|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 26 2017 02:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2017 01:12 farvacola wrote:On February 26 2017 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2017 01:00 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 26 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:Don't be dramatic. This pick is only important due when it comes bringing the party together and even your boy Ellison is willing to accept whatever results are. eh, he compared dems not handing over power to berniecrats to police murdering a kid yesterday b/c they didn't want to seem like a sissy. He didn't murder the kid, he just tried to. The point being that there's no reason for them to pick this fight other than to show they are dominant. The converse is just as true. There's a LOT of reasons. But if for no other reason than for political optics this is a smart fight for progressives (the ones who know Keith's campaign and Perez's campaign have been hardly distinguishable). All those Millennials that didn't vote for Hillary in the primary or the general aren't coming to the Democratic party with Perez as chair, they at least might come with Ellison. Again it doesn't matter much if it's a sensible position or not, it's the reality. Nothing to be gained from picking Perez, absolutely nothing. The inverse is not true. You house is in flame and you are still stuck arguing about when your flatemate didn't clean the dishes.
Meanwhile, said flatmate is insisting that seventeen intelligence organizations can agree that a foreign devil is responsible for the fire, and that one of those seventeen agencies helped light the fire - not she herself who was playing with matches and didn't realize that it might start a fire.
|
On February 26 2017 02:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 00:57 oBlade wrote:On February 25 2017 18:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing. "Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper". Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you. If I were in an impossible circumstance, in that state I might personally wish I could hit some kind of lottery, yes. But if you take one minute and look at it rationally, and knew you were going to be in that situation, you would: -if resources were insufficient, want everyone to be equally off because you don't know which lot you'll draw going into it -if resources were sufficient, want to ensure that you would be satisfied being in the worst-off subset. The priority would be catching everyone in the net. Mate, the US is the richest country in the world, and actually, in history of humankind. It's not hitting some kind of lottery. It's human beings knocking at your door for protection and help when they flee war, death and persecutions and you guys demonizing them and telling them to fuck off in some camp in the desert. And don't tell me the US can't absorb a few thousand of refugees or doesn't have the means to. It's ridiculous. So again, what strikes me is the complete lack of empathy and humanity of the right. You see people in need and danger and all you think about is that you don't want to share any of your priviledges. The gop is seen around the world as a party of mean, egoistic people. Maybe it would be time to reflect on that. Not the leaders, who actually are horrible people, but from you, voters and supporters. Thinking like a nice, decent and compassionate guy does not cause any harm.
There are millions of people in Syria displaced by the conflict, and millions more "Syrians" who just want European/American residency. Helping house 100k in refugee camps is far more efficient than letting 10k in. The latter is a symbolic feel-good gesture at best, a way to convince yourself that you are a good, worldly person who believes in helping those in need while doing little to actually make things better.
|
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid.
|
On February 26 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid.
Perhaps we can start housing homeless people in your home then. 4-5 per person who supports importing refugees should be plenty.
|
Norway28923 Posts
what kind of calculation is that?
|
Its not, its just pure trolling. He knows the flaws in his arguments, he just makes them to get a rise out of people.
|
On February 26 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid.
When the aid you provide end up putting more people at risk and causing more death, you should probably seriously reconsider whether it is still a good idea or if you couldn't help them in other ways. At the end of the day we don't disagree that these people need, and should receive, help. Considering your posting so far it seems terribly hypocritical of you to try and present it as a dichotomy.
|
On February 26 2017 02:32 Plansix wrote:
Its not, its just pure trolling. He knows the flaws in his arguments, he just makes them to get a rise out of people.
Yeah I gotta admit LL has been particularly non-genuine and troll'ish lately. It's getting to be a bit much.
|
On February 26 2017 02:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what kind of calculation is that?
There are two approaches for dealing with refugees/homeless that are being compared here:
1. Bring them into your home, which can either be your own country or your actual home, depending on which one we're talking about. The expensive and inefficient way, but it has a visible effect and it looks humanitarian.
2. Deal with the problem at a distance in a logistically effective manner. Doesn't feel good - neither camps nor homeless shelters look like humanitarian wonders - but it actually does a lot more good.
