On June 29 2015 20:41 SoSexy wrote: Yep and Europe is taking them in because we are swimming in gold and can provide work for everyone!
Italy unemployement rate for young people: 47%... surely unskilled, untrained, uneducated people who dont speak the language will meet a bright future here
Sorry, I think I got a bit mad here, as that's some scary Italian right wing approach you have there...
Yes, Europe is swimming in gold and can take in a lot more refugees than that, if you compare to where many of the refugees come from. Also Italy. And what makes you think the refugees are unskilled? I'm trying hard to interpret that in a non racist way... A lot are not untrained and uneducated. But good luck getting a doctors position with an Afghan doctors licence, so you drive a taxi at best.
Italy no doubt got some problems, but refugees are not the reason, and kicking them out will not solve them, despite what berlusconi tries to tell people. I'm afraid the Italians (not least berlusconi himself...) did that mess all by themselves, and have to sort it out by themselves.
I have to say, reading this when Australia has one of the most appalling histories when dealing with illegal immigration is quite interesting. Not saying that you represent, or even agree with your government's policies, but it might be worth acknowledging your own country's track record before criticizing Italy's (even though SoSexy's first post was quite appalling).
Otherworlds, I've never said "they take our money and jobs" (and my first post is not edited). I find really incredible how you guys automatically associate certain thoughts to "racism", this is not the issue at all. My first and second post stem from the same mind and with the same intention, even if you don't believe it.
Anyways this is getting too serious for this thread so if anyone wants to keep this going just PM me. I have a question:
Is it true that if you say 'raise up lights' you get the same sound of an australian saying 'razor blades'? I always thought it was kinda exagerating
On June 29 2015 20:41 SoSexy wrote: Yep and Europe is taking them in because we are swimming in gold and can provide work for everyone!
Italy unemployement rate for young people: 47%... surely unskilled, untrained, uneducated people who dont speak the language will meet a bright future here
SoSexy & SoSelfish
Your attitude is exactly what we can expect from a pure&simple racist. "THEY COME TO RAPE OUR GIRLS & STEAL OUR JOBS"
Oh don't be ridiculous. They're not here for jobs
j/k
Seriously though, asylum should be a moral principle, not an economic one. Kind of dick move to bring up unemployment rates.
On June 30 2015 03:04 SoSexy wrote: Otherworlds, I've never said "they take our money and jobs" (and my first post is not edited). I find really incredible how you guys automatically associate certain thoughts to "racism", this is not the issue at all. My first and second post stem from the same mind and with the same intention, even if you don't believe it.
Anyways this is getting too serious for this thread so if anyone wants to keep this going just PM me. I have a question:
Is it true that if you say 'raise up lights' you get the same sound of an australian saying 'razor blades'? I always thought it was kinda exagerating
I had always thought they sounded like they were saying
Well, i think the idea is that you merge the "p" from "up" (which can depending on accent sound like a "b" with the "lights" to have "blights", which can turn into blades. At least i see that to be feasible, i don't know enough about english accents to know if that is actually something that happens.
On June 29 2015 20:41 SoSexy wrote: Yep and Europe is taking them in because we are swimming in gold and can provide work for everyone!
Italy unemployement rate for young people: 47%... surely unskilled, untrained, uneducated people who dont speak the language will meet a bright future here
Sorry, I think I got a bit mad here, as that's some scary Italian right wing approach you have there...
Yes, Europe is swimming in gold and can take in a lot more refugees than that, if you compare to where many of the refugees come from. Also Italy. And what makes you think the refugees are unskilled? I'm trying hard to interpret that in a non racist way... A lot are not untrained and uneducated. But good luck getting a doctors position with an Afghan doctors licence, so you drive a taxi at best.
Italy no doubt got some problems, but refugees are not the reason, and kicking them out will not solve them, despite what berlusconi tries to tell people. I'm afraid the Italians (not least berlusconi himself...) did that mess all by themselves, and have to sort it out by themselves.
I have to say, reading this when Australia has one of the most appalling histories when dealing with illegal immigration is quite interesting. Not saying that you represent, or even agree with your government's policies, but it might be worth acknowledging your own country's track record before criticizing Italy's (even though SoSexy's first post was quite appalling).
Yeah, I was wondering if that would come up, maybe I should have mentioned. I am Swedish actually, but have lived in AU 3 years. As I think is clear by now, I do not support the AU immigration policy the slightest, much less so than the European. It is nothing short of disgusting, but that discussion isn't for here. I think sosexys reply has been discussed sufficiently, and I don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to add anything more than emotions, so I'll back out here.
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
What overpopulation?
Europe? Is not overpopulated. NA/SA? Are not overpopulated Asia? Allready on the decline prognosed to soon be at european "growth" levels Africa? Yeah, but if it follows the trend of the other continents this also won't be a long term issue given development actually happens.
Overpopulation isn't a global issue, its a local issue.
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
What overpopulation?
Europe? Is not overpopulated. NA/SA? Are not overpopulated Asia? Allready on the decline prognosed to soon be at european "growth" levels Africa? Yeah, but if it follows the trend of the other continents this also won't be a long term issue given development actually happens.
