|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 04 2018 11:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 06:04 RvB wrote:On July 04 2018 05:25 Yurie wrote:On July 04 2018 05:00 Toadesstern wrote:On July 03 2018 20:15 Sent. wrote:On July 03 2018 18:09 Toadesstern wrote:On July 03 2018 15:08 LegalLord wrote:
Her tenure has shown that she’s nothing if not opportunistic. From “open the floodgates” to this, hardly a matter at all.
The opposition doesn’t really seem strong or united enough to outright defeat her, though. I expect more of the same for quite a while longer. yeah agree. I mean opportunistic is how you call it, her supporters would say she's willing to jump over her own shadow and do what her voters (or germans in generell) want instead of hardlining something she feels like she needs to do. Same with nuclear a couple years ago. Merkel was a really big supporter of nuclear energy. Then fukushima happened and people in Germany felt really shitty about nuclear power. She didn't get into office with this image of a "green" chancelor, she got it during her years in office because she changed her positions into that direction after realizing that it's a good wagon to be on. I just don't see an alternative on the horizon. As much as Danglars probably wants it the AfD is polling in the 15% range and not in the 50% they need to govern. The CDU is still heads ahead of everyone else, Seehofer has lost way more in this than Merkel did (even though it hurt both), and I don't see anyone rising up to the task either. Neither someone new in the CDU nor someone elsewhere (I'm looking at you SPD). The SPD also seems to have it hard in this political climate just for the sake of being politically to the left of the CDU. This whole idea that Merkel will be dethroned and the right will rise (if we're believing our ambassador to the US in germany) just completly falls apart the moment you realize that all the alternatives are politically to the left of her and that we tend to need coalitions for governments over here. Even if the AfD somehow gets tons of voters, they'll never get 50+ % in a 6 party stystem which means they'd have to team up with someone and we're back at step1. I feel the only realistic way for this to change is a shift to left. And I don't see that happen in the current political climate. Why is it unrealistic to assume Merkel may step down before the next election to let another (possibly more conservative) CDU politician take her place? That's obviously assuming Germans with right-wing views would want that and I'm not saying they certainly will, I'm just questioning the claim that there is no alternative other than SPD-lead coalition. Merkel doesn't look like someone who would step down and she has this ability to come out of things looking better even if there should be no way for her. I don't think CDU voters impression of her went down during this whole thing at all. If anything she's probably more popular among her voters. The CDU probably lost voters and she lost among non-CDU voters but I don't think it's an issue for her within the party unless someone else steps up and pushes her out. Exclusive: China presses Europe for anti-U.S. alliance on trade
BRUSSELS/BERLIN (Reuters) - China is putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against President Donald Trump’s trade policies at a summit later this month but is facing resistance, European officials said.
In meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, senior Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Liu He and the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, have proposed an alliance between the two economic powers and offered to open more of the Chinese market in a gesture of goodwill.
One proposal has been for China and the European Union to launch joint action against the United States at the World Trade Organisation.
But the European Union, the world’s largest trading bloc, has rejected the idea of allying with Beijing against Washington, five EU officials and diplomats told Reuters, ahead of a Sino-European summit in Beijing on July 16-17.
[...] sad to see them reject this kind of idea. They're still afraid that if they lash out too much at Trump that that will only make things worse. Still hoping they can get on his good side when it's clear he wants to EU to fall apart so that the US has more influence over single, seperate countries. China at least doesn't want us gone~ The problem is that a lot of the practices that Trump dislike about China are disliked in the EU as well. So if we join them in a statement we weaken the US claim against China in the WTO when we might be wanting to lift the same issues. That the US is doing things badly is true, does not mean that we should by default like how China is doing things. Even if it is slightly better currently. Rejecting China in this case is a good move. The US even with trump is more open to trade and FDI than China. As long as China doesn't materially change its protectionism there's really little reason to cooperate with them. As Friedman was fond of pointing out, Chinese protectionism hurts China, nobody else. If China wants to subsidize its companies and sell everyone else cheap stuff while investing their capital abroad, that's actually a really good deal for us.
That's not quite what he said, he said both sides benefit from free trade. Or as he famously said about protectionism, which is a paraphrase of the American socialist Henry George, "In times of peace we do to ourselves what we do to our enemies in times of war", so closing borders for trade hurts both sides.
