Jump to content
BANGKOK 20 February 2019 11:50

VincentRJ

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

417 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Then please provide the links to the specific posts that have discussed the ethics. I seem to have missed them.
  2. I have. 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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. VincentRJ

    Karma

    Oooh! So very Buddhist of you.
  5. VincentRJ

    Karma

    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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?'
  8. 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.
  9. VincentRJ

    Karma

    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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...