The Socialist party has lost it's incumbent president and has no chosen nominee yet.
The Republicans have chosen Filion.
Now please tell me how Le Pen has absolutely no chance. Is right wing populism just a 2016 fad?
Printable View
The Socialist party has lost it's incumbent president and has no chosen nominee yet.
The Republicans have chosen Filion.
Now please tell me how Le Pen has absolutely no chance. Is right wing populism just a 2016 fad?
That is because Media play the same than in US and UK. Ignoring other candidates in order to create the fear factor, then it will be the usual blackmail Le Pen or else.
So, the else, whoever, will be elected.
But there is one outsider who can change the rules...
The rejection by the French of the oligarchy (thanks to the Sarkolland's policies) is so intense that Le Pen might be elected (for the same reason Trump was elected, Corbyn and brexit), but then she will have to get a majority in the Assembly. And this is another story.
The establishment just needs to keep doing what it is doing: deny and downplay a few more terrorist attacks, rape gangs, crime increases and le pen will be in.
A fair point. While conservative and nativist elements tend to overplay these episodes, progressives and tranzies tend to downplay them too far. With Trump and Brexit, there was enough backlash to shift things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
However, Brenus makes a telling point regarding the legislature. Trump may not like the establishment GOP all that much, nor they he, but both will work together more readily than would a Trump executive with a partially or wholly Dem legislature.
Valls is the Socialist key. He's by far the most high profile member of the Socialist Party, and he stands a reasonable chance in the election.
"Valls is the Socialist key. He's by far the most high profile member of the Socialist Party, and he stands a reasonable chance in the election." Not a chance. He is the man who used the 49.3 too many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...h_Constitution
He is part of the Government that gave money to rich, voted oppressive laws against workers, put unionists in jail whereas Lagarde can go free after conviction. No leftists will vote for him, and righists have their own in Fillon: 600 000 more unemployed from 2012, 1 french on 7 under the poverty level, 800 000 families on the minimum benefits scheme (RSA).
The only way for Fillon and Valls to convince the French to vote for them is the fear factor (Le Pen). I don't think it will work. Not any more. Game over.
The Socialists do not have Hollande - he declined to participate, so that's that. They need other members of the Parliament/government/party to step up to the plate and stand a reasonable chance because as things go, it's a race between Fillon and Le Pen right now.
"it's a race between Fillon and Le Pen right now." That is what the media try to convince voters in order to have Fillon elected.
Problem for Fillon is he was Sarkozy's Prime Minister for 4 years and has a very reactionary political platform, even if he is trying to backtrack a bit now...
The surprise might be from the "ignored by media" stream.
Fillon's political platform is more reactionary than the traditional Republican platform, indeed, but it shows that it connects with the Republican electorate because of his surprising victory over both Sarkozy and Juppe.
The next step is the primaries, we will see there who will come out on top.
Is there a mechanism whereby a Candidate can win in the first round if they get a high enough percentageQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
of the vote? I assume not, as that's the mechanism designed to prevent Le Pen being elected.
From the perspective of an Anglo the last president was bizarre, most especially in the way he treated the women in his life but also in the way he dealt with Foreign Relations.
I suspect the Fillion will win, in the current climate a many people will vote Right instead of Left because the Left will refuse to address outsiders as a potential problem despite the damage they inevitably do to social cohesion by their very nature (outsiders are always disruptive).
I don't think Trump and Brexit are simply an "angry backlash", I think they are also genuine expressions of opposition to the general political "direction of travel" in the West.
A lot of people ask why the Welsh voted to leave the EU, completely missing the fact that it was EU regulations against government interference in "competition" that prevented the UK Government from nationalising the Port Talbot Steelworks, and everything else owned by Tata Steel. That's a concrete reason to leave the EU if you're Welsh.
Indeed, it's a common problem all around the world:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...e-holiday.html
Especially poor people are terrible humans:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...her-crowd.html
And they terrify the locals due to their terrible culture:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1725...h-from-locals/
Something has to be wrong with the "direction of travel" here indeed. :sweatdrop:
Who invented the terrible idea of travel? Do we really need need bananas, cocoa, cacao, coffee, tea? All this terrible globalism, people should forever stay in the village they were born in. British people would never support the idea to send people all around the world in ships to conquer tea plantations and diamond mines. :dizzy2:
I hope that Fillon wins, too, though. I mean, anyone but LePen is okay with me, French politics are weird anyway. Now we have a socialist imposing a seemingly indefinite state of emergency.
Uh huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Sure.
There's nothing wrong with foreigners - but mass movements of people on both a local and an international scale invariable cause disruptions and make things worse for the locals. This is as true for the Upper Middle Class "White Flight" into Devon as it is for the immigrants coming from overseas into the large cities like London.
If all your major politicians tell you that the disruptions, cultural upheavel, loss of housing etc. are good for you or that they can't do anything to help - they're going to vote for someone else.
Witness the rise of the Far Right in Germany after a string of terrorists Attacks perpetrated by Asylum Seekers, where the German Government continues to pursue a policy not only of allowing all Asylum Seekers (regardless of point of entry) but also defends the Schenhan Agreement which allowed one terrorist to cross into the country from Italy over an open border and then back again.
When people get attacking my axes, blown up with bombs and run over by lorries they understandably get scared. If you don't acknowledge that the fear is a rational response and address the cause they will conclude you are not rational and turn to someone else.
We've been hearing it for years here, a refrain something like, "They say the foreigners don't take our jobs but they work for less and undercut us, we can't compete."
Response: "You're a racist/lazy/too greedy."
They're not saying that. In case you missed it, France is in a state of emergency since the last attacks, laws have been expanded to allow warrantless searches of homes and so on. To say politicians claim they can't do anything is either a lie or ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Why is it important whether he kills people and/or gets caught in Italy or in Germany? Are Germans inherently more deserving of protection than Italians? Master race?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You also forgot to mention that he also crossed from Northern Africa to Italy despite being a known criminal and even though that border is technically closed.
It would be more understandable if they were just as scared about getting eaten from inside and demanded similar efforts from the government to stop that from happening. Instead they only seem to get scared by whatever the news and blogs choose as headlines. From an intelligent thinker I demand to see a little more than the carrot dangling in front of his or her eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Can you explain rationally to me why a guy with an axe should scare me more than MRSA or why the truck killing 12 people is scarier than the estimated 3300 traffic deaths in 2016? Is it somehow less scary that you would drive to the bakery and suddenly someone ignoring a redlight T-bones into you and you slowly bleed out with half the bones in your body broken? I've been almost run over by a car a few times and got actually hit and injured by a truck once, but I've never seen someone point a gun at me or murder someone. So if I don't shit my pants every time I cross a street, why should I shit my pants because of terrorism?
Don't say this is relativism because I'm not saying terrorism is okay, I'm asking why it should scare me as much as you think it should.
Wasn't the foreigners who thought capitalism is the system we need and competition is better for all of us. So why is the foreigner less deserving of a job than the local? Master race? Tribalism? Where were you when Intel and NVidia outcompeted AMD? Did you shed some tears and complain that AMD employees did not deserve to be laid off just because Intel bribed retailers to not offer their products? Did you ever complain about colonialism because the Zulus could not compete with the British due to spears vs guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And why can a British person not compete with an immigrant? Does an immigrant not need shelter and food and possibly entertainment etc.?
And don't immigrants pay the same taxes etc. that the locals pay?
There is literally no reason why a local could not compete with an immigrant, the locals even have the language bonus, the local bonus, they know the laws better, they can organize better and so on. So how can you say they cannot compete? Is it due to the inferior culture of not wanting to share a room with two other people? And then whine that the younger generations are too entitled, lol....
Even funnier if you consider that Trump and the AfD advocate the same kind of trickle down economics that caused a lot of the problems in the first place...
This is beside the point. Note that people campaigning for awareness surrounding car accidents or pathogenic bacteria are not normally labeled autophobes or bacteriophobes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If someone is suspected to have been infected with MRSA, they will likely be put in isolation; whereas if immigrants from some countries are much more likely than others to turn into terrorists, this does not appear to have any impact on immigration policy at all. How does the 'intelligent thinker' justify this?
"Is there a mechanism whereby a Candidate can win in the first round if they get a high enough percentage
of the vote? I assume not, as that's the mechanism designed to prevent Le Pen being elected." No. You have to get 50% + 1 voice at the first round if you want to be elected, then relative majority at the second.
The trick is you can stay on the race if you get 12,5 % of the vote.
For the moment, as polls goes, 4 candidates can qualify: Le Pen, Fillon, Mélenchon and Macron.
I don't believe in them as Macron is the candidate of the establishment and of the news agencies.
However, I believe that Le Pen, Fillon and Mélenchon are in position to be in the second tour.
Le Pen is fighting her own niece ( The Front National is a federation of parties, from Royalistes, extreme catholics to Nazi and Pagans with all the crescendo of the extreme right to right extrem).
Fillon is losing grounds. He is the candidate of a extreme reactionary right and his programme starts to be known for what it is, a big leap backwards. Even his side starts to realize he has to change his speeches. Unfortunately for him, a video of his financial platform has been published on youtube and largely shared...
Le Pen can count on the abstention of the left and the anti-establishment feeling largely spread in the french society, and an absence of questioning of her program, if she has one except "death to foreigners"by the media that use her in order to boost their candidate.
