The “Immoral Wall”

Solver

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 6, 2004
999
2,824
USA
The “Immoral Wall”

Once upon a time a wall guarded a tree full of fruit. One sunny day a small child walked up to the wall and looked at the fruit, and wanted it. The child tried to climb the wall, but could not get over it.
“I want that fruit behind you and you are stopping me,” the child told the wall.
The wall responded, “Go to the gate and ring the bell.”
The child yelled, “I want that fruit! You are an immoral wall stopping me from getting it!”
The wall sighed, “I can do nothing about it. I’m just a wall. Go to the gate and ring the bell.”
But the child angrily kicked the wall, and hurt their foot.
The child cried, “Ouch! Look what you made me do! I’m going to tell everyone I know that all you walls are immoral!”
The wall watched sadly while the child ran away awkwardly toward a nearby house. The child wailed, “Mommy! Mommy! That immoral wall over there won’t give me what I want!”
Pelosi stepped outside of the house to find out what the ruckus was about.
 
Last edited:

arkitect

macrumors 603
Sep 5, 2005
5,910
5,462
Bath, United Kingdom
Why is the child petulant? It would be far more realistic if the child were hungry. If the child were running away from an abusive parent… Or perhaps (Shock!) the child's parents are already inside the wall and they are busy picking the fruit the fruit growers sell.
Then you would be dealing with morality.

We also have to work from the assumption that just ringing the bell opens the gate. Sure. That's the way it works.

Immigrants are not toddlers throwing a temper tantrum in the sweets (candy) aisle in the supermarket.

That is just an astonishingly simplistic way of viewing such a complex issue.
 

BeeGood

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2013
1,801
4,841
Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
That is just an astonishingly simplistic way of viewing such a complex issue.
Well, it necessarily has to be simplistic.

If we don’t bury our heads in the sand and ignore the nuances, we might actually start to see people as humans as opposed to the criminals, rapists, invading hoards, and now, unruly children (I guess?) that they are.

Can’t have any of that business. Gotta keep the blinders on and stay on message.
 

kobalap

macrumors 6502
Nov 30, 2009
349
2,160
A wall is about as immoral as a pebble on the beach. It is just an object. Nothing more.

Now, if I had to pay for that pebble on the beach when Trump clearly said that Mexico would pay for it, then I would have issues.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,066
16,582
The Misty Mountains
A wall is about as immoral as a pebble on the beach. It is just an object. Nothing more.

Now, if I had to pay for that pebble on the beach when Trump clearly said that Mexico would pay for it, then I would have issues.
Um, what is immoral about a 2000 mile border wall, is spending $5B or a Trillion, whatever the final price is, then add in it's upkeep. We have more pressing issues than this wall, and we have to figure out how to stop squandering trillions, and stop falling deeper into debt, that is what becomes immoral, stupid, a the sign we are failing big time as a Nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ledgem

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,533
Texas
Um, what is immoral about a 2000 mile border wall, is spending $5B or a Trillion, whatever the final price is, then add in it's upkeep. We have more pressing issues than this wall, and we have to figure out how to stop squandering trillions, and stop falling deeper into debt, that is what becomes immoral, stupid, a the sign we are failing big time as a Nation.
Ok, let's start with cutting the $160M National Endowment for the Arts which is totally useless.
 

raqball

macrumors 68000
Sep 11, 2016
1,954
8,893
The “Immoral Wall”

Once upon a time a wall guarded a tree full of fruit. One sunny day a small child walked up to the wall and looked at the fruit, and wanted it. The child tried to climb the wall, but could not get over it.
“I want that fruit behind you and you are stopping me,” the child told the wall. The wall responded, “Go to the gate and ring the bell.”
The child yelled, “I want that fruit! You are an immoral wall stopping me from getting it!”
The wall sighed, “I can do nothing about it. I’m just a wall. Go to the gate and ring the bell.”
But the child angrily kicked the wall, and hurt their foot.
The child cried, “Ouch! Look what you made me do! I’m going to tell everyone I know that all you walls are immoral!”
The wall watched sadly while the child ran away awkwardly toward a nearby house. The child wailed, “Mommy! Mommy! That immoral wall over there won’t give me what I want!”
Pelosi stepped outside of the house to find out what the ruckus was about.
You left out the part where Nancy called the Tree a racist and a xenophobe not to mention 'icky apple wanting people'... :eek: ;)
 

kobalap

macrumors 6502
Nov 30, 2009
349
2,160
Um, what is immoral about a 2000 mile border wall, is spending $5B or a Trillion, whatever the final price is, then add in it's upkeep. We have more pressing issues than this wall, and we have to figure out how to stop squandering trillions, and stop falling deeper into debt, that is what becomes immoral, stupid, a the sign we are failing big time as a Nation.
Your problem, like mine, is not the wall. Its the funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,199
USA
Because it's not the role of the American government to interfere with the arts and expressions.
Interfere? Is helping fund artists "interfering"?

Perhaps you don't mean the negative connotation that the word interfering means. But that's how it read.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,533
Texas
Interfere? Is helping fund artists "interfering"?
Yes, it is.
It's just an old way of doing business with arts, finding a patron and "creating art" (which in this case does not even become property of the patron). We live in an age where people can make art in all sorts of ways, and sell it in all sort of ways. Etsy, Ebay, Amazon, etc. You can write a book and publish it yourself. You can even make a movie and sell it. You can create youtube videos and make millions. You can shoot pictures of yourself and make millions on IG.

If you art is good, and if you understand the business as you should, your art will sell. If not, it will not sell.
No need for gov't grants; if you need a gov't grant to make art, something is wrong.
[doublepost=1547136202][/doublepost]
That “living document” has grown quite a bit hasn’t it.
Scary part is that all that is living soon dies.
 

Solver

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 6, 2004
999
2,824
USA
Interfere? Is helping fund artists "interfering"?

Perhaps you don't mean the negative connotation that the word interfering means. But that's how it read.
I have no problem helping people. I have a problem with the government having to hurt people to help people part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tshrimp and jkcerda

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,199
USA
Yes, it is.
It's just an old way of doing business with arts, finding a patron and "creating art" (which in this case does not even become property of the patron). We live in an age where people can make art in all sorts of ways, and sell it in all sort of ways. Etsy, Ebay, Amazon, etc. You can write a book and publish it yourself. You can even make a movie and sell it. You can create youtube videos and make millions. You can shoot pictures of yourself and make millions on IG.

If you art is good, and if you understand the business as you should, your art will sell. If not, it will not sell.
No need for gov't grants; if you need a gov't grant to make art, something is wrong.
[doublepost=1547136202][/doublepost]

Scary part is that all that is living soon dies.
I have no problem helping people. I have a problem with the government having to hurt people to help people part.
I guess some people don't understand what the NEA does and think it's just a handout for poor artists who don't want to earn a paycheck doing something else?

One of the great things the NEA does is help provide cultural education for schools around the country. Because education funding is not where it should be either.

https://www.arts.gov/news/2018/national-endowment-arts-announces-grants-support-arts-and-innovation-across-country

Meanwhile - you have government giving money to the NFL and to stand for the National Anthem

It turns out that from 2011-2014, the Department of Defense spent $5.4 million in contracts with 14 NFL teams for flag ceremonies. The National Guard got in on the action too, and gave $6.7 million to the NFL for the same kind of thing from 2013 to 2015.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/heres-what-should-really-outrage-you-about-the-nfl-the-national-anthem/

Are those budgets on par with each other. No. But if you want to start cutting nickels and dimes - maybe start there. No reason why taxpayers should be paying for forced patriotism.