Subsidies make it hard for non-Chinese competitors to succeed, but I believe that is the smallest problem. China has high tariffs in many areas and a lot of rules that make it hard for foreign companies to produce or sell in China. Often they are forced to partner up with Chinese companies and then those "partners" steal the know-how and technologies.
So in conclusion, China is all but a free trade partner.
+ Show Spoiler +Although if you take a leftliberterian stance like Henry George you could argue that the technological theft in China is mutually benefitial, as it reduces the barriers that property/patent rights form and in the end leads to Cheap Chinese products that everybody benefits from. And that in particular the West should rather lower their patent/property regulations, so that know-how and resources can circulate more freely.
But again, just like in the question of borders, for that you need to take a materialist, objective stance to begin with, that such barriers, regulations and borders are human made "social rights" and not some "natural rights", a stance that the conservatives, nationalists and liberals simply cannot accept, as it undermines the baseline of their ideologies.
|
On July 04 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:21 Silvanel wrote:On July 03 2018 22:30 Big J wrote:On July 03 2018 22:16 Silvanel wrote:On July 03 2018 21:08 Puosu wrote:On July 03 2018 20:13 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 16:58 Big J wrote:On July 03 2018 15:32 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 07:35 Dav1oN wrote:On July 03 2018 06:00 sc-darkness wrote:
[quote]
What's wrong with protecting border? Honestly - everything is wrong since there is no such thing as border, but that's just my futuristic view  + Show Spoiler + Thanks for the laugh. This thread surely has some hidden pearls in it. Also, Italy's new government surely started to have an effect on the EU. Good. Your post is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with the right. There are no physical borders, at best you can create obstacles. The biggest obstacles so far have been travel distance and uncertainty. Modern technology has eliminated both of them. And now what? We should waste our economic capabilities and potential on getting rid of the technological progress again? Stop all transports, stop networking and information for some ancient idea of national states that you don't want to give up? Do you even believe what you write? This is absurd propaganda. There are physical borders. When you go to sleep tonight, you will lock your door. Hypocrite. The point is that national borders are socially constructed. They differ from stable, real and inherent parts of reality that exist sans human intervention. Instead national borders (as all social constructs) are inherently unstable, negotiated and changing. Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities touches on how the concept of nation was invented. The cool thing about social reality is that we can change it -- that is, we may reimagine and redo the meaning of being a citizen, part of a racial group or being an insider or an outsider. Sure we can change it. Just as we can get rid of democracy or voting rights for women or this whole concept of human rights. Just beacuse we can doesnt mean we should. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't. Just because there is a bullshit ideology called conservativism that preaches "we shouldn't" about everything doesn't make a change inherently worse than no change. Of course. But who is going to decide which way should society go? Elected officials? Society at large? Media? Corporations? Everyone has its own idea how things "should" work. People do not agree on that and thats the root of the problem. Yes, so if you are always wrong in creating a system with those axioms you have, then those axioms are wrong to begin with. The axiom that you have some fixed society is wrong. The axiom that that society should "work" in a certain way (by whose criterium of "working" or "functioning"?) is wrong. The laws and the decision processes we should be looking for are those that guarantee that noone can violate another persons freedom, not those who protect institutions like states, coorperations, contracts for their own sake, or push goals like "economic growth" (which once again is what, by whose measure?) People didn't build America on the base of "let's make this a huge nation with a lot of wealth", they built it on economic freedom containing three major ingridients: - they could do what they want and interact how they want - they allowed others to come and interact with them - they all started at an equal footing, whether they got wealthy was decided by work, ideas and effort What conservatives are doing right now is cutting down the bottom two ingridients (or not caring about them) and expecting the same results. That's like believing a differential equation will have the same outcome regardless of boundary conditions. It's just wrong. Your trajectory will look completely different when you start with "everyone has the same and is free" from "everyone has what they parents acquired and is free".
What? The things You say do not make much sense. I was responding to Your own post so in essence You just spoke against You own arguments. You want borders erased/changed? You need to convince people its good idea, then it might happen. Just as if someone convinces people getting rid of human rights is good idea then it might happen. Change isnt good becuase its change, just as lack of change isnt good in itself either. But the change needs energy and momentum. It wont happen because You want it and especially not if there are scores of people against it.