The third one, Mélenchon, might be the out-sider claiming back the leftist vote. His challenge is to convince them to go to vote.
The Pseudo-Socialist Party, whoever they will choose, has not a chance.
That's a terrible comparison because it does not work. If someone performs a terrorist attack, they are also put in isolation, it's called prison. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Your impact-on-immigration-policy-example is just as terrible, or do you put all older people and infants into medical isolation because they have a higher likelihood to get infected?
Besides, it is not besides the point because I have not seen autophobes and bacteriophobes found new parties that advocate putting old people in isolation because they cause more car accidents and spread so many germs and then actually get a large share of votes. Even though statistically their issues would seem to warrant such a response far more in terms of dead people and direct cost on society etc.
Relevant diseased individuals are isolated because of their potential to infect others in general, not because they already have infected people. Similarly, certain demographics can be 'isolated' to avoid the spreading and/or induction of terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
If elderly people were mowing down many people every now and then because of poor driving skills, and the major political parties suggested that scepticism against driving elderly people was driven by gerontophobia, you might get the rise of political parties that suggested restrictions on the driving of elderly people.Quote:
Besides, it is not besides the point because I have not seen autophobes and bacteriophobes found new parties that advocate putting old people in isolation because they cause more car accidents and spread so many germs and then actually get a large share of votes. Even though statistically their issues would seem to warrant such a response far more in terms of dead people and direct cost on society etc.
Of course, it's not just the terrorism that's a potential issue with mass-immigration; but local breakdown of law and order as well. A good case study is the Swedish city of Malmö (click the link to see more news items), a city with ~ 340,000 inhabitants:
http://www.thelocal.se/20150725/malm...-stop-violenceQuote:
Malmö has experienced thirty explosions this year [2015], so worried local police have asked for assistance from the national police for help in staunching the wave of violence.
Just this week, there have been three hand grenade incidents.
http://www.thelocal.se/20161115/man-...-malm-shooting [15 November 2016]Quote:
The suspected murder would be the eleventh murder in Malmö in 2016, and it is the second murder investigation to be started in the city in a period of two days.
(related: Masked men on mopeds shoot four in Malmö [September 2016], Man injured in shooting at Malmö shopping mall [July 2016], One dead after Malmö drive-by shooting [September 2016])
http://www.thelocal.se/20150301/malm...s-for-students [2015]Quote:
A secondary school in Malmö has been closed after the teachers' union declared that it is too dangerous a place for students and teachers to attend due to widespread violence and criminality.
Violence, threats and visits from adult criminals eventually became too much for the teachers' unions at Varner Rydén School in the Malmö suburb of Rosengård, whose safety officers have now closed the premises.
http://www.thelocal.se/20160812/malm...ings-continuesQuote:
The wave of summer car burnings in Malmö has continued, with nine more set alight between Thursday night and Friday morning. And police have still been unable to catch any perpetrators, despite calling in extra resources.
[...]
Over 70 car fires have occurred in Malmö since July 1st this year [2016], and police have been left scratching their heads as to why the trend has occurred.
http://www.thelocal.se/20161126/gang...and-gothenburg [26 November 2016]Quote:
Suspected gangland shootings have marked the start of the weekend in the Swedish cities of Malmö and Gothenburg, with victims left seriously wounded in both cities.
At around 7pm on Friday evening a 20-year-old man was shot in Biskopsgården, a district of Gothenburg long plagued by gang violence. Then at 2am on Saturday morning, a man in his mid-to-late 30s was shot inside a club in Norra Grängesbergsgatan, a Malmö street known for its illegal nightclubs.
Something more seems at stake here than mere terrorism or car accidents. And in France, the subject of this topic, similar things are going on.
But isn't the problem, Viking, that the groups in question are already isolated? This is distinct from isolating groups for the application or construction of policy (though in fact the former carries on from the latter a fair extent in recent history).
There is an incredibly large gap between infected individuals and potentially dangerous demographics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
That argument is completely useless. You could lock all poor people up with that argument.
We had 3300 traffic deaths and maybe 20 due to islamic terrorism in 2016. Now I don't have any statistics on who caused all the traffic deaths and why, but surely old people would account for 20 or more of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The rest of your argument seems pretty irrelevant to the argument.
I get that you can't just put 340000 immigrants into a city of 340000 people and expect it to work out just fine, that is actually besides the point now. Just as it is useless to take one city as anecdotal evidence and then make some vague claim about how problematic mass immigration is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Husar, the statistical argument has more limitations than you recognize. If this is still a period of low-risk from terrorism, then speaking apart from the wider political issues associated with terrorist actors we should take this as good time to work out appropriate, scaleable laws, practices and responses so that we don't end up extrapolating the French "panic and flail" response to public emergencies. In the West, Germany is still in the best position of all to take a lead here. If strong reactions against Arab immigrants are the wrong approach, then it is because there are better approaches, not because the threat of terrorism or terrorists is actually meaningless.
I did not say it is meaningless, I said it is not something to panic about at the moment to the extent a lot of people are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Of course something should be done, but the knee-jerk reaction of directly or indirectly killing people and/or mass-punishments of everyone with non-white skins are complete overreactions. Obviously someone will say I misrepresent their proposed methods now, but since I only see vague proposals ('isolated'), I feel free to speculate here.
As for "but you don't offer anything", well, yeah, because I'm too busy talking down people who propose broad brush attempts of what sounds like ethnic monocultures. I'm thinking along the lines of giving more resources to the police, handling people differently upon entering the country and, terrible idea, maybe spreading them out more across EU countries so they're not as concentrated as they are in certain Swedish cities. And perhaps also thinking about how we can dissolve the reasons people have to come here in the first place.
Since statistically the older you are the more likely you are to die, you should shit your pants every morning realizing you are a day older.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Exactly. Do you know how many people die in household accidents because a ladder does not alarm them as much as a bearded brown person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...o-prevent-them
Not sure what you are saying here (which groups isolated how?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
You could, but most would consider that unethical and overkill. It's different from telling people that they should rather stay in their home country or migrate to countries that are more culturally similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Presumably, but there are at least a couple of things to consider:Quote:
We had 3300 traffic deaths and maybe 20 due to islamic terrorism in 2016. Now I don't have any statistics on who caused all the traffic deaths and why, but surely old people would account for 20 or more of them?
- how many of the dead were elderly people (and should therefore be subtracted from the total), and how many non-elderly people were killed by elderly people as an overrepresentation (relative to the rest of the driving population; the actual number we are looking for)?
- how easy is it reduce the number of deaths and injuries resulting from traffic relative to those resulting from terrorist attacks? Presumably, the government is already spending a great deal on road safety, the police and counter-terrorism.
It's not an anecdote, similar things are happening/have happened in many cities in Western Europe and form part of a larger statistic. For example, the Köln assaults last year match the general pattern of antisocial behaviour. Malmö is just one place where this phenomenon has turned particularly extreme, and could represent the future of other vulnerable cities if immigration pressure and government policies persist.Quote:
I get that you can't just put 340000 immigrants into a city of 340000 people and expect it to work out just fine, that is actually besides the point now. Just as it is useless to take one city as anecdotal evidence and then make some vague claim about how problematic mass immigration is.
That's like a red herring scarecrow or whatever because plenty of them already go to similar countries but these countries don't always want or can't always take all of them and they also don't always offer them the same chances of a better life. Telling people their lives are over and will be spent in a military-controlled tent-city for decades or for ever from now on is not as unethical as locking a group of people up? Aren't people basically imprisoned in quite a few of those refugee camps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6996161.html
Oh look, we can even do it here. One of the comments is very ethical:
It's funny how we want to protect our Christian heartland full of good people who'd rather watch outsiders die in droves than let them into their lovely christian paradise of brotherly love. :rolleyes:Quote:
Wonderful! Then GO HOME! Swim. Walk. Die.
No one cares. But spread the word. Europe is a prison.
Excellent.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You really want to continue that angle?
Well, no, the police is understaffed and overworked, driving deaths could be reduced by barring people from driving, preferably all people because none of us are perfect and computers could probably do it much better. So far the accidents per kilometer driven for self-driving cars are already lower than for humans, IIRC only half the number of accidents per kilometer driven. Do you think the government should ban manual driving once the technology has arrived in the mainstream?
The problem is that not everywhere in Western Europe can you prove that foreigners are statistically more antisocial than the natives. In addition you get excuses for the locals who are "just reacting to the evil foreigners", yet the fact that foreigners may be angry and antisocial because they just react to the racism and discrimination of the locals is never considered, they have to shut up and take it. There may be good behavior as a guest, but being a good host is just as important. Your "general pattern of antisocial behavior" is based on superficial newspaper headlines and since you were so statistically adept about accident statistics, have you factored the social status, environmental factors, type of criminality and so on into your "pattern" or are newspaper headlines and skin colour the only metrics you used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You know, I'd consider tax evasion and bullying antisocial behavior as well, how many natives do you think engage in that or does that not count and why?
http://investorplace.com/investorpol.../#.WGz3Cy-GNGE
http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbi...014-us-survey/
http://freakonomics.com/2013/07/19/t...on-bar-fights/
http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics
Are those the noble Christian social values we defend?
Is that the social peace they are disturbing so violently?
