killerbeer0

I said it may be unethical to not pay them well for doing dangerous and hard jobs, but they wouldn't be of much benefit if they got full wages. Nice try twisting my words to try and make me look unpatriotic, you fail though, if you read it you'd understand the point correctly.

North East states you [wagon], I'm in California and where I live the population is 80% minority and a large percentage are migrant or illegal.

I'd say Owned... or Epic Fail. OR wait! Facepalm!

viewtopic.php?f=151&t=784845

If there is no good reasoning behind it then it does not make it right. The example I'm thinking of is widely viewed as immoral and the reasoning behind that view is good, but the information the reasoning is based on is false.

It would be rare to have a family that knowing you will commit suicide not try to stop you. Isn't that some sort of crime or something? A well written suicide note would probably be better. It explains to the family why you did it ( if written well enough) and the family can't stop you after they have read it. I think he's talking about terminal illness or extreme disability related suicide.

I'll put the speech up... Can't for the life of me find the paper. #-o [hide=I'm right you know...]Illegal immigration is a heated issue that is quite often brought up in political debates, along with other topics such as abortion. Many people believe that illegal immigrants cause nothing but problems and should be completely barred from entering the United States; however, these people are generally not aware of both the enormous cost required to completely seal the borders and the economic benefit gained through illegal (and therefore very cheap) labor. Illegal immigrants are very important in the USs economic system: they provide a very cheap labor force as they are willing to work for far below minimum wage and (being illegal) cannot demand minimum wage. This labor force, being extremely cost effective, enables many industries essential to the economic stability of the United States to operate at a profit. For example, many labor intensive crops would not be grown without large numbers of people willing to work for wages low enough to allow a farmer to make a profit growing labor intensive crops such as tomatoes or strawberries. It is also worth mentioning that even if these crops could be produced at a profit while paying the laborers minimum wage very few American citizens would be willing to do the work. Completely preventing illegal immigration would be extremely costly for the United States in both direct and indirect ways. Directly it would cost billions of taxpayer dollars to fully fence the borders and employ other preventative measures, and indirectly it would cost the United States billions in economic decline resulting from the loss of a multitude of low-level unskilled laborers. If the money was spent to fully seal the borders it would still not bar all illegal immigration as some illegal immigrants enter the country legally by way of a temporary tourist visa and simply do not leave after the visa expires, this would then result in an ongoing expense on tracking down and deporting these illegals. So sealing the borders would do nothing but hurt the United States and increase the national debt. However, it would also be a bad idea to sufficiently relax immigration laws and allow illegal immigrants to immigrate legally. Why? The answer is quite simple: if the illegal immigrants were, in fact, not illegal they would be able to demand minimum wage. Essentially, this would have the same effect (albeit without the direct monetary costs) as completely sealing the borders. Both solutions would have the same adverse effect of eliminating the cheap labor pool created by illegal immigrants and therefore significantly decreasing the economy. So the best solution to the illegal immigration problem is to change very little. But there is an ethical debate about exploiting illegal immigrants as cheap labor. They are often forced to work long hours for less than half of minimum wage and sometimes in dangerous conditions. Many people believe that this exploitation is morally wrong and support a policy change (whether they support complete border sealing or relaxed immigration laws varies by the individual). But despite the moral conundrum and the widespread public misbelief that illegal immigrants are detrimental to society and are simply here to take their jobs, when in actuality the illegal immigrants are doing the jobs that the average American citizen would not want to do. So, in conclusion, and illegal immigration is beneficial to the United States economy. Most solutions to the problem of illegal immigration would be damaging to the US economy, and in some ways it can be seen as not being a problem. Despite the moral questions of exploiting cheap illegal labor it would be unwise to change anything as the United States has become dependent on illegal immigration to provide a cheap workforce and the loss of this cheap source of labor would be extremely harmful.[/hide]

But does popular support also mean it's right?

Food poisoning from what you describe... Cleared out and you're fine now?

Interesting possibility. Could be an opportunity to put a huge quest in.

