Migrant children say they've been forcibly drugged, handcuffed, and abused

[Quetzal]

You're going to have to back up this statement with reliable facts to remain credible, my friend.

Did you read the OP? That is the article this entire discussion is around, bud.

 

[Quetzal]

You're being played.

You're going to have to back up this statement with reliable facts to remain credible, my friend.

 

[suncowiam]

You're going to have to back up this statement with reliable facts to remain credible, my friend.



You're being played.

I'm being played? Because I saw children crying on the media?

It's not the fact that they are actually being separated from their families? Children of all ages BEING SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES?

Read the definition of empathy and read my comment again. You are proving my point that some are lacking empathy here.

Answer this then... Do you think it's fine and healthy for the children to be separated from their parents? Do you think it's morally acceptable to do so because of the crime of illegal immigration?

Be honest.

 

[suncowiam]

The conditions described sound horrible.
Is anyone defending them?
But I wonder if forced medication is to prevent disease.
The article is one sided, & might be accuracy challenged.

Are you defending this or not? I can't understand because you're going back and forth.

 

[England my lionheart]

Migrant children say they've been forcibly drugged, handcuffed, and abused in US government detention

Disgusting, but I am sure the apologists will be around shortly.

I'm in France atm and just had dinner with two Mexican guys, we talked about this earlier and the consensus was that it's discussing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'll believe it when the full details comes out.
Looks like another emotional knee jerk story to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you defending this or not? I can't understand because you're going back and forth.

There is no "back and forth".

Here's the problem with threads like this one....
The OP sets the stage for condemnation of the offenses.
Then it disses defenders before any even arrive.
It seems that one must pick one side or another, with only his side being moral.

To discuss it opens one up to challenges that one sides with evil.
He shut down discussion before any occurred.
I tried.
And as your post demonstrates, it ain't go'n nowhere.

 

[Windwalker]

Most people could care less about the welfare of these children, what they really want is an open border with no arrest of anybody trying to get in illegally.

Oh yes, the Left definitely wants no immigration laws, free flowing heroin in all the schools grades K-12, open sex on the White House lawn, orgies in the churches, as well as in aquariums with tropical fishes. You've nailed it perfectly! What a keen insight! Nothing escapes your imagination.

 

[Quetzal]

The OP sets the stage for condemnation of the offenses.
Then it disses defenders before any even arrive.

Sure did. Because I see the opposing position (that is, being a supporter of the actions described in the article) as evil because they are. I cannot think of a single, solitary reason that the actions presented are defensible.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm in France atm and just had dinner with two Mexican guys, we talked about this earlier and the consensus was that it's discussing.

Disgusting even

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure did. Because I see the opposing position (that is, being a supporter of the actions described in the article) as evil because they are. I cannot think of a single, solitary reason that the actions presented are defensible.

It could be better discussed without the opening salvo.
Then, if you actually find someone defending it, you
could address that.

 

[Quetzal]

It could be better discussed without the opening salvo.
Then, if you actually find someone defending it, you
could address that.

Granted. Good/bad news is I wasn't wrong and they are here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Granted. Good/bad news is I wasn't wrong and they are here.

I missed it.
Which post(s) do you say defends such abuse?

 

[suncowiam]

There is no "back and forth".

Here's the problem with threads like this one....
The OP sets the stage for condemnation of the offenses.
Then it disses defenders before any even arrive.
It seems that one must pick one side or another, with only his side being moral.

To discuss it opens one up to challenges that one sides with evil.
He shut down discussion before any occurred.
I tried.
And as your post demonstrates, it ain't go'n nowhere.

Well, why did you ask if anyone is defending as if to imply no one should.

If you want to defend it, then do so. You don't control other people's perceptions. If I perceive you as evil does that mean I'm right?

Let me start with this... Giving medication to children is right. But we usually do not do so without the presence of legal authority of the parent of guardian. There is a lot of "forcing" going on here and one might speculate its for the good of the children but many would still speculate that overall, it's still worst for these children. When my children needs a shot, my doctor doesn't just hold them down and just force them the shots.

Would you accept this for your own children? Or for children of US citizens? I don't think you would...

There's a human aspect and empathy here that we separate among ourselves as "citizens" and then we force differently on "illegal immigrants."

 

[BSM1]

I'm being played? Because I saw children crying on the media?

It's not the fact that they are actually being separated from their families? Children of all ages BEING SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES?

Read the definition of empathy and read my comment again. You are proving my point that some are lacking empathy here.

Answer this then... Do you think it's fine and healthy for the children to be separated from their parents? Do you think it's morally acceptable to do so because of the crime of illegal immigration?

