It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baltimore Restaurant Owner Says 30 Employees Left Due To ICE Crackdown

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Grambler

This is the sort of mentality that justifies genocide.

How do we know that genocide wasn't for good reasons?

As long as someone stronger than you doesn't punish you for genocide, you have done nothing wrong.

What a terrible ideology.


President George Bush ordered war in Iraq that resulted in the death of 200,000 iraqies. Just to go after one madman, called Saddam. Did anybody arrest George Bush for that genocide? As long as nobody arrests Bush, takes him to a court, and convicts him, George Bush did nothing wrong.

That's how the system works.

One day, the International Courts might decide to arrest Bush, and put him on trial. But, today, he is a free man, because he obeyed the law.

Hitler obeyed the law, until the International Court decided that he and all his kin were crooked, and started putting Nazis on trial.

So, yes, it's a bit about power. The one who has the power to decide what is right and what is wrong, decides whether you broke the law or not.

In every case, some "court" decides this. We weakling ordinary common folk, don't get to decide if the things we do are right or wrong. We can only accuse others, and feel self-righteous about our own personal opinions.





You seem like a good person, but your ideology is disgusting.

So if a person chooses to rape someone, and doesnt get caught, they have done nothing wrong?

After all, you do not know what the reason for this crime was.

No I am sorry. You can peddle this drivel with others, but I am not going to buy this post modern crap.




posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

So if a person chooses to rape someone, and doesnt get caught, they have done nothing wrong?



You got it. Exactly.

The victim has to come forward, and make that accusation.

Otherwise, it's just consent. That's what "he" thought. And "she" didn't do or say anything to contradict his belief that's this was ok.




After all, you do not know what the reason for this crime was.



What crime?

Who says there was a crime? Where is the witness to the crime?




No I am sorry. You can peddle this drivel with others, but I am not going to buy this post modern crap.


Can you sit on a jury, if you already know that a crime has been committed?

You want to believe that others are guilty, before anyone has accused them of doing wrong. Why?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

All but one of those people were arrested and detained before the Presidents immigration policies were even close to being in effect.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: seasonal

Do you want ICE to go after gangs or do you want ICE to go after illegal immigrants?


You do realize that a lot of the gangs that ICE targets are made up mostly of illegal immigrants, MS-13, 18th Street, NETA, Latin Kings, Nuertano's, Suerano's....mostly made up of illegal immigrants, if ICE does a raid on a gang house and they are doing business with say Bloods or Crips then hey guess what they will be arrested and detained as well.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: AMPTAH

If someone is in fear because they are harboring illegals, then they are also breaking the law.



That's the thing. They are not breaking the law.

Not until someone "accuses" them of breaking the law.

The only entity in the nation that can decide who is breaking the law is the courts.

Everyone else is just able to "accuse" you, because of their own personal "belief."

You are innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.

So, as long as no one accuses you, you can never be guilty of breaking any law.

Man made laws are not absolutes, standing independent of people. They are contracts "between" people in society. So, another human has to "interpret" what you are doing as right or wrong, according to the law.

The Church believes it is right to give undocumented safe harbor, because it's the charitable thing to do, to help a fellow human being in need, who is requesting that help. So, everybody has their own view on what is "right".

At the end of the day, until ICE arrests some of these guys, drags them into court, and the judge declares them guilty, they haven't broken any law.

So, the trick is to stay out of sight of those who might interpret their actions as law breaking.

That's what all Americans do.

Nobody saw when you crossed the street illegally, so you didn't get a "jay walking" ticket. I'm sure nobody in America ever turned himself or herself into the police and declared "I just jay walked" so I'm doing the right thing, and coming in to report myself, to get that ticket.

People break all sorts of laws (as would be determined, in the eyes of others) all the time, out of sight from other people.

Many people don't even know all the laws that they are breaking, because nobody bothered to point it out to them.

You can live your entire life, breaking all sorts of laws, and never even know it yourself, because nobody accused you, so you think you're squeaky clean, and you are, until someone says no, and even then, they have to prove it in court, for it to be established as a fact.

That's why the innocent run, when they see police. They know they didn't do anything wrong, but they don't know what the police will come up with, and invent, that might then "stick" to their record.



The Church isn't the law and it doesn't interpret the law, that same church also thought it was ok to hide priests who abused kids....

