The nature of sin

9-11?  What does 9-11 have to do with the border?  Why would anybody care more about the border after 9-11 than before?  To my knowledge the only terrorist to ever cross a border to commit an act  was a guy who came in from Canada and didn't get very far.

I thought the IRCs were going to be at the points of entry, not strung along the border.  How far apart are these going to be?  How many of them?  Sounds like you would need hundreds of them.  That would probably cost more than the wall.  I think what Beagles is calling a fence is actually a wall because generally it is no problem getting through a fence. 

The airports don't screen for good guys and bad guys.  They screen for people who they think are likely to hijack an airplane.  I guess they do something for drug smugglers but I think that is pointed more at the luggage than the person.  As far as criminals I don't believe they care.  And I have a problem with this good guy/bad guy classification because in this case what he is calling good guys are just people who haven't been caught doing anything.  This doesn't really make them good.

There is no evidence that there are a lot of criminals among the immigrants, that is just a Trump talking point, and most of the drugs that come in here do not come across the border so I don't see where Beagles's superficial screening (patting them down for drugs, inspecting them for tats, consulting a dubious database) is going to give us a better grade of immigrant than the current system does.  It will certainly bring in a lot more.  Perhaps Beagles is hankering for some salsa on his breakfast table to season his huevos rancheros.


Beagles is probably right that I should inform the Jewel of their turnip glitch.  I know that Beagles is a man without sin, but I have to ask if he has ever come back from the store and realizing that he has been undercharged, then gone back to the store and given back what he should have been charged?  It just seems like that is one of those things, that are like part of the game; sometimes you get overcharged, sometimes you get undercharged, it all comes out even in the end.

But I realize that his turnip thing is beyond that because it is a continuing situation.  Probably it was okay the first time I did it because I had no intention of beating the Jewel out of six bucks, and I think it falls into the overcharge/undercharge thing.

The second time was a grey area because I didn't purposely type in turnips instead of broccoli, it was just a mental typo, but having done that I did proceed to cash in on it, so I think that makes me more culpable.

The third time, which hasn't happened yet, if I load up on turnips rather than say parsnips, and pay 50 cents for six bucks worth of turnips I think I am pretty clearly guilty.  But it gets worse, what if I purposely type in turnips for my broccoli?  Aren't I just a step away from pulling on a mask and pulling out a gun?   Are there degrees of sin?  Is taking advantage of an undercharge less a sin than purposely causing the undercharge, and is that less a sin than doing an armed robbery?  Or is all sin equally black?

Beagles's example of my ripping off the Jewel being sinful because it results in higher prices for my fellow consumers is the utilitarian interpretation, where the consequences of the act are taken into consideration, as opposed to the oh, stoic interpretation where an act can be sinful in itself without regard to the consequences.  What if I knew somehow that my theft would not result in higher prices for my fellow consumers?  Would it be okay to do it then?

One more thing.  A Sunday Sun Times costs 4 bucks, but for some reason the Seven Eleven at State and Kinzie rings it up as 3.  I've known this for years and if it fits conveniently into my schedule I purchase my paper there rather than somewhere else.  Oh I am black with sin.