Who is going to do all the crappy but important jobs other people won't do? And if they're illegal they can be paid under minimum wage, which allows important but not highly profitable industries to continue to function. Well, all of those unemployed people will now have a better opportunity to work, if unemployed Americans choose to not take under minimum wage (because of laws or because of their own personal greed) then screw them. No welfare or unemployment checks if you're not gonna make an effort to at least try. PEOPLE WILL WORK these jobs, and they will do it for just as cheap if we get rid of illegals, illegals will go lower and lower. Get rid of the competition. deporting the illegals will also help stop the rapes and murders other people won't do. 8-) I wrote a speech and 8 page research paper on the importance of illegal immigrants. Temped to install Word so I can irrefutably prove you wrong.

To answer your question: So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals? Yes, to a degree, depends on the issue, but most... Just pulling out a totally random example here... What is your opinion of the "moral" limiting of unconventional sexual practices/desires?

Who is going to do all the crappy but important jobs other people won't do? And if they're illegal they can be paid under minimum wage, which allows important but not highly profitable industries to continue to function.

That's what the US tried to do in the 1700's, it just doesn't work. Example? I mean, there'd be rules to prevent total anarchy, like no killing and etc.

I'd simply make it possible for people to pursue their desires without unjust interference. If it doesn't hurt anybody then it's fine with me. EDIT: Free beer too.

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities. Such as...? P.S. Morals are not the same as laws. Morals are something YOU define for yourself. Enjoy it now before we get to the age where Lenin decides our beliefs for us. I know morals aren't the same as laws, but many laws (you could make an argument for all) are based on morals, and many of those laws restrict private activities that cause no harm but are still made illegal because it's "wrong". An example is Georgia's Consensual Sodomy law (not sure if it still is in effect though).

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities.

Well where exactly do you draw that line? Whenever a moral infringes upon the freedom of another individual rather than preventing the infringement of the freedom of an individual.

No. Morals are often wrong and laws based on them often have no benefit to society. Of course they should be put into law, just the most basic ones. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal are the two main ones, along with several other non-religious ones. And IMO, stem cell research saves many lives, at the loss of people that weren't going to be born anyway, so really it's win-win. And killerbeer, what the HELL makes you think morals are wrong. Lets take this for example. You see a car that you REALLY want, but someone else needs to get around, but you want it for no other reason than that it looks cool. You know that if you take it when he;s not looking, you WILL NOT be caught. Do you take the car? If you answered no, then you DO have morals. If you answered yes, then you're a selfish bastard. I said morals are often not always wrong.

No. Morals are often wrong and laws based on them often have no benefit to society.

Medically speaking, homosexuality, zoophilia and even pedophilia are all characterized by an individual's exclusive or preferential sexual attractions rather than the actions they may take to meet these desires. I'm not speaking from a medical standpoint, I'm getting at the fact that homosexuality and zoosexuality all involve consent in practice. Paedophilia by nature can't have true consent due to the lack of development of one participating party. EDIT: ...aaaand there is no [bleep]ing way I want to be categorized with paedos in any way other than the fact that both are abnormal.

Don't lump those two together... One involves an act that involves taking advantage of innocents who aren't sexually mature and therefore can't provide sound consent. Zoophilia involves two consenting, secually developed adults (albeit not the same species) and when consent is not involved it is treated in the community much the same as rape.' EDIT: you're welcome to start the topic though, barring paedophilia.

I don't remember all the posts directed at me... I don't remember more than a couple references honestly.

I saw your thread where you said "he says 'anthro' a lot and it doesn't affect me" or something, and I thought, 'I'm proud to think I played a role in this acclimation to jokes". Anthro wouldn't affect me since it doesn't pertain to anything I hold significant interest in. Not sure what you mean but I'm sure you helped in your own odd way.

Protip about Lenin: He'll make any joke to anyone, if you don't like it, and you see him chargin' his joke laz0rz, get the hell out of the way. Nah, I know how he is, and I don't give a damn if he jokes about it. I posted it here and haven't been flamed as I thought I would, so a little suggestive joke isn't too bad.