BTW i am not conservative.
|
On July 04 2018 06:45 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 03:19 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 21:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 03 2018 21:40 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 21:18 TheDwf wrote:On July 03 2018 20:13 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 16:58 Big J wrote:On July 03 2018 15:32 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 07:35 Dav1oN wrote:On July 03 2018 06:00 sc-darkness wrote:
[quote]
What's wrong with protecting border? Honestly - everything is wrong since there is no such thing as border, but that's just my futuristic view + Show Spoiler + Thanks for the laugh. This thread surely has some hidden pearls in it. Also, Italy's new government surely started to have an effect on the EU. Good. Your post is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with the right. There are no physical borders, at best you can create obstacles. The biggest obstacles so far have been travel distance and uncertainty. Modern technology has eliminated both of them. And now what? We should waste our economic capabilities and potential on getting rid of the technological progress again? Stop all transports, stop networking and information for some ancient idea of national states that you don't want to give up? Do you even believe what you write? This is absurd propaganda. There are physical borders. When you go to sleep tonight, you will lock your door. Hypocrite. Oh, so this is why the right thinks the way it does: it confuses nations with apartments! Exactly. Millions of people are voting right because they confuse nations with apartments. Not because there are issues that the other parties keep neglecting and won't touch I'm not sure if you are serious, or just missed the point sosexy. Why don't you just write what you really mean, instead of just insinuating that you truly don't know the difference between a nation and an apartment? I was ironic, of course. But reading these comments make me still wonder about the myopia of the left. This type of rhetoric (accept everyone, no borders, right voters are racists, whoever doesn't think the way I think is a fascist) put Trump into power, gave Brexit an incredible assist, then put in power Orban, Kurtz and now Conte (even though the Italian situation is different and 5s are not a right movement per se - now you will say it is, but it is not and the voters breakdown I posted some time ago showed that clearly). How long does this process of self-destruction want to continue? Maybe the left should take one step back, go 'we FUCKED UP HARD' and start to rebuild its base. But no, better calling everyone else racist and fascist from the height of...what exactly? The length you people go through to avoid having to interact with anyone with a different skin colour is so beyond pathetic. Racism shouldn't be placated, it should be destroyed and racists should be publicly shamed and purged from any position of power. It's absurd to have to listen to people like you threatening that if we won't allow you your precious ethnostate you will throw a temper tantrum and destroy the world, and act like the left is the side being myopic and how the left should grow up. What is myopic is to look at the history of the world and not realize that whiteness and nationality are social constructs and can arbitrarily be extended if only there was the political will to do so. And to not realize that immigrants and the poor have always been marginalized and that xenophobes have always complained about them using whatever spurious justifications they can concoct.
And sorry if this was vitriolic, but consider what is happening to Italy.
On June 23, Italy announced that its coast guard will no longer assist boats in distress off Libya’s coast, reversing a policy that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives in recent years. Boats in distress must instead turn for help to the Libyan Coast Guard, an entity whose crews are little more than uniformed human smugglers and whose equipment is paid for by Italy and the EU. Handing control of rescue operations to them means shutting down migrants’ escape route out of the nightmare of Libya’s crowded and violent holding centers.
It’s not just immigrants that Salvini has in his crosshairs. His Lega, today in government with the Five Star Movement, has discussed closing down many of Italy’s mosques, and his ministry has announced plans for a census of Roma camp sites throughout the country. [..] Referring to Roma people who do have Italian citizenship, Salvini publicly declared, “Unfortunately, we have to keep them.”
Salvini has also set his sights on immigration lawyers, liberal journalists, and NGO volunteers, claiming that they peddle fake news and engage in humanitarian activity for profit. The attack on perceived “foreigners” also targets NGO missions as representative of foreign capital: “foreign ships with foreign money.”
So to recap: letting immigrants drown is good, ethnic cleansing is good, but human rights are bad. I honest to God can't understand how anyone can follow this development and blame left myopia in caring about the well-being of refugees and migrants.
