The debate "Are we a feminized nation to not only condone but even be welcoming to mass 3rd world immigration" was started by
April 2, 2016, 6:15 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Maximus posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Skeptical_Hedonist posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
ProudAmerican888, cancer_wins and 5 visitors agree.
RyanWakefield, Skeptical_Hedonist, LeviRay and 1 visitor disagree.
That means abiding by American laws and core values, not pushing their opposite rule of law and trying to make people conform here. Someone made a comment about saving one life with stricter gun laws here. I think the same ideals should be in play for things threats that are just as/if not more real.
I understand that but when you look at Europe, things are not going nicely. Even closer, Dearborne Michigan. These people are not able to be vetted properly, thats been admitted. They don't assimilate. Anyone who wants to come here and is checked properly and thoroughly and wants to be an American(which means to assimilate or don't think about coming here) I have no problem with.
no one is saying that we should accept people without background checks. but rejecting everyone based on the actions of a small minority only makes your enemies multiply. when you tell them that they are all your enemies then they will all be your enemies. bringing in people is a small risk. making a billion people your enemy is a big risk.
Right, but i'm sure they didn't say or mean to throw caution to the wind and avoid the writing on the wall of threats. Let me ask you something in all seriousness bro. How are you willing to fight tooth and nail with anyone here that disagrees with you but you want so badly for danger to be here without second guessing?
At what point were we not welcoming of the masses?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
my point is the third comment
Your point seems to be that having too many attributes associated with a "care giver" or "mother" must ultimately lead to a decrease in one's overall awareness culminating in a vulnerable atmosphere. If the instinctual drive to protect can be agreed upon as a generally accepted attribute associated with a maternal personality then you can use the same argument to prove the opposite point in terms of national security
Because words are the tools required to communicate effectively. One must be careful which words to use when attempting to convey an idea or opinion. Eloquence is important when conveying a message since information is passed cognitively on an individual basis, and not immediately understood as a general idea. One must gage their audience if their intention truly is to create a productive conversation.
feminized is another word that people look for and jump on immediately i noticed. Why are people so fidgety about words?
don't buy to far into that. My point was have we became too compassionate(as a female or mother, care giver) and letting out guard down; untimately putting us in danger.
Are you equating femininity with a willingness to become vulnerable to outside influences? If so, I think you could have chosen a more relevant word than "feminized" to portray your point. This type of pseudo-chauvinistic generalization is only going to serve to limit your demographic in terms of effective communication.
basically what i mean is: "have we lost our balls"?
have we become so welcoming to every cause that we are even willing to not only accept but even fight for people to come here(who very well could mean us harm)who are showing daily throughout the world that doing so poses a huge risk because we can not properly vet them?
this doesn't make sense. what does feminized have to do with it? immigration is a corner stone of all Western countries.