Mexican Valedictorian Graduation Controversy

[ComplexCity]

Are you seriously comparing thieves to a valedictorian who is undocumented?

Cancer levels reaching 98%



You're so blinded by your stupidity you can't even see the correlation


Both are illegal which was the point I was making. How about thinking for once?

 

[ComplexCity]

Are you seriously comparing thieves to a valedictorian who is undocumented?

Cancer levels reaching 98%



You're so blinded by your stupidity you can't even see the correlation


Both are illegal which was the point I was making. How about thinking for once? So again I ask

Do you feel thieves should be allowed to be given time to return stuff from the stores they stole them from?

 

[Punk Hazard]

Are you seriously comparing thieves to a valedictorian who is undocumented?

On one hand, they're both breaking the law, but you do have a point that one is more extreme than the other. Especially if her parents brought her in illegally rather than getting the proper certification. Seems to me that deporting her is more based on principle than actual harm she may pose.

Cancer levels reaching 98%



You're so blinded by your stupidity you can't even see the correlation


Both are illegal which was the point I was making. How about thinking for once? So again I ask

The point of his post was that one is more extreme than the other, which means that not granting leniency to one doesn't necessarily mean you also shouldn't grant leniency to the other.

 

[ComplexCity]

On one hand, they're both breaking the law, but you do have a point that one is more extreme than the other. Especially if her parents brought her in illegally rather than getting the proper certification. Seems to me that deporting her is more based on principle than actual harm she may pose.

Guess my theory was right.


Anyway, from my POV stealing a bag of chips that cost a quarter is not extreme

The point of his post was that one is more extreme than the other, which means that not granting leniency to one doesn't necessarily mean you also shouldn't grant leniency to the other.

It doesn't matter what he meant. Both are against the law

 

[ANiMUS]

I didn't say she should be allowed to stay forever without becoming a citizen. I think she should be given some time to apply for citizenship.

The problem is that she broke the law. Whether she is a good person or not, and whether she is valedictorian or flunking her classes. Those things are irrelevant. She broke the law, everyone knows it, and if she isn't disciplined accordingly it undermines the legal system.

That's how laws work. Even if a mother steals something to feed her starving family it doesn't change the fact that she stole, and if she is caught she will be punished. Pure cause and effect. There could be other loopholes to the law that I don't know about though

 

[Punk Hazard]

Guess my theory was right.

Don't respond to me with shit like this.

Anyway, from my POV stealing a bag of chips that cost a quarter is not extreme

It objectively is not. I dunno why you're telling me this like I said not being extreme means nothing should be done about it.

 

[ComplexCity]

Don't respond to me with shit like this.

I can do what ever the f**k I want to :|

It objectively is not. I dunno why you're telling me this like I said not being extreme means nothing should be done about it.

Guess it flew over you head as well. I know what he meant and I don't why you always try to reiterate things to people when it isn't necessary. I know why I asked him what I asked him and as usual he couldn't answer.


Point is both are illegal I don't why he said what he said if he doesn't feel like a thief shouldn't be able to return a bag of 25 cent chips (because that;s what he is insinuating)

 

[Punk Hazard]

It doesn't matter what he meant. Both are against the law

No, it does matter what he meant, since he was saying they're not comparable because one is more extreme and you're chastising him as though he denied one was illegal. His point matters because your reply of "They're both illegal" doesn't matter to his post because he never denied they were both illegal.

 

[ComplexCity]

No, it does matter what he meant, since he was saying they're not comparable because one is more extreme and you're chastising him as though he denied one was illegal. His point matters because your reply of "They're both illegal" doesn't matter to his post because he never denied they were both illegal.

Please stop being a white knight, it's not cute


I guess you missed the part where he rearranged my name, yet you're gonna sit here saying I'm chastising him :lol


They're comparable because they both break the law, his response challenged the fact that I shouldn't be comparing the two so it is relevant

I'll leave this here as well

The problem is that she broke the law. Whether she is a good person or not, and whether she is valedictorian or flunking her classes. Those things are irrelevant. She broke the law, everyone knows it, and if she isn't disciplined accordingly it undermines the legal system.

