|
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 December 05 2017 09:03 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:03 Gorsameth wrote:On December 05 2017 08:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Throw him in jail. No contacts means no contacts.
How stupid can you be. Surely your every move is watched. How does someone so dumb become head of military intelligence... Different idiot. This one was only the head of Trump's campaign
Yep. Though honestly Flynn is probably dumber than Manafort, at least Manafort didn't participate in a harebrained scheme to kidnap a U.S. citizen
|
On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise
Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done.
|
On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise
I could have a beer and drinks with Danglars. I disagree with him, but he doesn't want me literally dead. I couldn't drink with xDaunt as there would be legitimate reason to fear being executed for not being white enough. That's the difference.
|
On December 05 2017 08:54 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 08:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2017 08:35 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 08:33 Mohdoo wrote:On December 05 2017 08:29 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:24 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:17 Plansix wrote:
Muslim’s values don’t seem any more incompatible than the state of Alabama’s values. I don’t see any real reason to limit their immigration, especially if they are refugees. Because, it has been proven over and over that refugees don’t commit acts of terror. If you truly believe that, then you really are lost in a sea of false equivalence. Y'all on the left love to be the champions of gay and women rights, but for whatever reason, y'all just can't help yourselves when it comes to relentlessly defending the very people who have the nasty habit of throwing gays off of roofs and oppressing women. Say what you want about Bubba down in Alabama, but his "homophobia" and "misogyny" aren't in the same league as what you'll find in the Muslim world. It's not even the same sport. And I haven't even gotten to the Muslim idea of the relationship between church and state. I can abuse you liberals on this shit all day. So, presumably, if a Muslim from a country which has no record of throwing gay people off roofs, or oppressing women, you have no problem with their immigration standards being the same as everyone else's? Does it not cross your mind that, if someone is trying to leave a country in which they throw people off roofs and oppress women, then that suggests, culturally, they are at odds with that country? Presumably, given the treatment of women in these Muslim countries, you'd have no problem allowing women in from these countries so that they might escape this oppression? I don't think you can say people leaving these countries means they don't agree with social policies of these countries. In fact, we have loads of indication otherwise. Do we need a reminder of Germany's issues? We are not Germany. We have very different immigration policies and are much stricter. We are beyond picky with our refugees, so it is not a problem. I don't disagree. I am simply pointing out the fact that refugees are not leaving Syria because of their regressive approach to homosexuality. No of course not, but I was talking about Muslim immigration more broadly. If anything, Western countries and their 'values' (which up until very recently included conquest and the maintenance of an empire) contribute so directly to the situation in Syria, that they have an obligation to help deal with the consequences.
I fully disagree. A country fighting to sustain and grow its power and influence relative to its competitors is a core component of what allows countries to exist. I am not interested in arguments that rely on a passive, non-competitive human race as an underlying assumption.
Russia and China would be drinking champagne for a week if the US suddenly decided negative impacts to other countries and people didn't justify our sustained power and influence.
|
On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now
I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement.
|
|
|
On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done.
Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you.
|
Not something of high import, but puzzling like Manafort’s ghostwriting thing.
|
On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... Show nested quote +If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Show nested quote +Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep.
You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998
Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist?
|
On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise
The idea that a 'nation' vaguely defined as a people with a common language and culture is the base unit of political organisation and a virtual prerequisite for a functioning democracy is pretty common in american conservative circles. If you read sites like the national review or geopolitical futures you find that idea expressed in different forms all the time, it's not an XDaunt thing.
As a way of understanding human history I dont find it particularly convincing. All sorts of states are fundamentally multinational, from the UK to Italy, and India. Besides before Europeans decided that different 'nations' should have different states and spent 100 years ethnically cleansing each other in order to make it so, they spent 1000 years fighting mercilessly over other entirely different ideas. Meanwhile the Chinese woke up one day and decided to kill millions of their own people not because of ethnicity but because of some unspecified ideas about some people having reactionary thoughts.
Human insanity and violence seems to me rather uncoupled from whatever the dominant ideology of the moment is.
|
On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement.
Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture.
|
On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done.
I don't believe in ethnostates, I don't think all Mexicans are rapists, and I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, therefore I lack true moral and factual clarity. Thanks for the help, I would've been really confused otherwise.
|
We really shouldn't pretend xDaunt or Danglars gives a crap about religious freedom other than to use it to advance their shitty arguments.
They'd vote for someone who wanted to ban Muslims from congress to pass crap legislation. Or at least support a party that does.
There's simply no way you can claim you're concerned about freedom of religion while simultaneously thinking Moore shouldn't be kept out of congress. Unless you want to own it's white supremacy based religious freedom that you support.
EDIT: xDaunt supports socialized healthcare (though more to stop the pitchforks than out of empathy it seems), so he's got that over danglars.
|
I would remind everyone that Vox Day is a white nationalist. He was tasked by Bannon and Milo to present white nationism in a way that wound be accepted by the public. He is a full blown racist and terrible author.
|
On December 05 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture.
You guys talk past each other by considering absolute positions. It's not ban all immigrants vs accept everyone always. The balance should be drawn by guiding principles, and the principle xdaunt is referencing where a state has its duty to its own citizens first, is actually pretty straight forward and common sense. The implementation here is botched by trump with his racist/triggering rhetoric.
|
On December 05 2017 09:59 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture. You guys talk past each other by considering absolute positions. It's not ban all immigrants vs accept everyone always. The balance should be drawn by guiding principles, and the principle xdaunt is referencing where a state has its duty to its own citizens first, is actually pretty straight forward and common sense. The implementation here is botched by trump with his racist/triggering rhetoric.
When the fuck did I advocate to let in everyone? And why the fuck would I debate someone who is literally regurgitating white nationalist talking point and won't even admit they are white nationalist talking points?
|
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations?
|
On December 05 2017 09:45 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done. Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you.
xDaunt can surely speak for himself, but I have something of a similar experience in that many on the left back up their political beliefs largely with emotion, rather than clearly defined principles and objectives. xDaunt's position, from what I can tell, isn't an unreasonable one--he's saying that the state should value its own citizens first, and be somewhat insensitive of the cost to foreign lives if necessary.
Whether that's a position you agree with depends on how much you value global utility vs a politician's duty to his constituents (you could definitely argue there's more as well). That's independent of whether it's a reasonable position--one that follows from a set of plausibly realistic axioms.
A habit I've noticed among some of the left is to refuse to even engage with those of have differing values from them. Igne, to his credit, will seek to clarify and engage even with those whom he disagrees as as I've noticed as well.
For the record, I consider myself fairly pro-refugee and pro-immigration but I won't hesitate to acknowledge that immigration is a complex issue and decisions regarding it shouldn't be made lightly.
|
On December 05 2017 10:09 warding wrote:
How many examples in modern history are there of immigration causing significant negative consequences to the native populations?
Native Americans? Because we supe fucked them over by coming here. But beyond them, immigrants have a pretty good track record in mordern history.
|
On December 05 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture.
This is kind of why I never bought into the assimilation/cultural compatibility argument with who we do and don't let in. Which group people consider "culturally compatible" are just shifting goalposts that change to match what's politically expedient at the time, far more so than those groups actually change in any meaningful way.
It wasn't *that* long ago that Irish Catholics were one of the "out" groups, but today basically nobody considers them some sort of cultural danger or worries that Irish Catholic immigrants won't assimilate well into American culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
173
EPT
