6 ms·

The Great Wall of China would be a better example. It's even twice as long as the fence that would be needed to cover the US-Mexico border. As effective as your

The Great Wall of China would be a better example. It's even twice as long as the fence that would be needed to cover the US-Mexico border. As effective as your idea is for trying to kill or maim people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves would be, I think it would run afoul of human rights issues.

hugh3 16y ago
people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves I'm not sure how the fact that they're attempting to provide a better life for themselves is supposed to be an excuse. Bank robbers are also attempting to provide a better life for themselves, too.
- rationalbeaver 16y ago
  There is a difference between stealing money to fuel your greed and stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving. Or speeding for the thrill vs. speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital. His assertion is that illegal immigration often follows a similar pattern.
- bad_user 16y ago
  Yeah, people should put some land-mines in front of that safe-deposit box.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I don't see a human rights problem with a well marked minefield between two fences. Anyone who wishes to avoid being blown up can pay attention to the "Warning: land mines" sign and not climb over the fence topped with barbed wire. Similarly, the zoo isn't violating your human rights if you ignore the "warning: bears" sign, swim through the moat, and then get eaten by the bears.
- starkfist 16y ago
  That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen anyone write on hacker news. Kudos.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Do you believe the Berlin zoo is also guilty of violating human rights? http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014745730 http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014745730
    - starkfist 16y ago
      There's a minefield at the Berlin Zoo? I guess I take back my original post - it was the second stupidest thing I've ever seen posted here.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        You can call me stupid all day, but it might be helpful if you explained why you believe one danger (land mines) is a human rights violation but another danger (bears) is not. Would it not be a human rights violation if we used bears (or other animals better suited to the southwest) as a deterrent for border crossing rather than land mines?
        starkfist 16y ago
        It's friday afternoon, this is new york. I'm here to call you stupid. Don't you have some high frequency trading to do over there in Jersey City?
        jbooth 16y ago
        Seriously, you should do some reading on minefields. They're one of the most awful things a war can leave behind. The thought of us doing this to our own territory is ridiculous.
        rdl 16y ago
- ryanelkins 16y ago
  The difference is intent. Mines are placed with the intention of killing or maiming. Bears are not placed in zoos with the intent to kill trespassers. If animals were used for that intent it would still run afoul of human rights. You realize that it IS illegal to use deadly booby traps to protect your own personal property, right?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    You realize that it IS illegal to use deadly booby traps to protect your own personal property, right? Of course. Setting deadly booby traps is a privilege the goverment reserves for itself. And fair enough too -- the setting of deadly booby traps should be very well regulated to ensure that there's absolutely no way that anyone can wander into the trap without knowing (a) it's there and (b) it's very very deadly. The purpose of this sort of trap is not to kill or maim anybody, it's to ensure that it never kills or maims anybody by being so obviously deadly that nobody would be stupid enough to ever attempt to cross it. Let's face it, life in Mexico isn't so bad that it's worth facing a 99.9% chance of death in order to escape it.
    - blueben 16y ago
      Yes, it's not so bad in Mexico. Nobody would ever attempt to run across a minefield to escape grinding poverty and bloody wars waged by rich and powerful drug cartels fueled by demand from the United States.

hugh3 16y ago

people who break the law in an attempt to provide better lives for themselves I'm not sure how the fact that they're attempting to provide a better life for themselves is supposed to be an excuse. Bank robbers are also attempting to provide a better life for themselves, too.

rationalbeaver 16y ago
There is a difference between stealing money to fuel your greed and stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving. Or speeding for the thrill vs. speeding to get your pregnant wife to the hospital. His assertion is that illegal immigration often follows a similar pattern.
bad_user 16y ago
Yeah, people should put some land-mines in front of that safe-deposit box.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I don't see a human rights problem with a well marked minefield between two fences. Anyone who wishes to avoid being blown up can pay attention to the "Warning: land mines" sign and not climb over the fence topped with barbed wire. Similarly, the zoo isn't violating your human rights if you ignore the "warning: bears" sign, swim through the moat, and then get eaten by the bears.

starkfist 16y ago
That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen anyone write on hacker news. Kudos.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Do you believe the Berlin zoo is also guilty of violating human rights? http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014745730 http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7014745730
  - starkfist 16y ago
    There's a minefield at the Berlin Zoo? I guess I take back my original post - it was the second stupidest thing I've ever seen posted here.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      You can call me stupid all day, but it might be helpful if you explained why you believe one danger (land mines) is a human rights violation but another danger (bears) is not. Would it not be a human rights violation if we used bears (or other animals better suited to the southwest) as a deterrent for border crossing rather than land mines?
      - starkfist 16y ago
        It's friday afternoon, this is new york. I'm here to call you stupid. Don't you have some high frequency trading to do over there in Jersey City?
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Seriously, you should do some reading on minefields. They're one of the most awful things a war can leave behind. The thought of us doing this to our own territory is ridiculous.
        rdl 16y ago
ryanelkins 16y ago
The difference is intent. Mines are placed with the intention of killing or maiming. Bears are not placed in zoos with the intent to kill trespassers. If animals were used for that intent it would still run afoul of human rights. You realize that it IS illegal to use deadly booby traps to protect your own personal property, right?
- hugh3 16y ago
  You realize that it IS illegal to use deadly booby traps to protect your own personal property, right? Of course. Setting deadly booby traps is a privilege the goverment reserves for itself. And fair enough too -- the setting of deadly booby traps should be very well regulated to ensure that there's absolutely no way that anyone can wander into the trap without knowing (a) it's there and (b) it's very very deadly. The purpose of this sort of trap is not to kill or maim anybody, it's to ensure that it never kills or maims anybody by being so obviously deadly that nobody would be stupid enough to ever attempt to cross it. Let's face it, life in Mexico isn't so bad that it's worth facing a 99.9% chance of death in order to escape it.
  - blueben 16y ago
    Yes, it's not so bad in Mexico. Nobody would ever attempt to run across a minefield to escape grinding poverty and bloody wars waged by rich and powerful drug cartels fueled by demand from the United States.