The fact that people are afraid of the immigrants more than of other, more lethal ~;), things is quite explicable: those car accidents and vicious ladders are the things from their every day environment they had got used to. Immigrants are a new thing that has intruded/has been imposed upon them. Hence a closer attention paid to anything they do and more painful awareness of their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
This being said, I don't support the idea of indiscriminate acceptance of migrants, for they are migrants and not refugees.
That is very true and it affects me, too. That does however not make it rational or mean one should have a terrible knee-jerk reaction based on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Are we talking about anyone specific or just making sure everyone understands that migrants are not refugees? I currently don't support the indiscriminate acceptance of migrants either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
These ones for example should not be let in just like that: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38486584
We could spend money we would otherwise have to spend on integration and anti-terrorism to sweeten the deal for such countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Are they entitled to our quality of life right now just because we have happen to have it?Quote:
and they also don't always offer them the same chances of a better life.
Doesn't seem like any worse conditions than what I would guess millions of very poor people the world over have lived in for all their lives; to put things in perspective. Are the people in that camp more worthy of Western help because they used to have a wealthier lifestyle once? Or should we empty the slums and move all their inhabitants to the West along with the migrating Syrians?Quote:
Telling people their lives are over and will be spent in a military-controlled tent-city for decades or for ever from now on is not as unethical as locking a group of people up? Aren't people basically imprisoned in quite a few of those refugee camps?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6996161.html
Note that the camp in question is in Europe. A more compelling argument, here, would be concerning camps in other Muslim countries, although that takes us back to my first point in this post: putting pressure on other Muslim countries to take them in, and help them with it where it seems useful and possible.
Yet you might have to spend great sums only to see small reductions in deaths and injuries. It's comparing the return on investment from the different alternatives that is relevant here.Quote:
Well, no, the police is understaffed and overworked
That's not the point, but that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading (and without gutting other parts of the state budget, which could of course lead us to more traffic deaths, increased MRSA incidence, less aid to poor countries etc..).Quote:
The problem is that not everywhere in Western Europe can you prove that foreigners are statistically more antisocial than the natives.
What are you trying to say?Quote:
You know, I'd consider tax evasion and bullying antisocial behavior as well, how many natives do you think engage in that or does that not count and why?
http://investorplace.com/investorpol.../#.WGz3Cy-GNGE
http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbi...014-us-survey/
http://freakonomics.com/2013/07/19/t...on-bar-fights/
http://ncadv.org/learn-more/statistics
I care little for Christianity and 'Christian values', so I'll leave it to you to defend them.Quote:
It's funny how we want to protect our Christian heartland full of good people who'd rather watch outsiders die in droves than let them into their lovely christian paradise of brotherly love. :rolleyes:
[...]
Are those the noble Christian social values we defend?
Is that the social peace they are disturbing so violently?
Pay dictators to take them in as well? You would pay countries like Saudi Arabia, who fund terrorism in the first place, to take in the people that were displaced by the terror they funded? Now you're rewarding bad behavior IMO. Not only that, you'd also give them a lot of people who hate us (more) now as recruits for terrorist organizations. You're not fixing a problem, you're just throwing money at a problem once more, hoping it will go away. Where exactly has that worked out fine before in the long term?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Are we entitled to it just because we were born here? Were we entitled to violently conquer some of these countries and extract their resources to gain part of the wealth we currently have? If violently taking something is okay, then their attempts to violently try and get in here cannot be called immoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Are Western people somehow more worthy of protecting their jobs and peaceful lifestyles just because they had them once? If other people can take a hit to their quality of life, why can't we? Surely immigration does not lower our lifestyle to the level of the poorest slums, so it is overall more acceptable than just increasing the size of the poorest slums by putting more refugees there. We can afford to give more and still be better off than most. Your argument defeats itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The point was that you're basically locking people up, some of them are running away from dictators who want to lock them up or kill them and you want to lock them up and chain them somewhere far away from you. Where they get locked up is not the issue if they are proper war refugees. That you lock up people who try to violently climb a fence to become millionaire football players in Europe is more understandable IMO, but so far you seem to want to take noone here and keep Europe somehow ethnically clean given how you talk about immigration in general. On that note, do you also not like Spanish people who come to Norway to work or do you find they do not disrupt public order?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
That makes no sense, the ROI on anti-terror measures may already be enormous if you consider how many attacks we may have had without any police at all. And obviously if you have only 20 deaths to reduce, it's impossible to reduce the deaths in that field by 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
If 20 scares you so much, then consider that we have some 30000-40000 deaths per year from infections in hospitals and we wouldn't even need enormous investments to reduce them. The disinfectant for example is usually already provided, it's just not used properly by personnel because there is not pressure being applied. All the pressure is seemingly applied to reduce the last 20 terror deaths instead of forcing people to clean their hands and material for little extra cost to prevent maybe 10000 deaths from infections. The ROI on the latter would be a whole lot higher than on the former. Which was my point from the start...
And spending more money on the police would help with more than just fighting terrorism either way.
To restore law and order implies that there were law and order before, which is a myth that you can't prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The best thing you can claim is that before there was a kind of lawlessness that people were used to but when it involves brown people, it suddenly gets everyone's attention. You haven't shown me anything that proves otherwise, see the next answer as well.
Maybe the crimes of immigrants have a tendency to be more bold and out in the open, but in that case the only thing that unravels is the illusion of law and order that we grew so comfortable with before.
That lawlessness is not exclusively caused or greatly increased by immigration, it exists already anyway, you just ignore it when it is not caused by immigration. You are free to actually prove otherwise. And by prove I don't mean that you just claim it is so or show single newspaper incidents that prove nothing as you did until now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Hmmm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I don't think the death part is optional, so shouldn't I wake up happy to have had one more day and the chance to move forward into the new one, rather than dwelling in fear on that which is unavoidable?
Fear belongs to the realm of emotions which is definitely apart from the realm of rationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I mean the ones that have been inundating Europe for the last two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What if moving forward into the new day is moving forward into the last day?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You stated that they did not want the refugees, so if we refunded some of the costs they would incur upon taking them in, we would certainly not be rewarding them. If you don't want make agreements with SA, then make them with Kazakhstan, Indonesia or whomever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
That migrants should hate the West more because we didn't allow them in seems rather unlikely, I think they would be more concerned with their daily life.
No one is entitled to it, we just happen to have it.Quote:
Are we entitled to it just because we were born here?
This country has been relatively poor until modernity, I doubt much colonial wealth ended up here; and that aid given to previously colonised countries far outweighs whatever small amounts ended up here.Quote:
Were we entitled to violently conquer some of these countries and extract their resources to gain part of the wealth we currently have? If violently taking something is okay, then their attempts to violently try and get in here cannot be called immoral.
That colonial plunder is the reason Europe is well-off while former colonial possessions are not, I would like to see some documentation on. Last time I checked, Africa seemed to still be full of natural resources.
This does not answer the question of why Syrian migrants should be allowed to settle here while we don't also go to the slums to ask who there would like to move out of poverty and settle in the West. I think many there would accept the offer.Quote:
Are Western people somehow more worthy of protecting their jobs and peaceful lifestyles just because they had them once? If other people can take a hit to their quality of life, why can't we? Surely immigration does not lower our lifestyle to the level of the poorest slums, so it is overall more acceptable than just increasing the size of the poorest slums by putting more refugees there. We can afford to give more and still be better off than most. Your argument defeats itself.
Do they? If they do, maybe you have some evidence for it.Quote:
Spanish people who come to Norway to work or do you find they do not disrupt public order?
If all the relevant immigrants hadn't been accepted in the first place, there would have been much fewer terrorist attacks to prevent. As there is currently no end in sight for the immigration, a lot of future terrorist attacks might be avoided by not taking in more migrants from relevant countries; and it might not cost more than the alternative, meaning that we are not taking money that could have been spent on disinfection, or whatever.Quote:
That makes no sense, the ROI on anti-terror measures may already be enormous if you consider how many attacks we may have had without any police at all. And obviously if you have only 20 deaths to reduce, it's impossible to reduce the deaths in that field by 100.
If 20 scares you so much, then consider that we have some 30000-40000 deaths per year from infections in hospitals and we wouldn't even need enormous investments to reduce them. The disinfectant for example is usually already provided, it's just not used properly by personnel because there is not pressure being applied. All the pressure is seemingly applied to reduce the last 20 terror deaths instead of forcing people to clean their hands and material for little extra cost to prevent maybe 10000 deaths from infections. The ROI on the latter would be a whole lot higher than on the former. Which was my point from the start...
And spending more money on the police would help with more than just fighting terrorism either way.
Maybe the war in Syria is a 'myth that you cannot prove', either; it's just a series of fired bullets and rockets, similar incidents of which happen in the West as well. Particularly in certain immigrant-rich cities, like Malmö.Quote:
To restore law and order implies that there were law and order before, which is a myth that you can't prove.
Does it, always?Quote:
it involves brown people
In the same sense that when being in a closed refugee camp, the only thing that unravels is 'the illusion of freedom' the refugees had before.Quote:
Maybe the crimes of immigrants have a tendency to be more bold and out in the open, but in that case the only thing that unravels is the illusion of law and order that we grew so comfortable with before.
Why don't you prove it that I ignore it, instead? This is inane.Quote:
That lawlessness is not exclusively caused or greatly increased by immigration, it exists already anyway, you just ignore it when it is not caused by immigration. You are free to actually prove otherwise. And by prove I don't mean that you just claim it is so or show single newspaper incidents that prove nothing as you did until now.
