That’s some weaselly circular definition you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.
That’s some weaselly circular definition you’re engaging in there.
Your use of the word “just” implies that having people called “citizens” is inherently and self-evidently better than having people called “inhabitants”; which you’re then plugging into a proof-by-definition to paper over the fact that you haven’t actually made any kind of case for why it’s better.
I thought it was self evident how it was better; an inhabitant is a person living in a place. A citizen is a person living in a place, recognized by said place, who lives under a social contract with said place, giving up certain rights in exchange for receiving other rights.
It’s kind of like a restaurant. Is it an advantage to the restaurant that people can enter and sit down with no intention of doing business with the restaurant? Or is it better that those who enter do so with the understanding that they will abide by the restaurants rules, and order food?
In reality, a foreign patron walks in, makes an order, and then you shoot them in the face.
You guys don’t care if they came here legally. You don’t care if they are refugees who only want to be back home. You don’t care if they are true asylum seekers. You don’t care if they follow every letter of the law.
You yell “don’t take my share!” Buddy, they didn’t take your share. The classes above you are laughing at your gullibility.
Your words are hollow.
How many guys named Abundance are you talking to right now? Are they in the room with us right now?
It’s really and conversational etiquette to make assumptions about what I believe in when you could just ask.
It’s an advantage for the people who get a place to sit and eat.
And an advantage for the people who work in that restaurant if they’re ever tired or out when it starts to rain that that they can rest or shelter in any other restaurants near by.
No… In the analogy they don’t eat. That’s the entire point. They take up space without contributing, that’s the difference between an inhabitant, and a citizen.