That's how laws work. Even if a mother steals something to feed her starving family it doesn't change the fact that she stole, and if she is caught she will be punished. Pure cause and effect. There could be other loopholes to the law that I don't know about though

 

[Punk Hazard]

Please stop being a white knight, it's not cute

It's funny how you call me a white knight because I agree with Macho and added to his argument with you, and yet you don't call Animus a white knight even though he did the same thing with the post you quoted below. You're a hypocrite.

I guess you missed the part where he rearranged my name, yet you're gonna sit here saying I'm chastising him :lol

Yeah cuz Idc about shit like this, only the argument.

They're comparable because they both break the law, his response challenged the fact that I shouldn't be comparing the two so it is relevant

I'll address this with this:

Guess it flew over you head as well. I know what he meant and I don't why you always try to reiterate things to people when it isn't necessary. I know why I asked him what I asked him and as usual he couldn't answer.

He did answer. He answered by saying "Yes, they are both illegal, but one is more extreme than the other. That means it is possible for one to receive leniency while the other may not even though they're both illegal."

Your argument is that because both are illegal, both should be treated the same with it comes to leniency(i.e., receiving none).

Macho's and my argument is that yes, both are illegal, but the degree of extremity that differs between them means they can be treated differently when it comes to leniency.

You saying "Both are illegal so they can't be treated the same" isn't a new argument. That's just your first argument given again, which we've already addressed. It's now up to you to prove that both being illegal holds greater weight towards the argument than their differing levels of extremity.

You're just taking the argument you gave the first time and repeating it as though it's a new counterargument. It is not. Yes, they're both illegal. Now prove why that hold precedence over one being more extreme than the other.

Point is both are illegal I don't why he said what he said if he doesn't feel like a thief shouldn't be able to return a bag of 25 cent chips (because that;s what he is insinuating)

Lots of times first offenders are required to just pay back the cost or give back a minor thing stolen though, so it's not unheard of for that to go with a slap on the wrist. So, bad example for your point.

I'll leave this here as well

How do you spell hypocrite? C-O-M-P-L...

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Cancer levels reaching 98%



You're so blinded by your stupidity you can't even see the correlation


Both are illegal which was the point I was making. How about thinking for once? So again I ask

You're using a false equivalency fallacy. The two aren't comparable because thievery as a whole is more extreme. We can be more lenient with her by giving her some time to apply for citizenship, especially since she is clearly valuable because of her intelligence.

 

[ComplexCity]

It's funny how you call me a white knight because I agree with Macho and added to his argument with you, and yet you don't call Animus a white knight even though he did the same thing with the post you quoted below. You're a hypocrite

The moment you said this

you're chastising him as though he denied one was illegal.

Is the moment you became a white knight. Hopefully I don't have to empirically show you why you are a white knight. There's not wrong with agreeing someone but you always try defends people as well. I'm sure macho is perfectly capable to defend himself. I didn't ask Animus to do anything and Animus never agreed with me or my points

Yeah cuz Idc about shit like this, only the argument

So stop making dumb comments about me chasting him then

I'll address this with this:


He did answer. He answered by saying "Yes, they are both illegal, but one is more extreme than the other. That means it is possible for one to receive leniency while the other may not even though they're both illegal."

Your argument is that because both are illegal, both should be treated the same with it comes to leniency(i.e., receiving none).

Macho's and my argument is that yes, both are illegal, but the degree of extremity that differs between them means they can be treated differently when it comes to leniency.

You saying "Both are illegal so they can't be treated the same" isn't a new argument. That's just your first argument given again, which we've already addressed. It's now up to you to prove that both being illegal holds greater weight towards the argument than their differing levels of extremity.