Be honest.

When you are arrested and/or detained you are separated from your children. And a picture of a crying child proves nothing. You're being played.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, why did you ask if anyone is defending as if to imply no one should.

I implied no such thing.
It's possible that someone could offer a reasonable defense for the policy,
one which would decry specific wrongful aspects, but perhaps find some merit.
But this thread sure discourages that.

If you want to defend it, then do so. You don't control other people's perceptions. If I perceive you as evil does that mean I'm right?

Quite often we see threads wherein one must qualify with moral authority
by reciting some pledge before discussing aspects of an issue.
Examples:
"I believe in a woman's right to choose!"
"Don't blame the victim!"
Even if one clearly believes these things, & one's posting history is consistent,
one cannot examine aspects of the issue without swearing to the oath.
In this one, you require "I do not defend child abuse & family separation!".
I don't do oaths.
If you really need this answer, then you shouldn't trust my saying so.

Let me start. Giving medication to children is right. But we usually do not do so without the presence or legal authority of the parent of guardian. There is a lot of "forcing" going on here and one might speculate its for the good of the children but many would still speculate that overall, it's still worst for these children. When my children needs shot, my doctor doesn't just hold them down and just given them the shots.

Would you accept this for your own children? Or for children of US citizens? I don't think you would...

There's a human aspect and empathy here that we separate among ourselves as "citizens" and then we force differently on "illegal immigrants."

What is usually done is complicated by circumstances, eg, the parents
not being present, illegality of entry, those involved are in custody of
authorities, health concerns differ from the norm.

And are we to accept all the claims in a singular article presented as inerrant reality?
I see the article as raising compelling & disturbing questions.
But open discussion is thwarted by the blind rush to condemnation

 

[suncowiam]

When you are arrested and/or detained you are separated from your children. And a picture of a crying child proves nothing. You're being played.

Because... being an illegal immigrant is the same as any other criminals. Your premise is not agreed on so you can't assume others would follow that same logic.

It's your opinion that should be the case, but I definitely do not agree with it. Illegal immigrants are not the same level of criminals as say a thief, murderer or rapist. Illegal immigrants are wrong, but I wouldn't punish them by separating them from their children.

 

[suncowiam]

I implied no such thing.
It's possible that someone could offer a reasonable defense for the policy,
one which would decry specific wrongful aspects, but perhaps find some merit.
But this thread sure discourages that.

Quite often we see threads wherein one must qualify with moral authority
by reciting some pledge before discussing aspects of an issue.
Examples:
"I believe in a woman's right to choose!"
"Don't blame the victim!"
Even if one clearly believes these things, & one's posting history is consistent,
one cannot examine aspects of the issue without swearing to the oath.
In this one, you require "I do not defend child abuse & family separation!".
I don't do oaths.
If you really need this answer, then you shouldn't trust my saying so.

What is usually done is complicated by circumstances, eg, the parents
not being present, illegality of entry, those involved are in custody of
authorities, health concerns differ from the norm.

And are we to accept all the claims in a singular article presented as inerrant reality?
I see the article as raising compelling & disturbing questions.
But open discussion is thwarted by the blind rush to condemnation

Why are the parents not being present? Who stipulates that illegality of entrance should force this situation?

Again... I made my point clear that most of us wouldn't want our kids to be treated this way but then we allow it to be forced to those with the status of "illegal immigrants."

Would you want this done for your kids? If not then just say you believe it's ok to do so for illegal immigrants.

That's basically the difference between us.

I wouldn't want this done to my kids and I wouldn't want it done to illegal immigrants either.

 

[BSM1]

Because... being an illegal immigrant is the same as any other criminals. Your premise is not agreed on so you can't assume others would follow that same logic.

It's your opinion that should be the case, but I definitely do not agree with it. Illegal immigrants are not the same level of criminals as say thief, murderer or rapist. They're wrong, but I wouldn't separate them from their children.

WTH are you talking about? When you break the law you are arrested. You don't get to take your kids with you to jail. This goes back to my statement that this is a not so subtle cry for an open border and a complete disregard for the law. You don't want to lose your kids? Stay home or come to the US legally. Problem solved.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because... being an illegal immigrant is the same as any other criminals. Your premise is not agreed on so you can't assume others would follow that same logic.

It's your opinion that should be the case, but I definitely do not agree with it. Illegal immigrants are not the same level of criminals as say thief, murderer or rapist. They're wrong, but I wouldn't separate them from their children.

I'd go farther to say that citizens within our country deserve better treatment regarding
family separation. It's not just at the border with illegal entry...authorities treat people
with indifference generally. The whole 'justice' system needs reform for better results.