Shoresy

America has the same problems Ottawa has. With the current regulations on new construction, only the wealthy can afford to live in the most basic structures, so the incentive is to make only very nice new housing that the rich can afford and are willing to buy.


There will never be enough housing for the poor until Canada returns to the building environment of the 1970's when a contractor didn't have to wade through textbooks of environmental and tribal constraints.

Shoresy

Consent - 21 due to the American cultural destruction of the 2 parent family structure along with zero incentives for American kids to grow up.

Driving - 16 since Parents shoulder the costs of this inevitably.

Drinking - 21

Citizenship - 18 because most cultures immigrating here have 2 parent families and their cultures motivate their youth.

Joining military - 21 with a possible waiver for 18 if the recruit has both parents sign off for him/her.

Voting - 21


Shoresy

The real question is, would women rather be alone in the woods with a man who looks well-built like a bear or with a man who looks like your average American? I think we all know the answer to that, considering many women fantasize about vampires and werewolves.


Edit: WTF...now I can't unsee Frankenstein as some wild soft-porn creation of an 18-year-old girl!

Shoresy
Wow. So... slavery, that's our standard of governance. Great argument.

I said or implied no such thing. I simply meant to say it's happened before in your American history where States revolted against Federal law and Federal enforcement. Whether you are talking about slavery laws or immigration laws, the actions taken by your federal government were predictable and not unprecedented. I believe the first occurrence was your whisky rebellion over taxes if I am not mistaken? Definitely not a first time. And the Federal government never apologizes for such things.

Shoresy

Do you think the quality of America presidents declined after the 19th Amendment? That seems to be the question you are begging. Is that when elections started a slow spiral toward emotionalism over utility?

Shoresy
I did not argue that. I am using the logic of the second amendment advocates to reach the conclusion of their logic and asking them to explain to me how this is not the exact scenario they've been fear mongering about for decades.

My position is that this country is flooded with guns, which is deeply dangerous and harmful to us as a nation. Their position is that that harm is necessary because we must be able to fight back against government tyranny. Well if this isn't tyranny, what is?


This is a good explanation for the rise of left wing terrorism in America. Thank you for explaining this.

Shoresy

I like it too. It's extremely educational, and I sincerely appreciate the time he put into collecting his thoughts.

Shoresy
What's different here from your other examples and is deeply concerning is that this was coordinated, deliberate, and unapologetic.


I don't think your union troops wasted a lot of time apologizing to federal insurrectionists who refused to obey federal laws regarding slavery during and after your civil war.


Leaning is correct, none of your attempted oversimplifications here are unprecedented.

Shoresy

Of course, sanctuary cities will condemn deportation, legal or less than legal. That's probably the only simple thing about this discussion.

Shoresy
The witness was talking explicitly about the federal agents stating "they was clearly laughing, one of them was standing right here, he said fuck them kids". Her account was clear.


That wouldn't pass a court muster on multiple levels...a dark night...covered mouths....loud voices coming from everywhere....


But a chronic oversimplifier should not find those things much of an obstacle, I would assume.

Shoresy
Oversimplification helps by making complex information accessible and easier to understand for a broad audience, but it hinders problem-solving and deep understanding by losing essential details, distorting reality, and leading to incomplete or faulty conclusions. While simplification can serve a purpose in initial comprehension, oversimplification becomes harmful when it creates misunderstandings, promotes poor decision-making, and fails to acknowledge the true complexity and nuance of issues. 

Thanks Debbyart

Shoresy
That makes absolutely no sense


To someone obsessed with oversimplifying everything, of course it makes no sense. Witnesses heard something and assumed an ICE officer said that. It is far more likely one of the child traffickers got pissed off and said that, as the motive would fit such a person. That would make sense. Ears are not the same as eyes unless you oversimplify everything. That's assuming someone who hated ICE didn't just make shifty things up anyway just to get on the news. Cause that never happens in America....

Shoresy

Americans do crazy things like build working cities in a desert. They don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon especially when people all over the world want to break laws to get to those functional cities in the desert.

Shoresy
This is just stupid. The "fuck them kids" line came from an eyewitness on the ground at the time of the raid. If you're going to just dismiss that out of hand with no evidence or reason to think it's made up no wonder you believe the stupid things you do.


I'm not doubting that might have been overheard, it's just far more likely the person saying that was a child trafficker, not a child rescuer.


Oversimplification seems to be the hammer you’re swinging at every nail on this site, hmm? Your curiosity seems kind of boxed in, what made you stop looking past the surface of most things?

Shoresy

All 3 of those posts were oversimplifications. No wonder you don't have any real solutions for anything.


As one ICE officer put it when one of the residents complained about what they were doing to the kids..."fuck them kids".


Dude, yet more tinfoil. None of that hyperbole is going to manipulate normal people. It's far more likely that one of the child sex traffickers said that than someone rescuing them.

Shoresy

See the bank example.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Exactly, nowhere are people protected from all searches. Your courts have always allowed things like the bank example under the “exigent circumstances” and “protective sweep” doctrines..

This is really basic stuff...

Ah, there it is. The good old standby for weak debaters: oversimplification. I’d appreciate it if we could avoid the usual “common sense” tropey bit about how everything’s so simple and hunky dorey. Life’s a little more complicated than that, don’t you think?