Also, with regards to the new Danish laws that restrict movement and criminalize Muslims that live in "ghetto's", maybe people should ask why exactly all these people happen to live in ghettos to begin with, and if maybe gentrification and housing policy etc. has something to do with their troubles.
|
Grumbels, you are exactly what I was advocating in my post. Seeing racism where there isn't, all of this to protect your ego because you can't comprehend how your political vision COULD be wrong. Italian ministry of interior published official data that show a prevalence of immigrants in certain crimes, yet people like you dismiss them and shout racism. People are tired of this shit. Objective data are there but it's easier to demonize your political opponent because that is always what the people like you have been doing. But you make me laugh and keep going like that - surely you will reap political success.
Keep telling the people living near roma camps where tires are burning 24h a day and junks fill the street that they are racists. Keep telling the mother of the girl in Italy who was killed and parts of her body eaten by two nigerians immigrants that she is racist and doesnt understand multiculturalism. Maybe this people want FAIRNESS and JUSTICE? You can't comprehend that. Ffs I saw chinese people getting mad as f*** because the bus stop out of their apartment is camped by roma beggars - is this a wave of racist chinese immigrants? Or maybe people just want LEGALITY?
By the way, since you critique Italy which took in around 650,000 immigrants, how many immigrants did the Netherlands offer to take in?
|
On July 04 2018 16:25 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 03:34 Big J wrote:On July 03 2018 23:21 Silvanel wrote:On July 03 2018 22:30 Big J wrote:On July 03 2018 22:16 Silvanel wrote:On July 03 2018 21:08 Puosu wrote:On July 03 2018 20:13 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 16:58 Big J wrote:On July 03 2018 15:32 SoSexy wrote:On July 03 2018 07:35 Dav1oN wrote:[quote] Honestly - everything is wrong since there is no such thing as border, but that's just my futuristic view + Show Spoiler + Thanks for the laugh. This thread surely has some hidden pearls in it. Also, Italy's new government surely started to have an effect on the EU. Good. Your post is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with the right. There are no physical borders, at best you can create obstacles. The biggest obstacles so far have been travel distance and uncertainty. Modern technology has eliminated both of them. And now what? We should waste our economic capabilities and potential on getting rid of the technological progress again? Stop all transports, stop networking and information for some ancient idea of national states that you don't want to give up? Do you even believe what you write? This is absurd propaganda. There are physical borders. When you go to sleep tonight, you will lock your door. Hypocrite. The point is that national borders are socially constructed. They differ from stable, real and inherent parts of reality that exist sans human intervention. Instead national borders (as all social constructs) are inherently unstable, negotiated and changing. Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities touches on how the concept of nation was invented. The cool thing about social reality is that we can change it -- that is, we may reimagine and redo the meaning of being a citizen, part of a racial group or being an insider or an outsider. Sure we can change it. Just as we can get rid of democracy or voting rights for women or this whole concept of human rights. Just beacuse we can doesnt mean we should. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't. Just because there is a bullshit ideology called conservativism that preaches "we shouldn't" about everything doesn't make a change inherently worse than no change. Of course. But who is going to decide which way should society go? Elected officials? Society at large? Media? Corporations? Everyone has its own idea how things "should" work. People do not agree on that and thats the root of the problem. Yes, so if you are always wrong in creating a system with those axioms you have, then those axioms are wrong to begin with. The axiom that you have some fixed society is wrong. The axiom that that society should "work" in a certain way (by whose criterium of "working" or "functioning"?) is wrong. The laws and the decision processes we should be looking for are those that guarantee that noone can violate another persons freedom, not those who protect institutions like states, coorperations, contracts for their own sake, or push goals like "economic growth" (which once again is what, by whose measure?) People didn't build America on the base of "let's make this a huge nation with a lot of wealth", they built it on economic freedom containing three major ingridients: - they could do what they want and interact how they want - they allowed others to come and interact with them - they all started at an equal footing, whether they got wealthy was decided by work, ideas and effort What conservatives are doing right now is cutting down the bottom two ingridients (or not caring about them) and expecting the same results. That's like believing a differential equation will have the same outcome regardless of boundary conditions. It's just wrong. Your trajectory will look completely different when you start with "everyone has the same and is free" from "everyone has what they parents acquired and is free". What? The things You say do not make much sense. I was responding to Your own post so in essence You just spoke against You own arguments. You want borders erased/changed? You need to convince people its good idea, then it might happen. Just as if someone convinces people getting rid of human rights is good idea then it might happen. Change isnt good becuase its change, just as lack of change isnt good in itself either. But the change needs energy and momentum. It wont happen because You want it and especially not if there are scores of people against it. BTW i am not conservative.
