As it turns out, illegal immigrants DO have rights!
- Thread starter Pressure
- Start date
David_TheMan
Banned
Chill out bruh
If we essentially agree, then what's to argue?
Not mad, I like to be clear, you came at me ignorantly and I'm correcting you so you and everyone who reads this thread will clearly see where you made your mistake. Hopefully you don't make it again.
If people consistently misunderstand your position maybe it's you who aren't doing a good job articulating it.
Spare me, bruh. No mistakes were made. When I quoted your post, it was for clarification purposes. You weren't the one I was accusing of making that argument, but others in the thread were.
David_TheMan
Banned
I would think that, if people were confused over the same post, but they aren't. On top of that, you yourself literally made up what you wanted to make up with regard to my post.If people consistently misunderstand your position maybe it's you who aren't doing a good job articulating it.
So objectively, looks like there are just a lot of people with poor reading comp on this board.
You didn't quote me for claification, you didn't ask me to clarify and 2nd what you posted had nothing to do with what I actually wrote and the actual conversation it was a part of.
Spare me, bruh. No mistakes were made. When I quoted your post, it was for clarification purposes. You weren't the one I was accusing of making that argument, but others in the thread were.
You literally tried to claim the US Constitution didn't agree with me or some non-sense as if the question or the conversation I was having with another user was about what the framers felt about rights and their origins and not my own.
Just stop it breh, you made a mistake because you read to quickly, nothing wrong with that, just own up to it and move on.
Positive freedom means nothing to you?
Be vague or off topic on purpose so after clarification someone says they agree with you.
@David_TheMan brehs.
@David_TheMan brehs.
David_TheMan
Banned
What does positive liberty have to do with our discussion on positive rights ? Lets finish that and then we will move on to other topics.
David_TheMan
Banned
What is vague or off topic about my post that you clearly didn't read and jumped to argue about ?Be vague or off topic on purpose so after clarification someone says they agree with you.
@David_TheMan brehs.
So sad breh, let the pride go, its okay to say man I was off base entirely and literally tried to turn what you wrote into something negative because you wrote it and i know you aren't a democrat.
That is what it all comes down to in the end, grow up kid, you want to achieve higher learning you have to start taking your ego out of intellectual discussions and start listening.
Let's establish something first, "breh".
I'm all for intelligent discussion, but this demeaning manner of speech you've adopted ain't gonna work. You don't talk down to your critics and expect a conversation to remain healthy.
If you keep talking down to others you can expect your posts to be attacked. These posts don't reflect maturity, but a sense of pseudo-intellectual superiority.
Now, onto your actual point.
The frame of the discussion is that illegal immigrants do have legal protections of their rights. I read your original response to the thread, as well as your response to another poster with the question about you putting "natural rights" in quotations.
I was attempting to clarify whether you were arguing your disbelief in "natural rights" as an argument against the OP. You answer to the OP and your response to the other poster seemed contradictory, in that you cited the founding documents--which have the phrase "unalienable rights endowed by their Creator" within them--as a source of protection for illegal immigrants, but your other response had you stating your disbelief in "natural rights". The latter seems to undermine your original post. Hence the clarifying post.
tl;dr come correct, and don't undermine your own arguments.
I'm all for intelligent discussion, but this demeaning manner of speech you've adopted ain't gonna work. You don't talk down to your critics and expect a conversation to remain healthy.
If you keep talking down to others you can expect your posts to be attacked. These posts don't reflect maturity, but a sense of pseudo-intellectual superiority.
Now, onto your actual point.
The frame of the discussion is that illegal immigrants do have legal protections of their rights. I read your original response to the thread, as well as your response to another poster with the question about you putting "natural rights" in quotations.
I was attempting to clarify whether you were arguing your disbelief in "natural rights" as an argument against the OP. You answer to the OP and your response to the other poster seemed contradictory, in that you cited the founding documents--which have the phrase "unalienable rights endowed by their Creator" within them--as a source of protection for illegal immigrants, but your other response had you stating your disbelief in "natural rights". The latter seems to undermine your original post. Hence the clarifying post.
tl;dr come correct, and don't undermine your own arguments.
David_TheMan
Banned
Man you weren't attempting to clarify anything.Let's establish something first, "breh".
I'm all for intelligent discussion, but this demeaning manner of speech you've adopted ain't gonna work. You don't talk down to your critics and expect a conversation to remain healthy.
If you keep talking down to others you can expect your posts to be attacked. These posts don't reflect maturity, but a sense of pseudo-intellectual superiority.
Now, onto your actual point.
The frame of the discussion is that illegal immigrants do have legal protections of their rights. I read your original response to the thread, as well as your response to another poster with the question about you putting "natural rights" in quotations.
I was attempting to clarify whether you were arguing your disbelief in "natural rights" as an argument against the OP. You answer to the OP and your response to the other poster seemed contradictory, in that you cited the founding documents--which have the phrase "unalienable rights endowed by their Creator" within them--as a source of protection for illegal immigrants, but your other response had you stating your disbelief in "natural rights". The latter seems to undermine your original post. Hence the clarifying post.
tl;dr come correct, and don't undermine your own arguments.
Again you didn't ask me to reply, you came out and tried to make an assertion about what US constitutional writers felt about rights, when again a question was asked to me why I wrote something a certain way.
There is no wiggle room about it, you were wrong accept you were wrong and move on, there is nothing left to say on that.
In the end as I said before, take your time, learn to read what you are going to reply to so you don't continuet o make mistakes like you just made.
Have a good one.
That still begs the question, what is the point of this thread?
before you decided to push your hate agenda it was merely informational.
Have you noticed you say "begs the question" a lot?
Have you noticed that you are a tap dancing black liberal c00n?before you decided to push your hate agenda it was merely informational.
Have you noticed you say "begs the question" a lot?
I don't hate anybody but thank you for the information
I'm a grown ass black man who came from a low income family to make something of myself that makes me and everyone who knows me personally proud.
I've traveled the world, helped my family pay off their mortgage, mentor youth, mentor adults, don't run around making excuses for everything, and address my opinions head on.
I haven't tap danced one bit. I could teach you a thing or two.