Not even an attempt at an answer

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Massacres are better because they're easier? That's your argument?

---

To be fair, I think he said efficient, not easy. Either way, this board often makes me feel like I'm in bizzarro world. This thread is a good example of one of those times.

---

We're all there Kurt. It's 40,000 people. Or millions in the case of the US. It overwhelms the systems that exist, and would for any that have ever existed. This is larger than many American cities, and is larger than armies in the past. There is no way to 'humanely' manage that many people and your altruism is being taken advantage of.

I asked for your suggestion but you didn't respond. What 'humane' level of resistance is not only sympathetic but achievable, short of violence to stop it and force them into normal migration channels? And what if there's no intention to permit them to stay? What if a country doesn't want that many migrants? It's not morally wrong to say no.

Even "civilians" migrating "peacefully" through land is seen as a strategic threat and a potential act of war throughout history.

Great example are the Helvetii who kicked off Caesar's campaigns in Gaul (Caesar, Gallic War 1.2-1.5, 71.8) or the Edomites denying passage of the Israelites (Numbers 20:17-21).

Also, relevant:

"Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen." George Savile

Prevailing opinion here seems to be that we should tolerate horses being stolen, and inquire deeply as to the armed status and intent of the horse thief to debate the morality of hanging.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Free societies always accept some risk to preserve justice, proportionality, and protection for innocents. In other words, I'd rather live in a society with some drugs than one that executes anyone it suspects of dealing drugs.

---

Suspects is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. From what I have seen the societies that seem the freest are the ones that have "draconian" penalties for certain types of crimes that greatly impact the social order. It's not because the society themselves are blood thirsty, but to convey the severity of what the person is risking.

---

Free in what sense? Free in the sense that a society has low crime? Or free in the sense that a society has a higher level of civil liberties, individual rights, and protection from government power? What society should we be modeling after?

'Draconian' is defined as severe or cruel and is named for a person who advocated the death penalty for even minor crimes like stealing food. The laws caused huge resentment and were eventually repealed and made more proportionate.

Now, I don't think you are advocating for a government that brings extreme violence to control citizens through terror and fear. And you should not take my position as one of advocating for a government that is unwilling or unable to enforce its laws.

---

The one that has low crime. You can do amazing things in a society that has eliminated theft, drug use, and public debauchery, a level of freedom not seen in almost any of our cities in the west; at the low low cost of harsh penalties for crimes and effective enforcement of law.

---

That's not a free society that values human life. That's a dictatorship that you personally benefit from.

---

It's a dictatorship that literally everyone except for the bad guys benefit from.

You're not a bad guy are you Sapper?

---

What country is your example of a dictatorship that benefits all the good guys and the government with absolute authority doesn't abuse that power? Aren't conservatives supposed to be in favor of small government?

---

No conservatives aren't supposed to be in favor of small government. That's a lie the left sold so actual conservatives wouldn't use the force of the state to crush leftism. Naturally conservative societies that self police are the only bodies that can handle limited government, but thats not the same thing. The government outlawing gay marriage, abortion, drug use, etc etc are all totally conservative positions.

I'll always hold up Singapore and the UAE as the best examples of authoritarian government done right.

---

We get it, you're an authoritarian. Freedom is slavery, right?

---

Tell me you don't understand 1984 without saying you don't understand 1984.

---

What exactly prevents any authoritarian government from crushing what little liberty they do allow? If you premise your perfect government on a personal or nebulous concept of "virtue," where exactly is the line? You know Orwell was a socialist, right? Borderline anarchist. His problem was with authoritarianism at large and the works of his the right has glommed on to were warnings for the left. He didn't see the right wing authoritarians as somehow better or more moral.

---

You know Orwell was a socialist criticizing socialists, right? And if he was here now, he'd be looking at your party saying, "that's what I was worried about." The calls are coming from inside the house and you can't be bothered to pick up.

Put down your marker: what should Spain do? No more questioning others. Lay out your plan.

---

Despite your fervent wish, he'd be ashamed at how moderate and milquetoast the Democratic Party and even Democratic Socialists are. I suggest you read Orwell rather than your fantasies about him.

I'm not someone claiming you can't have a border or enforce it. But as with everything, it isn't the idea of a border but the implementation where I have concerns about the popular, "Kill them all and let God sort them out," turn on this board. Spain should reinforce the border and arrest anyone who crossed recently. If they have asylum requests then those requests should be processed and those people can either be held or released with regular check ins. You know, an actual immigration system rather than killing people who have shown no violence.