Your argument is very much a conservative one. You imply that something is accepted until it is changed, however that is not a liberal view, because people can simply be born after something is decided. So your view, which is the current practice, is conservative by nature. It is the reason why the youth is always rather against the rules (= social contracts), and why we always have these "the silent majority" arguments, because many people and/or their representatives never gave their consent.
So in my view it is not my responsibility to induce "change", by the very nature of birth and death of people. It is the responsibility of our political and social structures to repeatetly and explicitely ask for consent. Until we are asked it is only a speculation whether I am the one who wants it changed "against scores of people", or whether you uphold it "against scores of people".
If you are right and you hold the majority you shouldn't fear to test the applied laws in referendums. I believe you will be right most of the time because people aren't that different, it is the 10% of laws that a generation decides and which survive generation after generation and cumulate until they fill books that noone has ever read and hardly anyone really agrees with, that scare me.
|
Thats not argument, thats reality. You need to apply force to change existing state exactly like in physics. You need to convince people to change something. Universe is lazy and so are people and societies. Nothing changes unless there is energy used to move people/society in some direction.
And politicians/media/corporations/NGOs etc. are constantly usuing energy to move society in their desired directions. However as i mentioned before change or lack of therof isnt good or bad in intself, it needs to be evaluated by some other merits.
And just right now there are plenty of people against Your proposed change or getting rid of borders.
|
Having no borders is just insane. Reasonable border control isn't too much of a compromise surely.
It concerns me that many right wing politicians campaign on a "fuck the foreigners" basis though, its a great way to ignore the root causes of issues. We get this constantly in the UK, that foreigners are taking our jobs, using our welfare service and running the NHS into the ground, whereas actually it is our government that has done all of those things.
Blaming immigrants is the easiest misdirect any government can use, it absolves the government from whatever they have destroyed.
|
On July 04 2018 17:53 SoSexy wrote:
Grumbels, you are exactly what I was advocating in my post. Seeing racism where there isn't, all of this to protect your ego because you can't comprehend how your political vision COULD be wrong. Italian ministry of interior published official data that show a prevalence of immigrants in certain crimes, yet people like you dismiss them and shout racism. People are tired of this shit. Objective data are there but it's easier to demonize your political opponent because that is always what the people like you have been doing. But you make me laugh and keep going like that - surely you will reap political success.
Keep telling the people living near roma camps where tires are burning 24h a day and junks fill the street that they are racists. Keep telling the mother of the girl in Italy who was killed and parts of her body eaten by two nigerians immigrants that she is racist and doesnt understand multiculturalism. Maybe this people want FAIRNESS and JUSTICE? You can't comprehend that. Ffs I saw chinese people getting mad as f*** because the bus stop out of their apartment is camped by roma beggars - is this a wave of racist chinese immigrants? Or maybe people just want LEGALITY?
By the way, since you critique Italy which took in around 650,000 immigrants, how many immigrants did the Netherlands offer to take in?
Your "objective" statistical data stays objective when I change the domain from "immigrants" to "immigrants and Mr. SoSexy". It simply doesn't say anything about the individual, which is the baseline for a liberal law.
Statistical arguments that lead to laws over individuals, with no prove or indication that these individuals are actually following the chain of argumentation, are not happening on a liberal level. If this argument is a "racial" one it is "racism" by the very meaning of the word, whether you like it or not.
In this question, as long as you keep it to "all immigrants" without differentiation of what are considered "racial features" it is rather nationalism than racism. Still not liberal, but acting on a different statistical domain than racism.
|
On July 04 2018 18:33 Silvanel wrote:
Thats not argument, thats reality. You need to apply force to change existing state exactly like in physics. You need to convince people to change something. Universe is lazy and so are people and societies. Nothing changes unless there is energy used to move people/society in some direction.
And politicians/media/corporations/NGOs etc. are constantly usuing energy to move society in their desired directions. However as i mentioned before change or lack of therof isnt good or bad in intself, it needs to be evaluated by some other merits.
And just right now there are plenty of people against Your proposed change or getting rid of borders.