So should we base all our policy decisions on emotions rather than rationality or only the ones affecting immigration?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
So someone who runs away from a war in Syria is not a refugee if they run too far? If they're supposed to stay in the next country that has no war, why don't they just send them to the next city or village in Syria that is currently not affected by the war? Clearly someone who runs away further than the average shell can fly is overdoing it. And obviously being the neighbor of a whacko means you're responsible for what he does and need to clean up after him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
In case of SA you seem to have missed the point. Kazakhstan and whoever have a culture that is way too different to allow mass-immigration of Syrians without a complete meltdown of law and order. They also aren't anywhere near as stable and wealthy to afford the necessary measures to keep public order as Western Europe is. We'd have to pay them billions every months to make up for the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You may have missed the angry ones attacking border agents because we didn't let them in. Their daily life is exactly why they want to come here, they want a better daily life than their home countries currently offer them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Yes, and now we share it with those in need just like we teach our children to share the chocolate they happen to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
(We happen to have it would also be better argument if the history of the world began 20 years ago)
Indeed, your forefathers only pillaged the rest of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And a lot of the wealth today was built based on cultural exchange with the rest of Europe and the fact that the rest of Europe didn't come and pillaged all your oil and fished away all your fish before you even got anywhere. So basically a good example of how people can prosper if you don't treat them as Untermenschen or children and just trade with them in a relatively fair way as the technologically superior and richer side.
And who extracts them in most cases and gets most of the profits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ulation.africa
https://www.globalpolicy.org/compone...162/27791.htmlQuote:
Western legal systems are stacked, thanks to the hired hands of skilled lawyers, to protect the rights of the crooked over the rights of Africa's ordinary citizens.
See, we give them a chance, but they just can't compete on the market.Quote:
To put this figure in perspective, America's cotton farmers receive:
- more in subsidies than the entire GDP of Burkina Faso – a country in which more than two million people depend on cotton production. Over half of these farmers live below the poverty line. Poverty levels among recipients of cotton subsidies in the US are zero.
- three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa's 500 million people.
In an economic arrangement bizarrely reminiscent of Soviet state planning principles, the value of subsidies provided by American taxpayers to the cotton barons of Texas and elsewhere in 2001 exceeded the market value of output by around 30 per cent. In other words, cotton was produced at a net cost to the United States.
And another one:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...649852604.html
Do I really need to explain how the powerful have a much easier time protecting their advantages than the downtrodden ones have trying to get anywhere?
Because they happen to have come here and are fleeing war. I hope I don't have to explain that slums are a disgrace either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Weren't you on the side that claimed mass migration always causes problems?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Why should I prove your point now?
Yes, that is true, so how do you weed out the "relevant immigrants" from the others without just sending everyone back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You know, if you make everyone leave the country, all the problems are gone. The only argument you seem to have is that people born here are more deserving of help based on pure happenstance. Basically the same argument that monarchies use(d) to exist/rule and take money from all the plebs whenever they wanted to. Just in this case the royal family is identified based on having a certain peace of paper as a birthright.
Answered yourself in a way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And what can we learn from that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You insinuate that we had law and order before mass-immigration and I showed that we didn't. I basically already proved it, no need to do it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I think you are underestimating the stability of such countries and overestimating the stability of countries in the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
They attack the border guards because they are now part of their daily life and within reach; if they had been settled in Saudi Arabia, they'd be working at the local bakery instead. The kind of people that attack border guards might not be the type of people we'd want to let in, anyway.Quote:
You may have missed the angry ones attacking border agents because we didn't let them in. Their daily life is exactly why they want to come here, they want a better daily life than their home countries currently offer them.
There are some significant differences between chocolate and citizenship.Quote:
Yes, and now we share it with those in need just like we teach our children to share the chocolate they happen to have.
(We happen to have it would also be better argument if the history of the world began 20 years ago)
At any rate, not a result of colonial plunder in the past. If this is true, then they should ask for those things to be fixed, not migrate here.Quote:
And who extracts them in most cases and gets most of the profits?
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ulation.africa
https://www.globalpolicy.org/compone...162/27791.html
See, we give them a chance, but they just can't compete on the market.
And another one:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...649852604.html
Do I really need to explain how the powerful have a much easier time protecting their advantages than the downtrodden ones have trying to get anywhere?
One of the biggest reasons they have come here while people from the slums do not, is because Syrians live closer and are wealthier; they actually have the means to get here unlike people from the worst slums. There are many people on this planet in much greater need of help than Syrians in refugee camps.Quote:
Because they happen to have come here and are fleeing war. I hope I don't have to explain that slums are a disgrace either way.
You can start by proving that a mass-migration of Spaniards is actually taking place. Of course, the more similar the cultures are, the less of an issue the migration will be.Quote:
Weren't you on the side that claimed mass migration always causes problems?
Why should I prove your point now?
Except from the obvious of checking against known or suspected criminals, we don't because we can't. Many terrorists are second-generation and not even born yet as their future parents cross the borders.Quote:
Yes, that is true, so how do you weed out the "relevant immigrants" from the others without just sending everyone back?
I have suggested that they should be helped right from the start; just without the parts where people get mowed down by lorries and cities takes steps towards anarchy. They should not feel entitled to a life in Europe.Quote:
The only argument you seem to have is that people born here are more deserving of help based on pure happenstance.
You didn't show anything, you played with words. Law and order doesn't mean zero criminality any more than not being imprisoned means you can do anything you would feel like.Quote:
You insinuate that we had law and order before mass-immigration and I showed that we didn't. I basically already proved it, no need to do it again.
I'm sure there are lots of bakeries longing for workers in Saudi Arabia, on that I concede the point to you. I'm not sure why you say the latter as I said the same myself, perhaps not in this thread...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
No, both are pretty sweet in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I'm sure they haven't thought of asking politely so far, what an oversight on their part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Maybe beating border guards is the only way they know how to express their dissatisfaction given that we never gave them highschool discussion club technology?
As you know, I agree about the latter, the reasons for both are largely the same though IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
As for the ability to come here, how do sub-saharan Africans do it? Are they as wealthy as Syrians?
And because we know for certain that some of them will inevitably breed some terrorists, we should send all of them elsewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The thing is that some of them are entitled to a life in Europe. The ones who are not should be sent back more effectively, on that I do not disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
"a situation characterized by respect for and obedience to the rules of a society."Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Would you call tax evasion respect for and obedience to the rules of a society? I'd rather give you that bar brawls are part of our culture... :sweatdrop:
If I knew it were, I'd get shrived, remind my loved ones of my love, and probably toss off a good rendition of "The Parting Glass" (I have a fair baritone). After that, either the questions are answered or dreamless sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Not rushing headlong to get there, but it will be a destination on my trip regardless. And, after all, WALSTIB.
One could also ask why the ones that do migrate are the ones doing it and not their neighbour or their uncle. Is it random, is it because they feel more entitled to a better life than the rest, is it because they recently lost a job etc.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It may indeed be that many of those that migrate are wealthier (and healthier) than many of those that do not.
Pretty much, plus for other reasons I've brought up here and in other threads.Quote:
And because we know for certain that some of them will inevitably breed some terrorists, we should send all of them elsewhere?
Here I disagree.Quote:
The thing is that some of them are entitled to a life in Europe.
When people are doing drive-by shootings, using bombs and hand grenades, there is probably a lot of other criminality going on as well. For example, as I quoted earlier:Quote:
"a situation characterized by respect for and obedience to the rules of a society."
Would you call tax evasion respect for and obedience to the rules of a society? I'd rather give you that bar brawls are part of our culture... :sweatdrop:
All kinds of economic criminality probably follow the people that are behind the bombings and other severe antisocial behaviour. You can presumably take tax evasion for granted in such environments.Quote:
Norra Grängesbergsgatan [is] a Malmö street known for its illegal nightclubs
The most serious thing is not things like shootings, bombings and illegal nightclubs in and of themselves; but the sum of these things, where the monopoly on violence is weakened and the state is less capable of enforcing its laws.
Police themselves are often attacked in Sweden (as well as firefighters) with rocks, and in 2012, a Malmö police station was even attacked with a bomb.
One could search the answer in Google, Bing or another search engine of choice, it's not a secret.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The answer to the questions posed is mostly 'no' though.
As for your proposed answer, concerning the entire planet that is probably true to some extent and hardly very surprising.
Most parents would rather see their children in safety than themselves without their children, don't you think?
So fear-based politics that return us to pre-20th century morals, discards a lot of social achievements, and ends up in some wicked national socialism model that perpetuates conflict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Sounds like a terrible idea to me...
How very post-factual of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2016/02/11...-refugees-fly/
Quote:
The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees — created after the shameful turning away of those fleeing Nazi Germany — obliged its signatories to accept refugees, even if they have no documents, no visa, no passport, and no resettlement authorization. There is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker.” People have a right to refuge if they are forced from their homes by persecution and war. The United States and the countries of Europe have signed this convention or its 1967 Protocol. Turkey has not signed. It only offers temporary refuge.
So we also send every suspected mafia and motorcycle club member to Somalia? Or do we pay Norway to take them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I already quoted some numbers on other criminality these people engage in, no need to tell me.