---

How do you arrest 40,000 people?

---

Massacres are better because they're easier? That's your argument?

---

You said they should enforce the border and arrest anyone who crossed recently. How do they do that in this case, when the entire thing is orchestrated to overwhelm the security infrastructure with numbers?

how do you humanely hang a horse thief?

I think if you hang horse thieves, you have fewer horses stolen.

If you have armed border guards, who react with force as necessary, you will have fewer border incursions.

On the other hand, if you do not hang horse thieves, and find that you now have a massive problem of horse theft, you will have to do a great deal of violence and hangings to curb the spread of crime.

Likewise, if you do not exert control of your border when few cross, when 40,000 do, you will be faced with poor options.

The problem is, people like you cry foul at every attempt to enforce order, and then cry twice as hard when things turn ugly. Let's be honest here - this event wasn't ugly, but it is more likely to produce ugliness than prevent it, on account of the weakness of the men in charge.

Arrest them but don't use violence. Fix their home countries, why not fix our own? Why don't they work to improve their own land? Give them food if that's what you want to do, go to their country and give them your food and money. Don't take from me for your virtueless charity. And don't advocate for criminal activity, theft, and looting, and call it mercy.

Protecting the innocent is not selfish.

And you advocating for other people to have their homes overrun is not generosity.

"The more yielding you show yourselves, the more relentlessly will they press upon you." -Livy

PabloSerna said:

---

Wow all that from me saying shooting illegal immigrants is evil.

You may want to read what I wrote again as I am completely in favor of regulating our borders. What that looks like and how we do that with human dignity in mind is where we differ.

---

You ignore the dignity of those the immigrants impose upon, or at the least tilt the scales against them. Why? What virtue or goodness is there in that?

Your quote is not relevant to this point. Feed the hungry, clothe the poor, help the sick. That is not opposed to pursue justice, protect the innocent, defend your family and countrymen.

You would do well to learn the teaching one of your doctors about ordo caritatis.

These men have no right to the labor of the people of Ceuta, no right to invade their town and demand to be fed and clothed and housed.

We're talking about a specific event. You're talking about starving children. Go watch the video, find the women and children in that crowd. Absurd.

I forgot how stupid it was trying to have an honest conversation with you. What a non sequitur.

PabloSerna said:

---

Sorry you feel that way. We come from different spiritual walks, I don't feel like any time spent going through this is wasted. It's two sides of the same coin.

---

I think he just means you're waxing quixotic to avoid very specific questions being asked.

PabloSerna said:

---

Which specific question?

1. Humane way to deal with surge of immigrants? Answered by stating clearly that it should be done with the dignity of the person in mind. That Spain should work with the county of origin to return persons that came through illegally. Surprise- Spain has done just that returning tens of thousands back to Morocco.

2. Should a horse thief be hung for stealing horses? Answered that while it may have been the case in the 19th century, it is not the case in 2026. Saw this as a structure to base violence against illegal immigration and split out the issues as I saw it (stealing, common good, dignity of man). Went from there to posit that a wealthy nation like Spain or the United States has a moral obligation to share the blessings God has bestowed. Didn't say how that would work, but that we should try to understand what was driving the surge of immigrants.

3. Whether shooting illegal immigrants was the best means to deter? Answered that this was a classic case of doing evil in hope of achieving a good.

Maybe the wall of words are a challenge to sift through? I will admit that I live in a very detailed world, down to nailing patterns and carpet pile height. So pardon me if I miss the occasional forest and tree.

---

so what about the Cutea resident that was stabbed by an "immigrant" they are just sool because shooting cant be an option?

All of us are espousing the same Right Words that we are all Reasonable People, and as such we oppose gratuitous violence.

You framing this as a dichotomy between… honestly I'm not sure what beyond "that which I oppose" and "Christian ideals as I understand them" is weird.

There is nothing unchristian about violence. There is a whole philosophical and moral edifice around the use of violence, when it is righteous and when it is not, when it is upholding justice and when it is not. This isn't ends justifies means or utilitarianism, we're not saying "it's unacceptable to kill this person unless it accomplishes some broader end." At least I'm not.

I'm saying, the state has an obligation to protect its people, and that may involve killing. In this case, abdicating that not only is in itself an abdication of responsibility - which is an inherent injustice - but it will also lead to worse outcomes.

But for some reason, again, people offer no solutions. What should be done here Kurt? Honestly I think this is the third time you've been asked. If you don't know, and can't be bothered to form an opinion, why do you keep tut tutting others? Again. We're all Reasonable People.

