tadmjones

I have to follow in your footsteps. When we built our house I was excited about designing and laying a brick/paver walkway from where the driveway pavement gave way to the front porch 'apron'. I formed the sections and laid under material and tamped the crap out of it , but the job I did only had a two decade 'halflife',lol. I doubt I'll redo it in brick, just have to figure the elevation change/slope to see how many sections I'll need to pour of cement.

The all cause excess morality in the western world is running around 10% higher than the five year average for the last two years. No death ticker on CNN, FOX, or MSNBC .

Can you saute a carburetor? No, because although it is possible to place a carburetor in a relatively small amount of fat and expose it to heat a carburetor is not a food item and to saute is conceptually a food preparation. At this point in the discussion I think a line between morality and legality has been established to show they are distinct concepts and an epistemological error akin to even attempting an answer to the question of sauteing a carburetor is at play. ps, lol I didn't really answer the question , but I did, my drift will either be gotten or sue me

Excess death statistics up , no real mention in the mainstream/corporate media content , weird https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn0KQfI3dds

Citizens of a welfare state have their wealth taxed before they receive benefits also, the line of reasoning I was using here was that in a welfare state unlimited immigration is fiscally untenable and politically unpalatable.

If point B is my living room , would they be using force to walk into my house through an unlocked front door and sit on my couch? I don’t see them walk down my driveway so I haven’t be able to explain to this stranger that I don’t want them in my house , have they initiated force by simply entering a dwelling without permission?

Yes it would be moral for a jurisdiction to implement entry strictures to non citizens and enforce them. Why would it not be ?

I agree that laws are one thing and morality another, which is a point I was trying to discuss with DM.

True , but now you are talking about the difference between rights/moral violations and administrative laws. Resident, non-resident are descriptions of individuals and their relation to a jurisdiction. Aside from honor killings , I think murder is a crime in all jurisdictions. And non residents are not afforded the right to murder by claiming to not 'fall under this or that jurisdiction' by virtue of not 'belonging' to it.

I do not think the concept of a nation state is immoral. I recognize that there are many pragmatic and concrete reasons for it to be morally appropriate for geographic and jurisdictional boundaries to be instituted.

My question was a response or rather lack of a response to the distinction between a moral action and a legal one. How can a government infringe on noncitizen legal rights by defining strictures and requirements for entry? The idea or remedy for such an infringement presupposes a morality based entity ‘higher’ than the country’s sovereignty over ‘itself’ and its laws. If this is the argument then I assume morality supersedes legal institutions, ipso facto , nation states are a priori immoral, no ?

In a two man race the more is the most, but yeah my bad. Biden got the most popular votes ever. Biden , by vote count was more popular, than Obama.

Biden had the most votes ever, Trump had the second most votes ever, Biden was the more popular choice.

That's the Code Pink standard, colloquially, yes ?

I've decided to be convinced that Biden and Harris are/were the most popular public choice for their respective offices, all the rational people say that.