That's not true, I need to eat, sleep, drink and what not just to uphold my physical status and even then, since everythio around me is changing so is my status in relation to everything else. Time is continuously moving forward. It is a physical certainty that things change and that we need energy, regardless of what happens.
Correcting laws to fit the reality surely costs extra energy, but that is why we pay representatives and bureaucrats. You need energy to uphold them and you need energy to change them. It is actually rather useless to pretend change is only happening when we change laws. It is happening regardless of that because people simply change and that is all that matters. The laws (or rather the information they provide and the execution that is being performed in their name) are only social obstacles with a varying impact on reality.
Like it or not, the world with internet and mass transportation is a different one from the world without these things, regardless if you change the rules or not. In any ways, the real world execution of borders and closed, national societies has simply changed. And even if a lot of people like myself don't like uneducated and in rare - but significantly more cases - violent people migrating into my neighbourhood, I like the real world options to prevent that less and believe that the technical tools that led to these circumstances are still a HUGE net-gain for me and most other people.
|
Who cares about the definition: you don't want to be called racist/fascist, who cares about that?
Actions speak very loud, it does not matter how you define yourself.
The bottom line is: how easy is it for you to stop caring about others who are *more* in difficulties and pain than you (because yes, italian people have many problems, but a refugee or an immigrant from Libya has it *far far* worse)?
which reasons and motivations are enough for you to look the other way when people drown?
I don't care if these are Libyan people, Roma or just other European countries -- it's not about the color of their skin, it's about compassion.
I agree, life it's easier if you don't have to care about others, and if you can every time point the finger and ask "well, what have *you* done?" to justify your lack of human decency.
Salvini simply understood that people wanted to be justified in their selfishness, and decided that it was worth in order to get political power. Nothing to do with "legality" (his party has been condemned for scamming Italy for 49million euros, so let's not hide behind legality come on......)
|
On July 04 2018 17:53 SoSexy wrote:
Keep telling the mother of the girl in Italy who was killed and parts of her body eaten by two nigerians immigrants that she is racist and doesnt understand multiculturalism.
Beware the scourge of Nigerian cannibals, roaming the country side and eating young girls. Who can blame a society protecting itself against these dangerous people?
Keep telling the people living near roma camps where tires are burning 24h a day and junks fill the street that they are racists.
For your information, half of the European Romani population was slaughtered by the Axis powers during the Holocaust, so around half a million people. Hitler declared them: "enemies of the race-based state". Please inspect some of these historical parallels to your brand of xenophobia and see where they led to. e.g. lynching in the United States and anti-Semitism in Europe.
By the way, since you critique Italy which took in around 650,000 immigrants, how many immigrants did the Netherlands offer to take in?
Meh, I'm opposed to Dutch immigration policy as well. We have our own far-right parties unfortunately. The only way of dealing with the refugee crisis is for every country to take in their fair share, but especially the wealthier ones, including the Netherlands.
|
I'll also add my general opinion that the United States and the European Union don't have a moral right to close their borders, given that a sizable portion of their wealth is extracted from third world countries and given the (on-going) legacy of colonialism. I think it's good for the world if there is more migration to Europe. If we want international solidarity in the face of war, famine, climate-change, we would benefit having more multicultural societies. And we would benefit from wealth flowing from Europe to e.g. Africa.
|
The 'scourge' is the result of a process by the Italian judiciary organs. I'm not making things up. I reported a case that happened and you make fun, distorting my words. Would you be this hilarious if someone from your family were in place of that girl?
Nice logic. Many of them were killed by the nazis 80 years ago so today they have every right to steal, pollute, burn tires, steal copper and turn every place they inhabit into a junk hole. Ok... guess what, Jews suffered way worse. How come they are not hated as much as the roma nowadays? Maybe because the majority of them are honest people with basic human decency and don't like living in shit, contrary to romas?
As for the last paragraph, it's the usual rhetoric. I would agree with you if Wilders was in power, but he is not. It's way too easy to talk when you are not involved. The voices I want to see in the immigration debate are the people directly involved, the ones living in poor neighbourhoods, not the ones who would be unaffected by the arrivals.