That is based on nothing but your own assumption and makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
By your example, Greece would have to be full of violent criminals because their tax evasion rate is so high.
Makes you wonder how people can enjoy their holidays there with all the grenades flying around.
While you are right that respect for the police is going down, this is partially because politics missed the opportunity to adapt criminal laws and enforce them. Your suggestion that we just punish everyone who fits a certain stereotype with expulsion from the country is nothing but a huge injustice in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There is a whole world of difference between what we SHOULD do and what we DO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Exactly. These ARE refugees:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
http://www.interpretermag.com/dont-f...n-the-donbass/
Got an example link? Note that the question was not why people migrate, but why not everyone in the same position (e.g. all jobless or poor people) do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yet the ones actually get much publicity in the media are the ones that migrated across seas, while I can only presume people are dying in the droves many places from medical conditions that are usually treatable in the West.Quote:
As for your proposed answer, concerning the entire planet that is probably true to some extent and hardly very surprising.
The latest rise in nationalism seems to have a lot to do the rise of immigration, so if you wish to national socialism return as a force to be reckoned with; increasing the immigration rates even further might not be a bad idea.Quote:
So fear-based politics that return us to pre-20th century morals, discards a lot of social achievements, and ends up in some wicked national socialism model that perpetuates conflict.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me...
And what is 'fear-based' politics? Is working to prevent of traffic deaths or pandemics also 'fear-based' politics?
Not so much post-factual as having the intent to create new facts through rejection and renegotiation of relevant treaties. At any rate:Quote:
Quote:
It only offers temporary refuge.
What's the argument, exactly? Is there a quota for crime that criminal immigrants will fill up so that the Italian mafia and German motorcycle clubs can retire, leaving the crime rates constant? I think it's much more likely that they'll get an even freer hand when the general crime rates in society go up.Quote:
So we also send every suspected mafia and motorcycle club member to Somalia? Or do we pay Norway to take them?
I already quoted some numbers on other criminality these people engage in, no need to tell me.
It was not stated that those who evades taxes are likely to be violent, but that it wouldn't seem very likely that those who do drive-by shootings should be very concerned about filling out tax forms honestly. Not the least because they probably participate extensively in the black economy, living in criminal neighbourhoods like they presumably do.Quote:
That is based on nothing but your own assumption and makes no sense.
By your example, Greece would have to be full of violent criminals because their tax evasion rate is so high.
Makes you wonder how people can enjoy their holidays there with all the grenades flying around.
Like which?Quote:
this is partially because politics missed the opportunity to adapt criminal laws and enforce them.
Once again you are using the word 'punish(ment)' so liberally that it would appear to become meaningless.Quote:
Your suggestion that we just punish everyone who fits a certain stereotype with expulsion from the country is nothing but a huge injustice in itself.
https://openborders.info/blog/how-ca...three-answers/Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Indeed, and that is not likely to change as long as we mostly protect our wealth from everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
But the application of national socialist methods of extradition is going to keep the national socialism at bay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Did you ever even consider alternative approaches such as letting them work to earn their asylum stay (community work), giving them mandatory classes about our culture, laws, etc. or is some kind of soft ethical cleansing your first go-to-method?
When you let your fears guide your politics more than a rational look at problems? Where do pandemics come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
http://www.dw.com/en/40000-patients-...dog/a-17460622
Does that mean we already have a pandemic?
So basically just treat the symptoms and not the causes. I'm not in favor of millions of refugees going anywhere, I'd rather have them not become refugees in the first place. You also seem to ignore all historical context just because you don't like the treaties right now. I think that is what people mean when they say we don't learn from history and history tends to repeat itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The argument is that we don't need immigrants for that kind of crime, your second point is disproven by the USA, where motorcycle clubs are just as violent, where some of them even originated. And the USA did not accept hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Yes, now your argument seems completely irrelevant because noone argued that we should let criminal immigrants do what they want. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Like the ones that say people who throw rocks at the police need to go to prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Or the ones that say theft is punishable. There was a (AFAIK true, not even from a right-wing source) story about a woman here in Germany who had a lot of wedding gowns stolen from her shop and when she found them herself at some immigrant family's wedding, police came and said they won't do a thing because it would likely end in a shootout. The criminals also proceeded to harass her and spit at her or something like that in front of the police. If that is what we call law enforcement nowadays, then it's hardly surprising that the criminals are thriving because there is no actual enforcement left. I'm not even blaming the police, they're not well-equipped and understaffed after decades of funding cuts.
As for laws, in Italy it is already punishable if the police can prove that someone belongs to a criminal organization, here this is no problem as long as you're not getting caught directly in a criminal act, this means a lot of known mafiosi come here to "work" or retire because life is a lot simpler for them here. Not to forget that human trafficking and sex slavery usually require the victims to speak out, which pretty much never happens so these things just continue while politics do hardly anything about it. I can see how some of it can be hard to solve, but as long as we are busy with terrorism, I'm sure even less will happen on that front.
I assume the situation is similar in Sweden, but Sweden alone is not Europe anyway.
Taking away citizenships and/or homes, jobs, potentially spouses etc. does not constitute punishment for you or were you not talking about throwing all middle easterners or at least everyone who arrived since 2015 out of here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Seems to focus heavily on migration from China to the US, and it also seems to rely heavily on individual cases rather than statistics. A more accurate answer would require surveying a large number actual boat migrants from Africa to Europe (whether before, during or after the journey). Relevant, but not a definite answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Or while their governments continue to squander as much money and the militias wage as much war.Quote:
Indeed, and that is not likely to change as long as we mostly protect our wealth from everyone else.
This is about not handing out new citizenships and returning the relevant people that do not have citizenship.Quote:
But the application of national socialist methods of extradition is going to keep the national socialism at bay?
Did you ever even consider alternative approaches such as letting them work to earn their asylum stay (community work), giving them mandatory classes about our culture, laws, etc. or is some kind of soft ethical cleansing your first go-to-method?
And what's rational? Say you live in a big house with 99 other people, and 10 people are outside in the cold, wanting to get in. You know that if you let them in, one of the 100 people will likely be killed during the night by one of the 10, and that if you do not let them in, they will freeze and get little or no sleep, but it is not very likely that any of them will die; and when the day comes, the electricity returns to their home, so they can go back there.Quote:
When you let your fears guide your politics more than a rational look at problems?
In this scenario, I would say that the rational choice is to let those 10 freeze a night and most likely save a life.
Which is precisely what letting them in is. It doesn't fix the underlying issue while destabilising Europe.Quote:
So basically just treat the symptoms and not the causes.
Rather, it's a straw man; it has not been suggested that the migrants should be forced to stay in potentially lethal conditions, like in a country where the government is executing a genocide of their group.Quote:
You also seem to ignore all historical context just because you don't like the treaties right now. I think that is what people mean when they say we don't learn from history and history tends to repeat itself.
That's trivial, and not relevant to the point. The point is that Malmö, as an example, almost certainly would not have anywhere near as much crime if it weren't for the immigration it has seen.Quote:
The argument is that we don't need immigrants for that kind of crime
You don't think it's better for organised criminals that general crime rates in a society goes up?Quote:
your second point is disproven by the USA, where motorcycle clubs are just as violent, where some of them even originated. And the USA did not accept hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.
I have no idea what you are referring to here.Quote:
Yes, now your argument seems completely irrelevant because noone argued that we should let criminal immigrants do what they want. :dizzy2:
I don't know how that is treated in Sweden, but I doubt it would fix the underlying issues. The youths get out of jail and keep throwing while the prisons would have less room for the Italian mafia, German bikers and American bankers.Quote:
Like the ones that say people who throw rocks at the police need to go to prison.
The money required to get such high levels of crime under control is probably quite significant, and where would you get that money from? Not the hospital disinfection budget, I hope. And didn't you say that we were supposed to 'share our wealth', anyway; and now it seems like we have to spend much of it on police with expensive Western-level wages?
No one will loose their citizenship (unless they are criminal and it is possible to return them). A lot of the people in question are going to get returned, anyway. My main focus is on asylums that have not yet been granted; primarily on the people that have not arrived yet, and maybe not even left their home country yet.Quote:
Taking away citizenships and/or homes, jobs, potentially spouses etc. does not constitute punishment for you or were you not talking about throwing all middle easterners or at least everyone who arrived since 2015 out of here?
Returning people once peace has arrived is a separate and more complex issue.
And it's a pure coincidence that they all ended up with corrupt governments and rebels after colonialization "ended"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Or that their corrupt governments defend their power with weapons bought from us?
This is not a terrible argument, but it lacks a bit in the details. For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And then the two options you present fail to represent the real options with the refugee crisis. First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night... :dizzy2:
Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...
And because it is not a viable long-term strategy, it has already been stopped. But people still arrive on the shores of Greece and Italy anyway. Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
http://history-switzerland.geschicht...itzerland.html
The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?
You have yet to prove any of those claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and here you have another report from the USA:
https://insight.kellogg.northwestern...increase_crime
If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...Quote:
The results of his analysis are clear: “There’s essentially no correlation between immigrants and violent crime,” he asserts. Given some media depictions of immigrants as violent, or associated with human trafficking and the drug trade, this finding may come as a surprise to many, says Spenkuch. “There’s a long perception that immigration increases crime, and when you look at neighborhoods where lots of immigrants live, these are typically not the best neighborhoods. These are violent places. So there’s this anecdotal association [between immigrants and violent crime] that just doesn’t turn out to be true in the data.”
Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees.
That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals? Or make a special law that allows only "former middle eastewrners" or so to lose their citizenship? People who have not left their home country yet will not arrive here anymore in any legal or official way, NATO is patrolling the sea near Greece and we pay Turkey to take them all in, much as you wanted. I'm not perfectly happy but also not fiercely opposed to this "solution" as long as it remains a stopgap measure. Sending the newcomers back without even checking the validity of their claims is just wrong. The whole checking might have gone much faster if Germany didn't have to do it almost alone, so if time is the problem, ask Poland etc. why they don't help and check some themselves, it would also greatly increase the density per country. And no, I have little sympathy for their demands regarding which EU country should take them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Leaving them all in Greece especially is just a (sorry) dick move, given that Greece already has enough troubles itself and can't/shouldn't just kill them on the shore either...
Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries. What happens then, and how likely would it be that this scenario would be very different from one where we didn't do the bad things (which you accuse us of doing) after their independence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Can be rebuilt.Quote:
For one, it's not that electricity went out in Syria, you can probably find pictures of what used to be their homes aplenty.
Well, you said locking up people was bad; plus it might be cheaper to keep them outside, and then you get more money for disinfecting gel.Quote:
First of all, you could lock the ten from outside in a separate room if they just want to stay for one night... :dizzy2:
Whatever is the case, another option is to send them to yet other neighbours, where the 10 are less likely to murder inhabitants.Quote:
Secondly, they were not really outside anymore, but they already entered your neighbor's home already and you're afraid they might murder two people and starve due to your neighbor not being as rich as you, if they all stay there...
Blaming only whom?Quote:
Blaming the problems only on them and their governments as you did above is not going to tackle the causes at all.
What we have learnt from contemporary history is that taking massive amounts of immigrants from radically different cultures is not a great idea, either.Quote:
Eh, they weren't back then either, the US just refused them, they could have tried any other country that would not have required them to cross the Atlantic, such as Sweden or Switzerland, pretty much what you say about them now.
http://history-switzerland.geschicht...itzerland.html
The treaty came to be because back then it was seen as wrong for the USA to have rejected them and apparently noone said the US could have paid Switzerland to take even more because it was so much closer. How are you not ignoring the historic context and changing definitions of refugees etc. around to suit your agenda of ethnic purity?
I've already covered this ground:Quote:
You have yet to prove any of those claims.
So again, percentages are not so important; although I would expect that you would find that the percentages of antisocial behaviour stemming from migrants (first, second and third generation) is higher than natives in Sweden and France, certainly in specific cities.Quote:
[The point is] that law and order is unravelling different places (cities and neighbourhoods) in Europe because of mass-immigration, while mass-immigration continues. Whatever the percentages are for natives and immigrants when it comes to antisocial behaviour, that doesn't particularly matter unless you can use it to both actually restore law and order in these places and prevent lawlessness from spreading
Quote:
Parts of it agrees with me, actually:
The lack of correlation with violence is interesting, but a single study in a single country is not the definite answer.Quote:
But Spenkuch did discover a modest positive correlation between immigration and property crime, although this effect is only present with regard to “immigrants with the poorest labor market outcome,” he says, such as those from Mexico. An increase in immigrants with better economic prospects, such as those from Canada, is not associated with any increase in property crime.
As with the study above, I'd like to take a look at the way the data was gathered, analysed and how the conclusions were drawn.Quote:
I've quoted the German police before as saying the correlation is minimal and
[...]
If Malmö is somehow special and different, then it cannot be used to make a general point about immigration anyway...
When you see similar things happening in both France and Sweden, it would not appear likely that Malmö is a very unusual (i.e. unlikely) scenario given massive amounts of relevant immigrants settling in one city or neighbourhood.
Most of the countries that already have very large immigrant communities (France, UK, Germany) are also the ones who in theory would be the most capable of receiving immigrants, in terms of wealth and population size; and of course it is perfectly understandable that those countries that still are very homogenous want to preserve that; and they can't know how many 'exceptional circumstances' will require them to take in yet more immigrants in the future.Quote:
Perhaps Sweden managed to increase ratios and "tolerance" to a point where it does get problematic, but that does not prove anything about spreading 2 million people over the European mainland. At least according to German law, many of the 2 million are not allowed to stay anyway, that the whole extradition is sometimes handled in a rather sub-optimal way is a different problem and not the fault of the refugees
Quote:
That is a lot of assumption again with nothing to actually back it up, might as well close all prisons if you're right because the criminals will just criminal on once they get out anyway, better to throw them all out of the country into Norway (and pay Norway to take them) or so. :dizzy2:
What are the controversial assumptions? Many countries struggle with full prisons. In fact, this country is sending prisoners to the Netherlands (who mysteriously have plenty of room) because the jails here are too full.
That getting high levels of crime under control should cost a lot of extra money in most cases should be pretty obvious; I don't have any indication that the Swedish (or French) police is so ineffective because the police officers are too busy drinking tea.
If they came as adults, why not.Quote:
So now anyone can lose their citizenship if they are criminals?
"Fine, we'll send down assassins to take out the corrupt leaders and take all the weapons back from relevant rebels and militaries." Are you crazy? They were and are OUR corrupted leaders...
And when a potential threat to them appeared/s, we sent/d assassins to take them out... Kind of operation Condor...
Given that you used some four or five incidents from Malmö to "prove" that there is supposedly a problem in the first place, I'd place the ball squarely in your court now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
That wasn't even the number of links that I posted. I'll requote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Over 70 car fires have occurred in Malmö since July 1st this year [2016]
To add to the last one, regarding the number of separate incidents:Quote:
Malmö has experienced thirty explosions this year [2015]
and the previous year:Quote:
Since the start of the new year [2015] Malmö has on average been rocked by an explosion a week.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150824/you-...u-live-in-malmQuote:
In 2014 a total of 25 blasts took place in Malmö.
Then there's the murder rate:
Malmö
City population: 318,107 (2014) [1] (32% born abroad + 12% born in Sweden with both parents born abroad = 44% of the population with significant immigrant background [2])
Murders:
2016: at least 11 per a previous post
2015: at least 6 [3]
2011: 8 [3]
Average: 8.33
Oslo
City population: 634 463 (2014) [4]
Murders between 2011-2015: 6, 11, 9, 7, 7, 10; average: 8.33 [5]
While murder statistics for Malmö were difficult to get hold of (and therefore incomplete), you can see that something funny is going on. Not only is Oslo almost twice as large as Malmö, but its metropolitan area should also be significantly larger. The murder ratio for Malmö would seem to be almost twice that of Oslo, even though Malmö is a much smaller city.
Chicago 2016:
2.72M persons; 762 homicides.
Per capita that would be:
Malmo 3.45/100k
Oslo 1.73/100k
Chicago 2.33/100k....
er, sorry, that was the monthly average. 28.02
Quite, and having a majority population of around 45%, it fits a more general pattern.
Being much larger than Malmö, the distance from a troubled neighbourhood to the nearest calm neighbourhood can be much larger, and that probably helps driving crime rates up.
I think when you have significant segregation and a large minority population (in absolute numbers), minority youth will risk feeling disconnected from and lose respect for the system that is dominated (even if proportionally) by the majority population, and be more likely to chose a path that involves crime. Crime often involves competition, and criminal competition often involves murder.
And that's why your daydream of segregated nations that compete over limited resources, dominated by a few very wealthy and powerful nations, would inevitably lead to more conflict, murder and possibly world wars, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
If your argument is that the multicultural ghettoization is a terrible thing, then I'm with you, the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more. But national segregation is not better than neighborhood segregation, it just pits armies against one another instead of criminal gangs. And armies do far more damage...
I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful than we world we currently have. A lot of rebellions have been started with the purpose of carving out or reclaiming space for a people that had no independence. Do you think the UK would have been better off if Ireland had not been granted complete independence? If Northern Ireland is anything to go by, it wouldn't.
Furthermore, force has many times been used with the purpose of adjusting borders according to ethnicity; the annexation of Sudetenland and the annexation of Crimea being relevant examples.
In sum, heterogeneity within countries has inspired a lot of violence and bad behaviour.
I don't see how a world of culturally homogeneous countries would make it easier for large and wealthy countries to dominate (if anything, some larger countries would get split up). Smaller countries would have to band together in order to be stronger when facing larger countries, but they do not need to have open borders with one another in order to accomplish this. If the EU had stuck with political and economical cooperation rather than gradually morphing into the USE, it may had been in a much better/more stable state today.
Yet that's not always realistically achievable in the near to medium term (or even long term), and naturally gets more difficult the more immigrants are settled.Quote:
the goal needs to be to break up cultural barriers and mix people up more and more
The problem with multiculturalism is that it has not been shown to actually, well, work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Assimilation works. Comes at a price, but it works.
Cultural hybridity works. Doesn't necessarily come without cost, as the cognitive dissonance of being one way with one group and a different culture with another is mentally straining.
True multiculturalism has not worked past the individual level.
Culture is an aspect of identity and identity is a human need.
On the other hand, you are also correct in that truly homogenous nations have had as many and as challenging -- if different -- issues to confront as have more heterogeneous societies.
