By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 04 August 2010
Edit Thread
WilliamWatts said:
Kasz216 said:
WilliamWatts said:
Kasz216 said:
WilliamWatts said:
Kasz216 said:
WilliamWatts said:


Murder isn't relevant.

Sure it is.  You're arguement is people can argue it's ok because it predates international law.   So does murder. 

You can't argue either is justifiable... period.

Murder doesn't relate to this topic, the historical movement of people does.

Except for the fact that your point has been completely disproven by the mention of it.

So... very relevent.

Your just being stubborn because you've been proven wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Fallacy.

The historical movement of people throughout time is related to the argument at hand. The murder of people does not, unless the illegal migrants kill border guards as their means of entry into the country.

 


Or... you know... truth.

I've proven that you can't justify the historical movement of people through time, because the same justification could be used for the murder of people.

You are using an invalid justification.

Chalk vs cheese.

Theres no link between murder and the movement of people throughout time. Just because both have happened throughout history doesn't mean anything. People have built buildings throughout time, but that doesn't have anything to do with murder or the migration of people.

People have always migrated from areas where they have low welfare to areas where they believe they will have higher welfare. Thats how humanity spread around the globe and crossed Oceans to Australia, the Americas etc. Until recently there has never been a moral argument against people migrating to different areas whereas there has always been a moral judgement placed upon those who kill others, especially if they are part of the same group.

It's exactly the same.  You are trying to use the simple justification that "It's always happened therefore it's ok."

Amd are you sure there was always a moral judement about murder?

If you think so... I have another example.

Up until recently it was seen as completely moral and wasn't against the law to rape your own wife.

If she didn't want to have sex, and you did.  Tough for her!   So then, by your standards, the husband has an arguement based on the fact that the law and thoughts of morality are a modern device, eh?

Or Slavery for that matter.   Used to be consdiered moral by all before their were laws calling it illegal and attitudes calling it immoral.

So... you're wrong.  Also, how do you know these things WEREN'T considered immorral or wrong then?  Afterall moving to Rome DID NOT make you a Roman Citizen...and furthermore when things went wrong... guess who they went after first?