And please...not all cultures are the same. Some are better and some are worse. This is an objective fact - unless you want to argue that things like mutilating the genitals of young girls or killing albino people to use their remains in witchcraft are good. I don't want people who believe in things like that here. There's no space for them.
|
On July 04 2018 14:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 06:41 Dav1oN wrote:I like how people does not get the idea that any border is an artificial thing which derives from our close-to-monkeys ancestors, which prevents people from moving freely  You need a piece of paper with signatures to make a step left/right on the same planet, common planet. In addition - national pride has 0 value, patriotism has 0 value. Racism is a cancer of our society and needs to be cured step by step (with a couple of other issues like religion). Arrogance and ignorance of some users here is just beyond any reasoning. So edgy, be careful you don't cut yourself there... Here is a wild idea: Maybe we understand your argument against borders but disagree with the conclusions you arrive at? Or are you too arrogant and ignorant to even contemplate such a possibility? Also, there is quite a lot of value to e.g. national pride. It is part of the cohesiveness which keeps a civilized society functioning.
I'm not afraid to bleed if it's necessary. The point is that we got common ancestors as a species, that's why artificial "national pride" matters not. The same thing with borders. These things made to divide and conquer. We're all on the same chunk of dust floating in open space where nothing lives. It is possible to keep a society functioning with appreciation to culture differences and without borders, but i'm not sure politicians all over the world interested in these sort of solutions.
About national pride...Is it worth anything except for boosting a personal ego for no reason? What is this thing so called national pride? How it works and benefits? It doesn't make you better or smarter then anyone esle, it doesn't make you more useful, it just makes you feel proud for no reason
One more thing, people tend to operate with a personal cognitive selectivity, meaning they are wrong most of the times (e.g cannibalism tragedy happens very rarely but it doesn't mean the whole nationalities does it), not even realising - the easiest person to fool is yourself.
Well that was just my IMO
|
Wait, is the European culture one of the 'good ones' or not?
After all, we let people drown because we don't want them in our country, is it better than killing people because they are albinos?
Maybe you should make a sketch of which cultures are good and which are bad, then we can decide what to do about it: probably a big war is the best solution, right?
|
On July 04 2018 19:38 SoSexy wrote:
The 'scourge' is the result of a process by the Italian judiciary organs. I'm not making things up. I reported a case that happened and you make fun, distorting my words. Would you be this hilarious if someone from your family were in place of that girl?
Nice logic. Many of them were killed by the nazis 80 years ago so today they have every right to steal, pollute, burn tires, steal copper and turn every place they inhabit into a junk hole. Ok... guess what, Jews suffered way worse. How come they are not hated as much as the roma nowadays? Maybe because the majority of them are honest people with basic human decency and don't like living in shit, contrary to romas?
As for the last paragraph, it's the usual rhetoric. I would agree with you if Wilders was in power, but he is not. It's way too easy to talk when you are not involved. The voices I want to see in the immigration debate are the people directly involved, the ones living in poor neighbourhoods, not the ones who would be unaffected by the arrivals.
And please...not all cultures are the same. Some are better and some are worse. This is an objective fact - unless you want to argue that things like mutilating the genitals of young girls or killing albino people to use their remains in witchcraft are good. I don't want people who believe in things like that here. There's no space for them.
What percentage of Nigerian immigrants are cannibals, out of curiousity?
Unless it's higher then what I expect (somewhere around maybe 0.01%?) then you bringing it up is evidence against your position, not in support of it. If My sister was eaten by Nigerians I'd want those Nigerians locked the fuck up ASAP. I wouldn't want all Nigerians locked up or otherwise prevented from entering my country.
Collective punishment isn't a thing.
The thing about racists these days is the playbook response is 'HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A RACIST??? IT IS PURE COINCIDENCE THAT EVERYTHING I SAY TARGETS PEOPLE WHO TALK FUNNY AND HAVE DIFFERENT SKIN'
Unfortunately, the answer is always the same: Stop being one, then.
|
On July 04 2018 20:57 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 19:38 SoSexy wrote:
The 'scourge' is the result of a process by the Italian judiciary organs. I'm not making things up. I reported a case that happened and you make fun, distorting my words. Would you be this hilarious if someone from your family were in place of that girl?
Nice logic. Many of them were killed by the nazis 80 years ago so today they have every right to steal, pollute, burn tires, steal copper and turn every place they inhabit into a junk hole. Ok... guess what, Jews suffered way worse. How come they are not hated as much as the roma nowadays? Maybe because the majority of them are honest people with basic human decency and don't like living in shit, contrary to romas?