Im pretty sure you know when and if you break a law any time in your life, its pretty much common sense. Example, if you are knowingly harboring illegal immigrants in your house you are knowingly breaking the law, if you knowingly harbor a murder in your house you will be charged with "aiding and abetting" again common sense.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: caf1550

The Church isn't the law and it doesn't interpret the law, that same church also thought it was ok to hide priests who abused kids....



Well, the Church is interpreting and following a higher law. A law that the Church thinks "superceeds" the laws of man.




Im pretty sure you know when and if you break a law any time in your life, its pretty much common sense.


I don't know this at all. There are Nature's laws, God's laws, and Man's laws.

I can't break any of nature's laws. If I step off a cliff, gravity will pull me down and squash me. I know when I'm attempting to break a natural law. Whatever I try to do, is seen as impossible. I just can't do it. That's how I know there's a law there. It's a barrier to action.

God's laws are a bit different. Sometimes I can violate the law. But, my conscience tells me that this is bad or this is good. Since, God created me and my conscience is his design, I presume that's how I know whether I'm attempting to break one of his laws or not. I feel good, or I feel bad, doing this or that. That's my feedback. There are also scriptural laws, that aren't really "felt" until one has studied and understood them.

But, with man's laws, things are all "contextual". The interpretation of the laws written by man are heavily dependent on circumstance, environment, the conditions prevailing at the time actions were taken, who was involved in the deeds, the motivation of all the players, a lot of psychological conditioning, prevailing beliefs and habits of the population which change over time, what is wrong yesterday is right today, changing attitudes, re-interpretation of old statutes in new ways, redefinition of key terms like "marriage". The man made laws are always in "flux", always changing, never constant, so I really don't have a clue what the laws mean. There are volumes and volumes of "the law". None of it is in my head, since I wasn't born with the knowledge of man's laws, and never went to law school. And even lawyers argue and disagree on the meaning and interpretation of the laws that they wrote themselves. How could I possibly know whether I broke the law or not? The law itself is written in a kind of "legalese" that only trained lawyers understand. That's why it is recommended you get a qualified lawyer to defend you in court, because the average person doesn't know enough about the law to defend himself.

So, if I need a lawyer to defend me, how could I possibly know before breaking the law, that there was this law that could be broken by me taking some action?

There is no way, the average person can be sure he broke any law, or didn't break any law. He needs lawyers and a court to decide this, and tell him what it is he did.

None of us know sufficient to judge ourselves. We have to let others be the judge. We may "feel" we did or we didn't, but we can't "know," because we haven't studied the law in sufficient detail to decide this.

This is part of the reason man put's his faith in God. Because the universe is too complicated for the simple mind to know all that is necessary to decide these things.



Example, if you are knowingly harboring illegal immigrants in your house you are knowingly breaking the law, if you knowingly harbor a murder in your house you will be charged with "aiding and abetting" again common sense.


This isn't common sense to me. I don't know any illegal immigrants, I don't even know what makes a person "illegal."

To be illegal, you must first break the law. And like I said, only the courts can decide this.

But, if a court has already decided that some person is "illegal", they probably wouldn't be in my home, in the first place. They'd by where all the actual "illegals" go after the court has "deemed" them to be "illegal."

Since, I'm not the court, I don't have the authority to judge another person, and set that label upon him, as "legal" or "illegal".

I can only play the role of "accuser."

What is the evidence that I use to "accuse?"

I have to go study the law, see if it applies to this particular individual, then accuse him.

I can't just judge from the way he speaks, color of his skin, way he dresses, cuts his hair, music he listens to, etc.. to decide that he must be illegal or legal. That would be discrimination.

So, in order not to break "discriminatory laws", I must have certain knowledge that the person is indeed "illegal" before accusing him.

Where can I get this knowledge from?

If he tells me he is "undocumented", does that mean he is "illegal". Again, I'm not the court, so I can't judge this.

If I lose all my documentation, proving that I'm an American, do I become automatically "illegal" ?

These are tough questions for me.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Grambler

So if a person chooses to rape someone, and doesnt get caught, they have done nothing wrong?



You got it. Exactly.

The victim has to come forward, and make that accusation.

Otherwise, it's just consent. That's what "he" thought. And "she" didn't do or say anything to contradict his belief that's this was ok.




After all, you do not know what the reason for this crime was.



What crime?

Who says there was a crime? Where is the witness to the crime?




