Slimebeast on 23 May 2010
| The_vagabond7 said: Ok, lets put it this way. Why would I listen to you, slimebeast, in a debate about immigration? If we are debating about something such as immigration then we would be debating whether or not such and such policy would have a net positive or negative effect on our society and societies around us. We would have to define what is a positive and negative effect prior to the debate, and what the goal of immigration should be based on this. If you use some holy book to inform your belief as to whether or not it will have a positive/negative effect and what that positive/negative effect is and I use statistics, and social sciences, why is your opinion on the debate more or less valid than my own? |
No, not like that. Pretend that your argument is that we should accept immigrants because we should protect asylum seekers, while I would say that I don't care about the asylum seekers and I wanna protect my people from strange cultures. It's a debate on morals, a question of what is right and wrong.
Without a plea to universal morals your argument would be weak, i would just shrug off your opinion and say:
--"well, Vagabond is just one of those "Its all relative, so it doesn't matter"-guys, and apparently I have this instinct and inherent moral inside me that makes me not care about foreigners so why on earth should I listen to this guy?"
