and even further to the Roman Warm period,  we see that alternating warm and cool periods are nothing unusual.

18 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Zombies aside, when I sleep without dreaming lucidly or when I am not even dreaming nonlucidly merely means that I am not at the time conscious in the sense of being aware of my sleeping to the degree that I know at the time that I am sleeping and dreaming nor even conscious enough, aware enough, to remember the dreaming upon my body awakening. It does not mean that consciousness itself has left existence.

 

Similarly when we say that a person has lost consciousness by a bump on the head, that phrase, "lost consciousness", refers not to the lost and found box of misplaced consciousnesses, rather, only to that a person has lost awareness though the word consciousness is used to describe that experience, the phrase, lost consciousness in that regard is not in that case referring to the greater concept of consciousness but to awareness of self and surroundings.

It is true, if a person simply passes out for a while, losing consciousness,  that does not necessarily mean that consciousness has permanently left his existence. If the person recovers, then consciousness returns, of course.

I was addressing your statement that " you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness". You didn't specify a time period. However, I would agree that for any organism to apply its normal activities of gathering food in order to survive and propagate, some type, level or degree of consciousness is necessary, and that type or degree of consciousness is related to the genetic qualities of the organism.

This is the broad definition of consciousness that I use: "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings". In this sense, even bacteria must be conscious, to some degree. However, many creatures hibernate or lie dormant, sometimes for many years. During this time, they cannot be conscious, according to the definition I'm using.

You seem to be referring to a specific quality of consciousness that exists even if one is not conscious.  Consciousness does not have a single cause, but is a result of a myriad of processes within the organism. If just a few of those processes are disrupted, then consciousness can cease, either temporarily if the organism later wakes up, or permanently if it dies. (As far as I know, of course. I'm just trying to be rational and sensible ???? )
 

11 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

One of the main teachings of the Buddha is their is NO soul or self.

 

 

That's true. This is one of the distinctions between the ancient Vedic concept of Reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of Rebirth, although, confusingly, there are stories in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha, whilst achieving enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, recalling thousands of previous lives, in all there detail, including name and position in society.
 

58 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness.

Well, obviously a physical organism can exist without consciousness. When you sleep without dreaming, you are continuing to exist without consciousness. When you are given an anesthetic prior to a medical operation, you continue to exist without consciousness, just as you do if someone bangs you on the head, knocking you unconscious.

Sometimes people can be comatose for long periods, creating the impression they are dead. In the past, before the development of modern medicine with its accurate instruments that can detect the slightest sign of life, it sometimes happened that people were buried alive because they just appeared to be dead. Days or weeks later, they would return to consciousness in their coffin and furiously scratch the surface in an attempt to get out. The scratch marks, which have been observed in certain unearthed old coffins, are evidence that this sometimes has occurred, perhaps quite often. It explains Biblical stories of certain prophets magically raising people from the dead. They were never dead in the first place.  ????
 

14 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

To inherit from a previous life assumes some survival of some soul-like aspect be that soul itself, consciousness, etc., however defined. 

Sorry! I should not have written 'previous life'. I meant 'another life', that is, the life of one's parents. I consider the concepts of Karma and Rebirth to be imaginative and intelligent explanations, in pre-scientific times, of what we now understand to be genetic inheritance passed on from parents to child.

I don't believe consciousness can exist on its own, without a supporting, physical organism.