No I am sorry. You can peddle this drivel with others, but I am not going to buy this post modern crap.


Can you sit on a jury, if you already know that a crime has been committed?

You want to believe that others are guilty, before anyone has accused them of doing wrong. Why?



Well thanks for being honest.

To all those reading, here is a good example of what post modern thinking leads you to.

Rape is a ok, so long as you are not found guilty.

I couldn't make a better argument against post modernism if I tried.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH




Well, the Church is interpreting and following a higher law. A law that the Church thinks "superceeds" the laws of man.


So, by this statement right here you truly believe that it was ok that the church helped hide priests who abused kids and changes their lives forever.




But, with man's laws, things are all "contextual". The interpretation of the laws written by man are heavily dependent on circumstance, environment, the conditions prevailing at the time actions were taken, who was involved in the deeds, the motivation of all the players, a lot of psychological conditioning, prevailing beliefs and habits of the population which change over time, what is wrong yesterday is right today, changing attitudes, re-interpretation of old statutes in new ways, redefinition of key terms like "marriage". The man made laws are always in "flux", always changing, never constant, so I really don't have a clue what the laws mean. There are volumes and volumes of "the law". None of it is in my head, since I wasn't born with the knowledge of man's laws, and never went to law school. And even lawyers argue and disagree on the meaning and interpretation of the laws that they wrote themselves. How could I possibly know whether I broke the law or not? The law itself is written in a kind of "legalese" that only trained lawyers understand. That's why it is recommended you get a qualified lawyer to defend you in court, because the average person doesn't know enough about the law to defend himself.


Im sorry but murder is still illegal in all 50 states and every functioning country throughout the world, there will never be a re-interpretation of this, just like there will never be a re-interpretation of rape or child molestation, everyone knows it wrong which is why it is illegal to do those things. Most man made laws are in fact constant, they are not always changing.




There is no way, the average person can be sure he broke any law, or didn't break any law. He needs lawyers and a court to decide this, and tell him what it is he did.


If the average person was say harboring people he knew to be in this country illegally, then I'm pretty sure that the average person knows he is breaking the law and can be punished for breaking said law/laws. If the average person say robbed a store and shop the owner, even without being accused by anyone else I'm pretty positive that person knows what they did is against the law.




This isn't common sense to me. I don't know any illegal immigrants, I don't even know what makes a person "illegal." To be illegal, you must first break the law. And like I said, only the courts can decide this.


You have never heard of illegal immigration before....astounding.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


Rape is a ok, so long as you are not found guilty.



If nobody accuses you, is it rape?

This is a serious question. I had a male friend in college, who said to me once that his girl friend liked to be "force-ably taken", it turned her on.

Obviously, she never reported him.

Did he rape her?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Grambler


Rape is a ok, so long as you are not found guilty.



If nobody accuses you, is it rape?

This is a serious question. I had a male friend in college, who said to me once that his girl friend liked to be "force-ably taken", it turned her on.

Obviously, she never reported him.

Did he rape her?


Probably not. But that is a different question enitrely.

their is objective truth, and you are against that.

If your friend had reason to believe she was giving consent, it wasn't rape.

But if he lied to you and he knew it wasn't consensual, but she never reported him, you would not consider that rape.

That is the disgusting part of post modernism.

Rape is wrong period. There can be cases on the fringe were we discuss if something crossed the threshold into rape, but requiring an accuser or guilty verdict before you can ever say a rape occurred is terrible.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: caf1550

Im sorry but murder is still illegal in all 50 states and every functioning country throughout the world,



But, killing another person is not murder.

Soldiers do it all the time. Police do it all the time. Doctors do it. None of these people get charged with murder.

So, first someone has to accuse you of "murder".

No one is saying that murder isn't illegal in all 50 states, just that someone has to label the action "murder."

Then a court has to find and convict that person to agree.

That's all I'm saying. We can't know before hand, that it is murder, we can only render "opinion", which may be based on mistaken beliefs and imperfect knowledge of what happened.




If the average person was say harboring people he knew to be in this country illegally, then I'm pretty sure that the average person knows


Well, obviously, if "you know" that something is illegal, then don't do it. But, don't assume that everybody has your knowledge, just because it is "obvious to you."

People who "know" things, without really having all the information required to truly know, are usually just those entertaining their personal "prejudices" and applying that in a discriminatory manner to others that fit some "profile".