That may be somewhat true about internal conflict. The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict. Not to forget that they, especially with capitalism, require growth and can only grow after a certain point by growing into their neighbors. WW1 largely happened because the rather homogeneous nations wanted to preserve their glory, show their superiority or gain either of those. There was territorial conflict over who gets to eat the smaller nation of Serbia and so on. Of course there can also be "homogenous expansion" but then you end up with Hitler where you try to exterminate the people you conquer to replace them with your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Yes, in today's environment of short term profit over everything else, my position has to be outrageous indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I'm advocating some kind of cultural hybridity/assimilation developing towards a global monoculture of sorts. One may bemoan the loss of diversity, but diversity can and does exist in sub-cultures and so on. Multiculturalism does not work as it attempts to keep the cultures seperate and that doesn't work on a national level nor on an international level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
As would, then, any diverse country.Quote:
Not to forget that they, especially with capitalism, require growth and can only grow after a certain point by growing into their neighbors.
It also heavily involved empires (often a heterogeneous lot) and monarchies with dubious democratic credentials, and was sparked by someone who wanted to join the territories of a people geographically disunited.Quote:
WW1 largely happened because the rather homogeneous nations wanted to preserve their glory, show their superiority or gain either of those. There was territorial conflict over who gets to eat the smaller nation of Serbia and so on.
Time here is money, lives and stability.Quote:
Yes, in today's environment of short term profit over everything else, my position has to be outrageous indeed.
"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.
Now, ban all religions and THIS will drastically cut the number of wars.
We will still have the good all reasons to do wars, mind you, from looting to "I don't like how you look at me"...
Typical Blinkered French view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Banning Religions would not reduce the number of wars. For starters you're have to oppress millions of people but even assuming you actually persuade the world to "forget" all religion they'll just start wars over something else - like Football.
Worse, ban all religion and people might just start fighting for conquest again like they did before the Jews invented Holy War. Pretty sure it was them - or if it wasn't them they killed whoever did invent it.
Russia, Iran, North Korea, you, ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Not if there only was one country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Who was the latter? Russia? And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
It was very easy to declare the other people whatever terrible stereotype the rulers could come up with because the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group. Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.
Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There was a time when banning parties and usage of Russian in Ukraine was considered undemocratic. Is banning religions any better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.Quote:
Iran
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.Quote:
North Korea
Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.Quote:
Not if there only was one country.
The Serb assassin.Quote:
Who was the latter? Russia?
Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.Quote:
And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.
In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.Quote:
the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group.
You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.Quote:
Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.
EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.
A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.Quote:
Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.
"Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...
So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
Where does it end?
Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.[/QUOTE]
Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?
Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.
The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others. :sweatdrop:
You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity. Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
So you would second banning an ideology? The communist one, for instance, and the party that propagates its tenets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.
You'll have banned Capitalism, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Good question but irrelevant. Where is the ideological book describing Capitalism? The consequences of bad capitalism (or bad communism) are not in the platform but in the actions of states or individuals. Is Condor operation inscribe in capitalism? Or was it H Kissinger decision?
If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?
So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?
A bit late for this solution of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.Quote:
What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.Quote:
Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
The ultimate point has of course to be how diversity and homogeneity has affected the outcome. The hostile rhetoric of the North Korean government can be seen as a way to justify the extreme authoritarianism and seems primarily to be directed at ideological rather than ethnic enemies.Quote:
And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?
The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.Quote:
Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.
The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others. :sweatdrop:
You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.Quote:
You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?
I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.Quote:
Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.
It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).Quote:
That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.
Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.Quote:
I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?
Dicatorships in general seem to do the more extreme things like these. Stalin deported entire ethnic groups that were thought of as unreliable, and he came from a minority population himself (Georgian) within a diverse empire.Quote:
So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?
Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.Quote:
The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity.
I just said that some civil wars are between majority factions.Quote:
Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?
Democracies don't really have any solid long-term strategy, they can zigzag like a person with a split personality from election to election. Democracies are probably not the best source for long-term strategies (not the typical dictatorship, either).Quote:
Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.
*of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Why? They should adopt 12 Afroasian children IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And who usually votes for populists in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
And don't say Horst Mahler.
No, you're having it upside down. These people come into existance because they and the people around them still care about ethnicity in the first place. There may be an innate desire to form in-groups, but it doesn't necessarily have to be based on ethnicity. It's not like you're best friends with every Norwegian, or is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Otherwise we'll get back to the best husband being your cousin and so on... Or would you call that normal/desirable human behavior now?
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one. Might even say at this point that you can choose your ethnicity as much as the party to join.
That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable. You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016, but there are plenty of other reasons for that besides peoples' irrational fears of the boogeyman. The other issue is that migration is so high in the first place because we have so many individual competing nations and the losers don't all just want to sit on their asses and wait until they die. The same reason that made people vote for Trump is why sub-saharan Africans want to come to Europe (and Mexicans to the US). they lost in the economic game and want a job. The only question is which one of the losers succeeds in beating the other losers before the machines make us all lose anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisi...ral_SentimentsQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Adam Smith actually propounded upon a doctrine of beneficial selfishness. His writing and those who follow him may well be responsible for not only the recent financial crisis but also the general unravelling of social fabric in Europe.
Smith did not, however, advocate slum landlords or dismantling companies and selling them off for parts. Marx did not advocate Gulags and Jesus preached absolute pacifism.
Either God is real and religion is special of He isn't and it isn't.
You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology.
Yes, of thine (aka straw manning).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Just follow the chain of quotes:Quote:
How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?
Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...es/3659904.stmQuote:
The Avars form the largest ethnic group and account for about a fifth of the population. A further substantial proportion is made up of Dargins, Kumyks and Lezgins. About 10 per cent are ethnic Russians. There are also Laks, Tabasarans and Nogai, to name but a few of the other significant groups.
The republic's constitution declares the protection of the interests of all of Dagestan's peoples to be a fundamental principle. It is a delicate balance to maintain, in what is Russia's most ethnically diverse province.
In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe:
Sounds a bit like Malmö, maybe on steroids.Quote:
Once it was Chechnya, today it is the republic of Dagestan on the Caspian Sea that is the most explosive place in Russia - and in Europe. There are bomb attacks almost daily, shootouts between police and militants, tales of torture and of people going missing.
Homo sapiens sapiens.Quote:
And who usually votes for populists in the first place?
Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).Quote:
Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?
If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.Quote:
How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
And don't say Horst Mahler.
In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.Quote:
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.
[...]
That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable.
(in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)
Not quite sure what you are referring to here.Quote:
You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.
I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.Quote:
I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016
They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).Quote:
Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.
"If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.
"Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.
Now, you have to show me in a nowadays communist platform where the "export of revolution by force" is written.
"So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...
"Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.
"So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know. Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous. And this is the most best known example. Do you want to ban Social Democrat Parties in the world because dictatorship this ideology imposed in Europe (Greece, Portugal, France, etc)?
"But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...
"You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology." And it is why I didn't say so. I am saying Religions are based on books their followers claim being the word of God. So, as such, God being truthful and by definition incapable of mistake, it can't be change. So if God said few centuries ago it is ok to have slaves, to rape and conquered others lands, it is valid for ever as God never specify a end date. So, Religions have option one to declare God was wrong, not good, option two, hiding the fact God was wrong, much better. Problem with option 2 is when some idiots come-up with original texts and argue rightly God never oppose slavery, rape, genocide and conquests.
But the way, didn't Jesus expelled the priest from the Temple with a whip? Is it the "absolute pacifism" he preached for? They were just earning the crust...
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Oh, look, he quotes a single line out of context without understanding it. Evangelicals do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Please now go and read verses Matthew 10:34-42, inclusive.
That massage is not about violence but about strife between families - something anyone in a mixed-religion family can attest to. One parent is a Christian, the other an Atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, etc... Jesus still preached absolute pacifism, but pacifism doesn't mean there is no strife between people, it means you don't resort to violence to get your way.
Do better in future.
As to the episode with the whip, it always amazes me how often this is misinterpreted, everything Jesus says and does is a sort of performance, a way of illustrating his teachings. When he drives the money-lenders and the merchants (not the priests) out of the Temple with a whip his a Son expelling those people from his Father's House. He's turfing out the squatters who've taken up residence whilst dad was away. That's why he uses the whip.
As to the idea that a given religious writing "cannot change" this is infantile. Although great strain has been taken by copyists to accurately reproduce the text by hand it has ALWAYS been acknowledged that these copies are imperfect, and for this reason earlier copies have always been preferred. This goes back in the christian tradition at least as far as Jerome.
Again, you are constructing a caricature of a Christian from stereotypes of ignorant evangelicals, then reading that onto mainstream Christianity and every other religion.
I've been saying this for a decade now, and you've been here all that time so there is no excuse for this sort of sloppy argument. Buck up or I'll file a report with the moderators and let them decide whether your response to my point is spam or not.
Where is the mass immigration and the huge ethnic difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?
So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
Yay!
Mixed-ethnic marriages for example. They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level. My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I think the way immigration has been treated as a self-solving issue of sorts was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.
Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
"That massage is not about violence but about strife between families - something anyone in a mixed-religion family can attest to. One parent is a Christian, the other an Atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew, etc... Jesus still preached absolute pacifism, but pacifism doesn't mean there is no strife between people, it means you don't resort to violence to get your way." :laugh4: Well, that is YOUR interpretation. A sword is a weapon, a strike, not a strife. You can say whatever you want...