Just another reason you use any means possible to keeps these hordes from crossing the border.

A rape crisis has been declared in Ceuta after over 70,000 migrants descended on the city just 2 weeks ago

A little girl, only 10 years old is one of the victims

Horrifying pic.twitter.com/S6h9WguWvM

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) August 24, 2026

For reference, in 2024 (last year I could find data) 5 rapes and 42 total sexual assaults occurred.

Is it ok if we shoot the 3 guys trying to rape the 10 year old girl? Or do we need to dialogue with them about their reasons for wanting to rape her?

PabloSerna said:

---

Well that's not unlike saying abortion is evil, when you are a man and have the means to handle a crisis pregnancy.

Abortion is evil and not because of me, but precisely because it goes against the will of God who is the author of life.

Shooting people randomly (not in self defense) is evil and not because of how I feel about it, but because the dignity of human life that God created demands it.

If you say you are a Christian and cannot understand this most fundamental tenant of Christ's teaching - that's on you.

---

I've highlighted the lie, the thing you ignored in my post because signaling virtue is easier than living it out. The nation doesn't have the means to accept all these immigrants and care for them. It can't even care for its own citizens and pre-existing migrants; that's the whole point!

PabloSerna said:

---

Are you really saying that there are no means and that random killing is justified? I don't think you are, but it sure sounds like it.

Again, you cannot do an evil to achieve good. Start with that as a nonnegotiable and then work backwards.

ETA: just stop with "virtue signaling" because you think it means something. We are talking about life and death. That means everything.

---

You're taking us in circles. The humane, less violent solution of borders has failed. That many migrants risks collapsing a state, which is a far greater catastrophe than the threat of death to keep them out. The point is not to murder them all, but disincentivize chaos and anarchy which comes with the invasion.

I'm not engaging with your false dichotomy of doing evil to achieve good when you don't recognize the impact of your proposals and the burdens and risks that come with mass migration. You can't even be bothered to engage with the point that you're stepping over your literal neighbors to extend a hand to someone thousands of miles away. It is virtue signaling because you don't live in Spain, you have no skin in the game, no downside risk.

Assuming this is true, it looks like they've had enough....

🇪🇸 Les habitants de Ceuta détruisent le camp des clandestins marocains. pic.twitter.com/HNv75NWSaI

— Damien Rieu (@DamienRieu) August 27, 2026

Quote:

---

The inhabitants of Ceuta destroy the camp of Moroccan undocumented migrants.

---

This thread reminded me of the lesson of "lifeboat ethics" we had in medical school during an emergency room rotation. The scenario is this, there had been a mass causality event and the waiting room in full of patients that need aid. It is a utopian fantasy that you are going to help everyone. People are going to die in the waiting room because there are finite resources of supplies and staff. You are going to have to decide who lives and who is going to be left to die. There is no escaping that reality. Are you more morally responsible making the choice to spread out resources too thin resulting in more death or concentrating your resources on those you know you can save?

Therein lies the Hardin-Singer debate:



I posted the video for reference only. I completely disagree with some of presumptions the presenter makes, i.e. poor countries are poor because of "colonialism" and "climate change", but I don't want to derail the thread.

Christians have a personal responsibility to help those in need but we shouldn't conflate that to what a governments responsibility is. The generosity, or lack thereof, the federal government plays no role in my salvation. Me advocating for increase generosity from the government only gains if me the social capital of virtue signaling. Rather, it is the individual sacrifices and actions that I make that is pleasing to God.

In the case of Morocco and Spain, it is the responsibility of said governments to support and protect their own. Everyone has been clamoring about what the Spanish government and what Christians should do. However, I hear nothing but crickets about the responsibility of the Moroccan government or the Islamic institutions in for caring for their own. What was their role in this very much manufactured crisis?

Don't tell me Morocco is poor. They have spent billions in the past decade developing soccer clubs and stadiums in anticipation of the 2030 World Cup and that spending will increase as the date nears. Why is it that only "white" nations and Christians have to assume the moral responsibility for societies that misallocate their resources.

Don't tell me Spain is a Colonizer in Ceuta. The Muslims invaded from that location and conquered most of Spain. They ruled over it with an iron boot for centuries enslaving and executing Christians who would not bend the knee. Ceuta is a response and a reminder of that history. North Africa isn't poor because anything Europe did or didn't do. They are poor because they have never evolved past tribal culture and politics resulting in unstable economic structures marred by corruption.