In order not to discriminate, unfairly, we others leave it up to the courts "to know" these things.




You have never heard of illegal immigration before....astounding.


Sure. That term "illegal immigration" is everywhere. I've heard it too. I don't know what it means. When the European settlers came and squatted on the Native Indian lands, were they "illegal immigrants"?

Or, is it that illegal immigrants only came into existence when the European settlers "wrote down the law" on immigration, after they arrived?

At what point in the History of America, did immigrants arriving here get first classified as "illegal immigrants" ?

Is it a new thing?

Who invented the term "illegal immigrants" ?

When was it first used, and to whom did it apply originally?

Is there any specific legislation that defined this term? Does it have a "legal" basis, written in some statute of law?

Or is it just a colloquial term, invented by the journalists to describe some portion of the immigrant population?

I have no answers to these questions.

All I know, is that newspapers use the term, and somehow presume we all must know what they are talking about.

Yet, I have never seen a definition of the term anywhere.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't know. The main reason why illegal immigrants are used are because of pay. But as long as they get my meal right, everyone lives the illusion that illegal immigration is good for everyone!

Especially those that hire them.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Might as well give it up. I have decided - some people did not have a momma. Or she is rolling over in her grave. No one can be raised by a good mother and still get the basic truths of right and wrong so very, very twisted.

Getting back to the OP...
It's interesting that almost all comments on the article in the OP are against the owner and against illegal immigrants taking jobs that could be done by Americans.

I can't believe that the owner is starting a fund. He is asking people to contribute to help his workers that walked off the job. If he wants to help them, he would help them to legally immigrate.


edit on 6/27/17 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Probably not. But that is a different question enitrely.

their is objective truth, and you are against that.


There is objective action. But, the "interpretation" of that action is all subjective.



If your friend had reason to believe she was giving consent, it wasn't rape.

But if he lied to you and he knew it wasn't consensual, but she never reported him, you would not consider that rape.


Right. So, now you see some of the complexity of assigning "accusation".

Who has the right to call it "rape" ?

In our society, we pick an age, usually 16 years old, and we "declare" all sex with minors under this age "rape."

Whether there was consent or not, doesn't matter. We set an "arbitrary" age, 16. And have defined "objective rape"
exists, if coitus happened, period. That's the kind of absolute objective certainty you seem to be seeking.

But, for adults, once they are over 16 years of age, they can consent, and there's no rape unless one of the parties accuses the other.

Suppose we set up a hidden camera, in my college friends dorm room, and caught him in the physical act of forceably taking his girlfriend, and seeing her resisting, until she gave up, lacking the strength to push him off. Can we then break into the room, arrest him, and use the tape as "objective evidence" that he raped her, even if she says, "we do this all rthe time" ?

We witness the forceable taking of a young woman, seemingly against her wishes, as evidenced by her struggling with him. So, we have our "objective evidence", can we call it rape?




Rape is wrong period..


Once the court has determined that "rape" occurred, I'd have to agree with you.

But, before the case gets to court, how do we know it is rape?



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Post modernists are right to acknowledge that any gven situation can be interpretted in many ways. The problem is that does not mean that there is no such thing as truth.

I can interpret a hot stove, and say I will cook on it, or stay away from it. Or I can put my hand on it.

Post modernists say all of these choices are equally acceptable. However, that is not true. I have an interests n survival, and so putting my hand on it would be bad.

In the same sense, you can look at rape. Who is to say when rape occurred.

Well of course there are tons of mitigating circumstances. But to argue that it is only rape in the extreme that their is an accuser and a person is found guilty is wrong.

This nihilism justifies all manner of evil, and is anathema to what the true purpose of human beings should be, to be truthful and alleviate suffering.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AMPTAH


Well of course there are tons of mitigating circumstances. But to argue that it is only rape in the extreme that their is an accuser and a person is found guilty is wrong.


But, there is no other way. This is a man made law, subject to human interpretation. Without an accuser and a conviction of guilty, how could there be any rape?

In whose "mind" is it still rape?

He doesn't think it's rape, she likes it, and doesn't accuse him of rape. Some third party individual witness' the action from a distance, say through a telescope, and files the complaint that he witnessed what seemed to be a rape. Who is right?

All have opinions.

Which person's opinion do we take as our "objective truth" that a rape did or did not occur.