"As to the idea that a given religious writing "cannot change" this is infantile. Although great strain has been taken by copyists to accurately reproduce the text by hand it has ALWAYS been acknowledged that these copies are imperfect, and for this reason earlier copies have always been preferred. This goes back in the christian tradition at least as far as Jerome" :laugh4: Exactly!!! So the pretendence of religious people to know the alleged words of God is absurd. But when the text is clear, as slavery, slaughters, genocide, burning witches etc, nothing changed. Open your bible and these words are still nowadays in it, clear, precise, concise. Words of God or not? Religions say yes. Jesus did say, as much of the witnesses are telling as, that the Old Testament is still valid, so invasions, rape, slaughters are legitimate. It was with these texts that slavery was organised in the 3 Americas... Tell me if you dare that slavery is not allowed in the Bible!!!
So the Bible is against one of the basic Human Right. The Bible stated that women are inferior to men. The Bible gave numerous examples of slaughters not only authorised but ordered by the Divinity... All these are against the Humanity made rights.
"I've been saying this for a decade now, and you've been here all that time so there is no excuse for this sort of sloppy argument. Buck up or I'll file a report with the moderators and let them decide whether your response to my point is spam or not.":laugh4: Still better than to be burned by the Holy Inquisition, I suppose.
Taken in the context of what happens later in the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus heals the slave of the Temple priest after Peter cuts off his ear, it's pretty clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
That's Matthew 25.47-56.
Verse 51-25 Specifically:
Suddenly, one of those who was with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. / Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
If you read the Gospel all in one sitting, as you should, then it's quite clear that the "sword" Jesus is referring to earlier is not a literal sword, it is a sword of division. Jesus' "sword" is his message, and when he says "I have not come to bring peace" he is saying that the Christian message will not bring harmony but diviosn, because there will be those who accept it and those who reject it.
He also said Christians would be mocked.
Now, here you are two millennia later laughing at me and miss-quoting the Gospels, so I'd say he was an excellent judge of human nature.
Straw man - the position of the VAST majority of Christians and especially Christian doctors is that the Bible is the Word of God as recorded by man. There is no monolithic "religions", there are a few billion people who follow a variety of religious traditions originating from various different parts of the planet. Even if you take the largest group, Roman Catholics, you'll still find a wide variety of views on many topics.Quote:
:laugh4: Exactly!!! So the pretendence of religious people to know the alleged words of God is absurd. But when the text is clear, as slavery, slaughters, genocide, burning witches etc, nothing changed. Open your bible and these words are still nowadays in it, clear, precise, concise. Words of God or not? Religions say yes. Jesus did say, as much of the witnesses are telling as, that the Old Testament is still valid, so invasions, rape, slaughters are legitimate. It was with these texts that slavery was organised in the 3 Americas... Tell me if you dare that slavery is not allowed in the Bible!!!
So the Bible is against one of the basic Human Right. The Bible stated that women are inferior to men. The Bible gave numerous examples of slaughters not only authorised but ordered by the Divinity... All these are against the Humanity made rights.
There's also absolutely nothing about "witches" in the Bible at all. That whole thing stems from a famously bad translation in the KJV, where it says "Witch" it should probably say "Necromancer", and even if it does says "Sorceress" that doesn't mean the same as a Demon-following Witch. We're not actually sure what sort of Sorcery women were doing in ancient Israel, so we don't really understand the import of the condemnation.
Hell, the "Bible" doesn't even really exist! It's a group of writings (as in the title), an anthology and the various Christian groups can't even agree what should be included and what shouldn't. Even with Jews, who've had much longer to think about this, I don't believe there's agreement on the content of the Rabbicic writings or an awful lot beyond the basic five books of the Torah.
Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them? You might learn something despite yourself, maybe your views of other people are capable of evolution.Quote:
:laugh4: Still better than to be burned by the Holy Inquisition, I suppose.
PVP, what you failed to understand is I don't care of what Gospel or Holy Books are saying. What I care is what people are doing with it. You probably know that I am an atheist, so I don't believe in any deity/ies. It doesn't mean I don't have a set of beliefs, it just mean I don't believe in a Super ET creator of the world.
I mostly agree with what you said about translation and as I speak several languages, I can tell you that what define a language are the words that can't be fully translated, as alien in French (the word étranger will not give the full meaning) or the serbian word "inat" (pride which will push to take a decision against your own good).
However, my point is not a theological debate. My point was and is Holy Texts are words of God in the mainstream religions. As such, they can't be modified, but interpreted. But they still remain in the book.
And your reading of the word "sword" is a good example. Your interpretation is perhaps valid. But when a extremist Christian just read the word and read as literal, he/she can justify any violent action by the Bible.
So, when political platforms can be updated to meet modern standards (i.e. communist doctrine is now fully aware that dictatorship is not an option), a Holy Text can't.
We both know it was done in the past, and this not the argument.
"Maybe try engaging with other people instead of just mocking them?" Well, I don't react very well under "threat". And it is honestly a better thing to be reported to a moderation on a website than to be reported to the Inquisition, you should agree that it is an improvement... Now, if it really hurts you, I apologise.
All society groups are artificial constructs, including the family (if we speak of two (or more) people that share houshold, bed, finances, etc. If we speak of family as of parents and children, then they are biological group).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What's the difference who invented the term? Communists incorporated it into the doctrines and, which is more important, put it into practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Perhaps there was a debate, but the tenet itself was forwarded by Lenin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The victorious proletariat… having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would confront the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and in the event of necessity, come out even with armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. – V.I. Lenin, The United States of Europe Slogan (1915), Selected Works, English edition, Volume 5 (1936), p. 14.
Therefore, the development and support of revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution which has been victorious in one country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity, but as an aid, as a means for hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries. – J.V. Stalin, Foundations of Leninism (April 1924), Works, English edition, Volume 6 (1953), p. 111.
I don't know such minute details of nazi ideology, so would you be so kind as to prove the existence of such tenets as cult of death and porn in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Yet religions ARE subject to modification, which is what I was trying to show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Don't you think that banning only SOME stream of communism and ALL religions indiscriminately (despite both can be blamed in many unsavory things) is somehow unfair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I don't think so. Stalin executed his colleagues not because of some ideological issues, it was a usual internal strife to get the domination in the party and in the country. Or to you mind we can't put in the same nazi bag Hitler and those he assassinated in the Night of the long knives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
What you say now is somehow different from banning, the word you used at first. So I don't know what in fact do you stand for - official banning or natural disappearence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
This is what I've been saying all the time. Some people might do nasty things having nothing to do with religions (like Breivik, for instance), others do very good things because they have read the Holy books. The latter are something like a huge shop containing EVERYTHING. What you buy in it - bread for the needy or a gun to shoot your neighbor - depends on YOU, not on the SHOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Yes, and that's why one should not treat ethnicity as an unchangeable fact of life. Especially when it gets in the way of greatness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
And two people who are a couple usually have more biological/chemical links that are part of their nature and bind them together than I do with some random guy from Saxony that I never even met. :dizzy2:
The point being that one should not raise ethnicity as a seemingly immovable object or natural fact that prevents immigration from being successful, because that makes it seem like something it just is not. We need to move on from a post-factual world to a post-ethnical one.
That's where Europe (and Germany especially) seems to be moving, and that's what seems to be ruining it. Europeans seems to lose an anchor, a glue that holds their societies together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Dagestan is a very diverse place; and the immigration into Europe tends to be quite diverse, often creating quite diverse places where they settle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
They are part of the culture, but they aren't necessarily part of the ethnic group; certainly not in the strictest sense (in which there is presently nothing realistic that they can do to change it). This goes beyond skin colour, of course, which is just one component of an ethnic phenotype.Quote:
What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?
Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?
It's a big deal for many because it is causing a lot of problems.Quote:
So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?
Yes, like criminals have to choose to be criminal. Currently, it's a statistical certainty that many will make the that choice, anyway; so you prepare for crime because you know you'll get it.Quote:
The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
Yay!
You'd need quite a lot of mixed marriages before it would have any relevance for a UK parliament dominated by MPs living in India.Quote:
Mixed-ethnic marriages for example.
Interactions between individuals is not the same as the statistics of interaction between groups of individuals. For the current topic, it's not particularly relevant that some individuals from different groups form close bonds, or that some individuals from certain groups become 'successful'; but what the statistics for the group is as a whole, over time.Quote:
They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level.
I disagree with the underlying view. Unless we are willing to spend massive amounts of both money and time on integration, I think we will just see the same issues repeated and made worse with recent/current immigration levels. The way I see it, the immigrants cluster together because they either have more in common with each other than the majority population, or because they settle in the parts of cities that are the cheapest - or both. This causes segregation and maintains the status of immigrants and their descendants as out-group, and rates of antisocial behaviour go up in such areas.Quote:
My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).
[...]
Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.
Neighbours quite distinct from themselves. The Caucasus is quite unique with its endemic language families; and is also culturally distinct (including, of course, the presence of Islam in several of these republics). Other republics contain Buddhist Mongols (Kalmykia) and Turkic people (like the Muslim Tatars in Tatarstan). So no, they got much work to do if the want to assimilate; and it might seem things are going in the opposite direction here and there (maybe everywhere).Quote:
Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.