On February 26 2017 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:32 Plansix wrote:
Its not, its just pure trolling. He knows the flaws in his arguments, he just makes them to get a rise out of people. Yeah I gotta admit LL has been particularly non-genuine and troll'ish lately. It's getting to be a bit much.
Perhaps you would have a point if the response weren't to Plansix, who has been particularly trollish since his return, with endless "LL is just bait all the time" posts in response to anything he doesn't like. I simply started respond in kind.
|
Even taking the argument seriously (it comes up frequently in other context as "if you support X why don't you grab Y and do Z yourself), this is obviously why we have political solutions in the first place, so that you don't need to put on your cape and go fight crime yourself just because you support a police force.
On other hand we could send Danglars and XDaunt to the Mexican border so maybe LL is onto something
|
On February 26 2017 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid. When the aid you provide end up putting more people at risk and causing more death, you should probably seriously reconsider whether it is still a good idea or if you couldn't help them in other ways. At the end of the day we don't disagree that these people need, and should receive, help. Considering your posting so far it seems terribly hypocritical of you to try and present it as a dichotomy.
The US isn't at risk, refugees are some of the least likely people to commit acts of terror. And refugees are going to feel war-zones and try to make new lives is far off lands, even if nations collectively reject them and refuse too accept any refugees. You can't stop it from happening.
|
On February 26 2017 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking the argument seriously (it comes up frequently in other context as "if you support X why don't you grab Y and do Z yourself), this is obviously why we have political solutions in the first place, so that you don't need to put on your cape and go fight crime yourself just because you support a police force.
On other hand we could send Danglars and XDaunt to the Mexican border so maybe LL is onto something
Well it can be a community-based political solution. A "Hobos for Humanitarians" program where people who consider themselves to be on a moral high ground will start housing homeless people in-home.
|
Norway28923 Posts
I was just wondering how you got to 4-5 people. Nobody from the US is advocating that you should accept I dunno, the 80 million or so refugees that'd be a requirement for all pro-refugee households to take 4-5 people each. Or if you're talking about homeless, you also don't have that type of homeless problem?
If you had argued that 'all people supporting importing refugees should be required to house 1 refugee per household divided by the amount of refugees they want to import' (basically meaning that households would require housing one refugee per week per year, or whatever, prolly way less) then it'd still be a silly argument, but it'd make some degree of sense. Now it's basically like you said 'everyone who prefers increasing taxation by 1% should be forced to donate their entire income for the rest of their life'. I get that you sometimes feel like trolling but you can do better than this.
|
On February 26 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking the argument seriously (it comes up frequently in other context as "if you support X why don't you grab Y and do Z yourself), this is obviously why we have political solutions in the first place, so that you don't need to put on your cape and go fight crime yourself just because you support a police force.
On other hand we could send Danglars and XDaunt to the Mexican border so maybe LL is onto something Well it can be a community-based political solution. A "Hobos for Humanitarians" program where people who consider themselves to be on a moral high ground will start housing homeless people in-home.
I think that would probably even work in the US if the gov. let's people in. Pretty good chance you would find enough volunteer organisations or individuals to house a few ten thousand people.
|
On February 26 2017 02:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:On February 26 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid. When the aid you provide end up putting more people at risk and causing more death, you should probably seriously reconsider whether it is still a good idea or if you couldn't help them in other ways. At the end of the day we don't disagree that these people need, and should receive, help. Considering your posting so far it seems terribly hypocritical of you to try and present it as a dichotomy. The US isn't at risk, refugees are some of the least likely people to commit acts of terror. And refugees are going to feel war-zones and try to make new lives is far off lands, even if nations collectively reject them and refuse too accept any refugees. You can't stop it from happening.
I'm not arguing that the US is at risk of anything from the refugees (but you know that, because I made that abundantly clear yesterday). Either you are downright trolling now, or you are not discussing honestly. Remedy your attitude or just be honest and admit that you aren't actually interested in a discussion.
|
4-5 people was just randomly selected to look feasible. Use a more rigorous number if you like.