You seem to have the answer, help me understand how to think like you.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: AMPTAH


Well of course there are tons of mitigating circumstances. But to argue that it is only rape in the extreme that their is an accuser and a person is found guilty is wrong.


But, there is no other way. This is a man made law, subject to human interpretation. Without an accuser and a conviction of guilty, how could there be any rape?

In whose "mind" is it still rape?

He doesn't think it's rape, she likes it, and doesn't accuse him of rape. Some third party individual witness' the action from a distance, say through a telescope, and files the complaint that he witnessed what seemed to be a rape. Who is right?

All have opinions.

Which person's opinion do we take as our "objective truth" that a rape did or did not occur.

You seem to have the answer, help me understand how to think like you.




I have already said, if the person knows he is raping, then he is raping. You seem to think that even if the person thinks he has committed rape, unless he is accused or convicted, it was not rape.

This is an absurdity.

Yes there can be hazy situations, but you are employing a clever bait and switch to try to take this hazy situation and then claim we can no longer make objective claims about morality unless a court of law agrees.

Again, I encourage you to keep going so that people can see the evil that post modernism leads to. I am sure that people would be shocked to find that it can lead to a person quite boldly claiming that a woman (or man or whomever) can't be the victim of rape unless they report it and the person is convicted.

And I know as a post modernist, it doesn't matter to you because you don't believe in truth, but this directly counter to the womens rights movement, who ironically heavily ascribe to post modern ideologies.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

I have already said, if the person knows he is raping, then he is raping. You seem to think that even if the person thinks he has committed rape, unless he is accused or convicted, it was not rape.



Ah! I missed that. Sorry. So the man "knows" himself that what he is doing is wrong. It's just that she doesn't know, and no one else knows. He is guilty by self-conviction.

Well, ok. Here is where it gets interesting. If the man did something wrong, that his "conscience" tells him is wrong, then "who" should "punish" the man?

He is the only one that knows. Nobody else knows he did anything wrong. No one has accused him. No court has found him guilty. But, in his own mind, he thinks he is guilty. He may have thought he was raping the girl, while she thought it was just rough sex. He has done a self-assessment, played the role of the court already, and found himself guilty.

Having found yourself guilty, how is punishment to be determined?

Now there is a Biblical answer to this. If the man is of the Judeo-Christian faith, the answer is found in the Ten Commandments.

Among all the 10 laws that God gave to man, the relevant one here is



Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. -- KJV, Exodus 20:16



Sometimes, it gets a little confusing, because some of "man's laws" are actually "God's laws" that men have added to their civil law books. Like not to kill, etc..So, when thinking about right and wrong, people might put breaking one law, like crossing the street at an illegal point, or jay walking, on the same footing as murder, or rape, etc..when they are really different things, from the point of view of seriousness.

But, God is quite clear about man's responsibility. Note that the Lord does not say that any man must tell the truth, nor does the Lord say that man must "not bear false witness" in favor of a neighbor, to protect him, or even not bear false witness to save himself. The Lord's only command is that man must "not bear false witness against" his neighbor.

Now, why is this?

The thing is, no matter what a man does, he cannot hide his actions, nor his thoughts from God. Therefore, God is always there to be the final judge. If the man does anything wrong, God has the power to pass judgement and to punish. The man cannot escape. So, God does not need that man to tell anyone what he did, so that other men might judge and convict. That's why the commandment is so cleverly written, and specifically refers just to what testimony that man is required to give, when asked to give testimony in a court of law.

In other words, if you are the only person that knows you did something wrong, then the only judge you have to worry about is God. Whether God decides to "forgive" or to "punish", that's His decision. You don't need to get men involved in the "crime", because nobody else knows anything about it, and it's none of their business anyway. It is now a matter between each man, and his God.

Only when you do something wrong, that other people complain about, does it become a "social" problem, for the society to get involved.

But, stand in the desert, and hit yourself on the head ten times, only you need to know that.

So, again, you cannot break any man made law, unless the court has determined you did.

Where the man made law is in sync with God's law, then, of course, God is the judge, and no one escapes, even actions done in secret.




And I know as a post modernist,


These terms like "post modernists" don't make any sense to me. They are labels. I'd rather see reasoned arguments supporting the view. How you arrive at your conclusions, and your positions. Something that I can understand. Where does the reasoning come from. What are your reference points. Where do you get your ideas. I, for example, get mine from the scriptures.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Your ignorance is astounding.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join