You're just taking the argument you gave the first time and repeating it as though it's a new counterargument. It is not. Yes, they're both illegal. Now prove why that hold precedence over one being more extreme than the other

You can't prove subjectivity dumba** what matters is they both break the law. I can see you still don't get it. His point was to allow to legally fill out the paperwork to let her reside in the US (which takes time btw) even though she already broke the law. My comparison was to challenge his belief since she had already broken a law and try rescind her actions of breaking the law of by doing it the correct way. You saying what you said below doesn't negate anything as stealing from the store regardless if they make you pay still results in you having a criminal history of theft

Lots of times first offenders are required to just pay back the cost or give back a minor thing stolen though, so it's not unheard of for that to go with a slap on the wrist. So, bad example for your point

This is dependent on different factors so no it's no a bad example because I knew someone who stole and got locked up for it, me saying chips was sarcasm as my original argument was theft which the sarcastic comment still fits in to. Your lack of argument(s) have really been impressive lately

How do you spell hypocrite? C-O-M-P-L...

I left it there because you don't like to read Hellen Keller :lol

You're using a false equivalency fallacy. The two aren't comparable because thievery as a whole is more extreme. We can be more lenient with her by giving her some time to apply for citizenship, especially since she is clearly valuable because of her intelligence.

Extreme because you (don't) feel like it is? It was law set in place for it not to be broken and if broken, the necessary actions would have to be taken. I'm not even arguing that she should or shouldn't but you are sitting here trying to justify her breaking a law. MFW people don't make a lick of sense

:drip:


@Bold

So according to you, people who are intelligent should get leniency on breaking the law based on the fact that they're intelligent, that's why the Stanford rapist got a reduced sentence because he's clearly intelligible


Yeah I'm done responding to you

 

[ANiMUS]

You're using a false equivalency fallacy. The two aren't comparable because thievery as a whole is more extreme. We can be more lenient with her by giving her some time to apply for citizenship, especially since she is clearly valuable because of her intelligence.

Not going to comment yet on the thievery thing, but what about all the other illegals were making a better living for their family in this country and were deported. :| What makes this girl so special that it's OK to skew the rules for her?

does her being intelligent a make her better than families that were uprooted?

 

[Punk Hazard]

The moment you said this



Is the moment you became a white knight. Hopefully I don't have to empirically show you why you are a white knight. There's not wrong with agreeing someone but you always try defends people as well. I'm sure macho is perfectly capable to defend himself. I didn't ask Animus to do anything and Animus never agreed with me or my points

That was criticism for chastising him for the wrong thing, not for chastising him in general.

I argue with people just as much as I "defend" them. I didn't add to Macho's argument because of who were saying what, but because of what was being said. It goes no deeper than that.

So stop making dumb comments about me chasting him then

What you were chastising him for was inaccurate and it was about his argument. Different than some petty insult from rearranging your name.

You can't prove subjectivity dumba** what matters is they both break the law. I can see you still don't get it. His point was to allow to legally fill out the paperwork to let her reside in the US (which takes time btw) even though she already broke the law. My comparison was to challenge his belief since she had already broken a law and try rescind her actions of breaking the law of by doing it the correct way. You saying what you said below doesn't negate anything as stealing from the store regardless if they make you pay still results in you having a criminal history of theft

On the contrary, you don't get what we are saying, or at the very least what I am saying. As I said before, I never said that it being less extreme means nothing should be done. Something SHOULD be done. But that doesn't mean that leniency can't be exercised. You can't point a crime and say "There's no leniency here" and then point at a lesser crime and say "So there should be no leniency here."

This is especially true because the differences of extremities is already in practice by the legal system. The fact that murder and manslaughter carry different sentences, the fact that stealing Cheetos and rape carry different punishments, the fact that battery and public drunken disorderly conduct carry different punishments is undeniable proof that when two situations differ in extremity, comparative leniency exists between them.