Mind you, "person who supports importing refugees" is not well-defined so it's a loose interpretation. But it gets the point across.
|
On February 26 2017 02:42 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 26 2017 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking the argument seriously (it comes up frequently in other context as "if you support X why don't you grab Y and do Z yourself), this is obviously why we have political solutions in the first place, so that you don't need to put on your cape and go fight crime yourself just because you support a police force.
On other hand we could send Danglars and XDaunt to the Mexican border so maybe LL is onto something Well it can be a community-based political solution. A "Hobos for Humanitarians" program where people who consider themselves to be on a moral high ground will start housing homeless people in-home. I think that would probably even work in the US if the gov. let's people in. Pretty good chance you would find enough volunteer organisations or individuals to house a few ten thousand people.
In this specific context, though, the reply was in response to "homeless shelters won't get rid of homeless people."
Camps = homeless shelters
Refugees = In-home living
|
On February 26 2017 02:43 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:37 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2017 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:On February 26 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid. When the aid you provide end up putting more people at risk and causing more death, you should probably seriously reconsider whether it is still a good idea or if you couldn't help them in other ways. At the end of the day we don't disagree that these people need, and should receive, help. Considering your posting so far it seems terribly hypocritical of you to try and present it as a dichotomy. The US isn't at risk, refugees are some of the least likely people to commit acts of terror. And refugees are going to feel war-zones and try to make new lives is far off lands, even if nations collectively reject them and refuse too accept any refugees. You can't stop it from happening. I'm not arguing that the US is at risk of anything from the refugees (but you know that, because I made that abundantly clear yesterday). Either you are downright trolling now, or you are not discussing honestly. Remedy your attitude or just be honest and admit that you aren't actually interested in a discussion.
I fully understand your argument. That if we stopped accepting refugees(collectively) they wouldn't make the dangerous journey to the EU to become refugees. I find the argument pretty to be pretty naive. Especially living in the US where we have people crossing a pretty dangerous boarder just to find work.
|
On February 26 2017 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:32 Plansix wrote:
Its not, its just pure trolling. He knows the flaws in his arguments, he just makes them to get a rise out of people. Yeah I gotta admit LL has been particularly non-genuine and troll'ish lately. It's getting to be a bit much.
He has been flinging a lot of crap but he's saying what a lot of people are thinking (but won't post) but how much it bothers one has a lot to do with how much of it gets on you.
It's funny when it hits people I've gotten frustrated with, negligible when it's aimed at those people/topics I'm disinterested in, and tiresome when it lands at the feet of things I think need more consideration.
I guess I'm partial though since very little of it (if any, none came to mind) has really been aimed where it could hit me personally.
I digress though. FFS, if for no other reason than being the public face of the DNC Democrats should just do the smart thing here.
|
On February 26 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2017 02:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 26 2017 02:37 Plansix wrote:On February 26 2017 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:On February 26 2017 02:26 Plansix wrote:
Donating food won't solve all cases of people starving. Opening three homeless shelters will not be sufficient to house all the homeless in a city. Just because the entire problem cannot be solved is not an excuse for not providing aid. When the aid you provide end up putting more people at risk and causing more death, you should probably seriously reconsider whether it is still a good idea or if you couldn't help them in other ways. At the end of the day we don't disagree that these people need, and should receive, help. Considering your posting so far it seems terribly hypocritical of you to try and present it as a dichotomy. The US isn't at risk, refugees are some of the least likely people to commit acts of terror. And refugees are going to feel war-zones and try to make new lives is far off lands, even if nations collectively reject them and refuse too accept any refugees. You can't stop it from happening. I'm not arguing that the US is at risk of anything from the refugees (but you know that, because I made that abundantly clear yesterday). Either you are downright trolling now, or you are not discussing honestly. Remedy your attitude or just be honest and admit that you aren't actually interested in a discussion. I fully understand your argument. That if we stopped accepting refugees(collectively) they wouldn't make the dangerous journey to the EU to become refugees. I find the argument pretty to be pretty naive. Especially living in the US where we have people crossing a pretty dangerous boarder just to find work.
How come you repeatedly misrepresent it then? And considering Australia has made it work, how is it pretty naive? Mind you, Australia has failed from a humanitarian perspective in so far that their "camp" is complete and utter shit. But they have managed to if not downright stop, at least stem the tide of people crossing the ocean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
