04-23-2017, 08:24 PM
Re pog’s criticism of other commentators twisting words. (mid p. 3)
Well this is an interesting digression. Most of us are guilty of some rhetorical excess. My contribution on this topic started with an exaggerated rant on immigration. I think we can agree that exaggerations, irrelevancies, presenting opinions as facts, etc. are part of the game (and a thoughtful responder will catch you at it).
Problematic are (deliberate) misrepresentation, personal attacks and ganging up. Seems to be quite a bit of the latter, with some commentators not even advancing ideas but just spouting insults against the outnumbered person. Particularly noticeable on topics like the Mauna Kea telescope.
Continuing exchange with PaulW
My comment: "The dialog...involves a large, vocal group of open border people" Paul: Really? (The group) shouldn't be difficult to identify. Names, please. Hardly anyone is in favor of totally "open borders", as far as I know.
Attached is an article that effectively makes the case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02...37722.html
Also google “Catholic groups oppose Trump’s wall.” The wall is a central focus; many opponents argue that an enforced border infringes on the dignity and rights of border crossers. A ridiculous view, IMO.
Immigration and tourism are...different matters. You think "local" people would be better off with less of both? No, I believe tourism benefits everyone. But eventually we ought to discuss a limit. 7-8 million visitors a year and rich mainlanders moving here (e.g., Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s 700 acre purchase) mean higher rents, more homelessness. Further foreign immigration to Hawaii is undesirable.
(Why are you) curious to the opinions of...Hawaii society based solely on race. Does their opinion count more? People be treated as people, regardless of what their DNA is.
I appreciate that logical sentiment. But IMO native Hawaiians ought to get the benefit of American Indian tribes: reservations with tribal sovereignty.
I will get on controversial ground: IMO people with a native heritage (Hawaiian, American Indian) are consistently outcompeted by Caucasians (my race), Asians and others. We are much more acquisitive, IMO. Historically native cultures favored reciprocity, communal land use, sustainable use of resources, etc. It seems that such values, as they still exist today, don’t do well with capitalism. There is a link with native Hawaiians’ lower economic standing.
A tribal entity would give native Hawaiians a proportionately greater voice. Issues might include 1) higher tax rates on foreign investors and super-rich land purchasers like Zuckerberg and 2) foreign immigration to Hawaii.