Overpopulation isn't a global issue, its a local issue.
It is a global issue in terms of demand placed on global resources, but I appreciate your point.
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
What overpopulation?
Europe? Is not overpopulated. NA/SA? Are not overpopulated Asia? Allready on the decline prognosed to soon be at european "growth" levels Africa? Yeah, but if it follows the trend of the other continents this also won't be a long term issue given development actually happens.
Overpopulation isn't a global issue, its a local issue.
From a purely anthropocentric point of view that might be possible to say but even for that I am not sure because the consequences of climate change or mass extinction might be severe for future generations. From a non anthropocentric viewpoint the world is massively overpopulated, the levels would be unsustainable without industrial civilization or indeed post neolithic revolution civilization, which initiated mass extinction.
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
Not sure what you have in mind. Overpopulation is by definition temporary and solves itself on its own: Once you drain a limiting ressource, your population declines to match the limit (or plumits if the limiting ressource simply disappears). There is a question to know if we will be stable at 10 billion or if we will fall back to 1 billion, but no need of eugenics for that.
If what you want to do is to prevent population growth, setting an artificial limit for which no natural ressource used by other species is overly pressured by humanity (overly would need to be defined here, not an easy task), you need to identify a new ressource, unused by any other living species, but without which a modified human being cannot survive and available in low enough amount that the population growth is halted.
It can be done with a manufactured ressource in a dictatorship, but a dictator has other ways to keep its population in check. A purely biological solution ... sounds difficult.
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
Not sure what you have in mind. Overpopulation is by definition temporary and solves itself on its own: Once you drain a limiting ressource, your population declines to match the limit (or plumits if the limiting ressource simply disappears). There is a question to know if we will be stable at 10 billion or if we will fall back to 1 billion, but no need of eugenics for that.
If what you want to do is to prevent population growth, setting an artificial limit for which no natural ressource used by other species is overly pressured by humanity (overly would need to be defined here, not an easy task), you need to identify a new ressource, unused by any other living species, but without which a modified human being cannot survive and available in low enough amount that the population growth is halted.
It can be done with a manufactured ressource in a dictatorship, but a dictator has other ways to keep its population in check. A purely biological solution ... sounds difficult.
The real question is not "are we overpopulated" the real question is "how many do I need to kill so my legacy doesn't have to be part of population decline"
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
Not sure what you have in mind. Overpopulation is by definition temporary and solves itself on its own: Once you drain a limiting ressource, your population declines to match the limit (or plumits if the limiting ressource simply disappears). There is a question to know if we will be stable at 10 billion or if we will fall back to 1 billion, but no need of eugenics for that.
If what you want to do is to prevent population growth, setting an artificial limit for which no natural ressource used by other species is overly pressured by humanity (overly would need to be defined here, not an easy task), you need to identify a new ressource, unused by any other living species, but without which a modified human being cannot survive and available in low enough amount that the population growth is halted.
It can be done with a manufactured ressource in a dictatorship, but a dictator has other ways to keep its population in check. A purely biological solution ... sounds difficult.
The real question is not "are we overpopulated" the real question is "how many do I need to kill so my legacy doesn't have to be part of population decline"
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
Not sure what you have in mind. Overpopulation is by definition temporary and solves itself on its own: Once you drain a limiting ressource, your population declines to match the limit (or plumits if the limiting ressource simply disappears). There is a question to know if we will be stable at 10 billion or if we will fall back to 1 billion, but no need of eugenics for that.
If what you want to do is to prevent population growth, setting an artificial limit for which no natural ressource used by other species is overly pressured by humanity (overly would need to be defined here, not an easy task), you need to identify a new ressource, unused by any other living species, but without which a modified human being cannot survive and available in low enough amount that the population growth is halted.
It can be done with a manufactured ressource in a dictatorship, but a dictator has other ways to keep its population in check. A purely biological solution ... sounds difficult.
The real question is not "are we overpopulated" the real question is "how many do I need to kill so my legacy doesn't have to be part of population decline"
On June 30 2015 23:45 whatisthisasheep wrote: Would Eugenics solve overpopulation and global warming?
Not sure what you have in mind. Overpopulation is by definition temporary and solves itself on its own: Once you drain a limiting ressource, your population declines to match the limit (or plumits if the limiting ressource simply disappears). There is a question to know if we will be stable at 10 billion or if we will fall back to 1 billion, but no need of eugenics for that.
If what you want to do is to prevent population growth, setting an artificial limit for which no natural ressource used by other species is overly pressured by humanity (overly would need to be defined here, not an easy task), you need to identify a new ressource, unused by any other living species, but without which a modified human being cannot survive and available in low enough amount that the population growth is halted.
It can be done with a manufactured ressource in a dictatorship, but a dictator has other ways to keep its population in check. A purely biological solution ... sounds difficult.
The real question is not "are we overpopulated" the real question is "how many do I need to kill so my legacy doesn't have to be part of population decline"
EPT
It is nothing short of disgusting, but that discussion isn't for here. I think sosexys reply has been discussed sufficiently, and I don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to add anything more than emotions, so I'll back out here.