Your point also fails on another level. You say that thieves don't receive leniency, but that's not entirely true. First time offenders DO get slaps on the wrists and just return the items from time to time, especially if it's petty theft, like your chips example. So, the analogy doesn't even work, since it's an example that shows the opposite of what you're saying actually does happen. Once you drop the notion that we're saying "Do nothing," you'll start to understand what's being said to you.

I left it there because you don't like to read Hellen Keller :lol

Does nothing to disprove what I said.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Not going to comment yet on the thievery thing, but what about all the other illegals were making a better living for their family in this country and were deported. :| What makes this girl so special that it's OK to skew the rules for her?

does her being intelligent a make her better than families that were uprooted?

Yes her being much more intelligent does make her better.

 

[ANiMUS]

Yes her being much more intelligent does make her better.

wooooow you are selfish.

 

[ComplexCity]

That was criticism for chastising him for the wrong thing, not for chastising him in general.

Ok

I argue with people just as much as I "defend" them. I didn't add to Macho's argument because of who were saying what, but because of what was being said. It goes no deeper than that.

Which are the qualities of a white knight

What you were chastising him for was inaccurate and it was about his argument. Different than some petty insult from rearranging your name.

Ok

On the contrary, you don't get what we are saying, or at the very least what I am saying. As I said before, I never said that it being less extreme means nothing should be done. Something SHOULD be done.

And I never insinuated this point, this is just something you fabricated based on they way you interpreted my response to Macho

But that doesn't mean that leniency can't be exercised. You can't point a crime and say "There's no leniency here" and then point at a lesser crime and say "So there should be no leniency here."

Never said it couldn't

This is especially true because the differences of extremities is already in practice by the legal system. The fact that murder and manslaughter carry different sentences, the fact that stealing Cheetos and rape carry different punishments, the fact that battery and public drunken disorderly conduct carry different punishments is undeniable proof that when two situations differ in extremity, comparative leniency exists between them

Still telling me stuff I already know

Your point also fails on another level. You say that thieves don't receive leniency, but that's not entirely true. First time offenders DO get slaps on the wrists and just return the items from time to time

Already answered this and told I knew a first timer who went to jail and another who got probation. But my main premise was thievery and Macho didn't answer it. I never said they didn't and you (as always) jumped to the conclusion that me asking my first question to macho was me saying so. As you can see, Macho has still failed to answer my question

especially if it's petty theft, like your chips example. So, the analogy doesn't even work, since it's an example that shows the opposite of what you're saying actually does happen.

I said it was sarcasm, learn how to read

Once you drop the notion that we're saying "Do nothing," you'll start to understand what's being said to you

Except I already do

Does nothing to disprove what I said.

What is the punishment for being in the country illegally?

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

wooooow you are selfish.

Do you think Steven Hawking's intelligence makes him better than your average joe? I know it sounds harsh, but some people are simply more valuable than others.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Ok



Which are the qualities of a white knight



Ok



And I never insinuated this point, this is just something you fabricated based on they way you interpreted my response to Macho



Never said it couldn't





Still telling me stuff I already know



Already answered this and told I knew a first timer who went to jail and another who got probation. But my main premise was thievery and Macho didn't answer it. I never said they didn't and you (as always) jumped to the conclusion that me asking my first question to macho was me saying so. As you can see, Macho has still failed to answer my question



I said it was sarcasm, learn how to read



Except I already do





What is the punishment for being in the country illegally?

Did you not see my response to your post?

 

[ComplexCity]

Did you not see my response to your post?

So stealing a bag of 25 cent chips is extreme?

Do you think Steven Hawking's intelligence makes him better than your average joe? I know it sounds harsh, but some people are simply more valuable than others.

Which is why the stanford rapist got a reduced sentenced because he deserved it since he goes to stanford :lol

This is also the same mindset slave owners used with slaves. How can you be a liberal and say something like this?