As for the last paragraph, it's the usual rhetoric. I would agree with you if Wilders was in power, but he is not. It's way too easy to talk when you are not involved. The voices I want to see in the immigration debate are the people directly involved, the ones living in poor neighbourhoods, not the ones who would be unaffected by the arrivals.
And please...not all cultures are the same. Some are better and some are worse. This is an objective fact - unless you want to argue that things like mutilating the genitals of young girls or killing albino people to use their remains in witchcraft are good. I don't want people who believe in things like that here. There's no space for them.
What percentage of Nigerian immigrants are cannibals, out of curiousity? Unless it's higher then what I expect (somewhere around maybe 0.01%?) then you bringing it up is evidence against your position, not in support of it. If My sister was eaten by Nigerians I'd want those Nigerians locked the fuck up ASAP. I wouldn't want all Nigerians locked up or otherwise prevented from entering my country. Collective punishment isn't a thing.
Where did I say that I wanted collective punishment? I said that people with those values are not welcomed. Which means that I shouldn't read on the news stuff like that, because they shouldn't even enter the country.
But I also think you don't understand - every state can do what they think it's better for themselves. That's the first obligation they have: to their people. If the state consider taking people from a different culture because it would create problems, they have EVERY right to do so. Who are you to tell them what to do? In the same way, people who are refused entrance can do whatever they want to try access to it - violence, they can start a war, they can do whatever. History will decide the winner. Yes, this is precisely what Hegel was saying.
|
On July 04 2018 19:38 SoSexy wrote:
The 'scourge' is the result of a process by the Italian judiciary organs. I'm not making things up. I reported a case that happened and you make fun, distorting my words. Would you be this hilarious if someone from your family were in place of that girl?
Nice logic. Many of them were killed by the nazis 80 years ago so today they have every right to steal, pollute, burn tires, steal copper and turn every place they inhabit into a junk hole. Ok... guess what, Jews suffered way worse. How come they are not hated as much as the roma nowadays? Maybe because the majority of them are honest people with basic human decency and don't like living in shit, contrary to romas?
As for the last paragraph, it's the usual rhetoric. I would agree with you if Wilders was in power, but he is not. It's way too easy to talk when you are not involved. The voices I want to see in the immigration debate are the people directly involved, the ones living in poor neighbourhoods, not the ones who would be unaffected by the arrivals.
And please...not all cultures are the same. Some are better and some are worse. This is an objective fact - unless you want to argue that things like mutilating the genitals of young girls or killing albino people to use their remains in witchcraft are good. I don't want people who believe in things like that here. There's no space for them.
Nope, since you cannot extract yourself from a given culture to judge other cultures. There can be no "objectivity" on that matter.
With your reasoning, I would also like to know how you deal with cases such as abortion. In some cultures it is considered like a murder which defies "God's laws", in others it is considered an essential right for women (notice how that cultural split can occur within a same nation). In that case, which culture is "objectively superior" and why?
|
On July 04 2018 20:11 VHbb wrote:
Wait, is the European culture one of the 'good ones' or not?
After all, we let people drown because we don't want them in our country, is it better than killing people because they are albinos?
Maybe you should make a sketch of which cultures are good and which are bad, then we can decide what to do about it: probably a big war is the best solution, right?
I can. I'll start wth some options, and you can decide what it's better and where to live in the world!
Would you prefer a society where you get killed if you don't follow a specific religion, or ours?
Would you prefer a society where women can't drive and go to cinema, or ours?
Would you prefer a society where children are married at 10-12 years old with adult and senile man, or ours?
Would you prefer a society that believes in witchcraft and voodoo magic, or ours?
Would you prefer a society where a raped woman is stoned to death because it is considered adultery, or ours?
If you prefer the first one, go on. Take a plane. It's UNREAL - unreal that young people, born in a country that gives them total freedom are defending societies and cultures where human life, women rights, animal rights, religious rights are considered SHIT and questioning 'why are we better than them?'. You are degenerates, for real.
I'll post one last quotation from Sam Harris about why we can OBJECTIVELY call some state of beings 'good' and others 'bad':
+ Show Spoiler +The people of Albania have a venerable tradition of vendetta called Kanun: if a
man commits a murder, his victim’s family can kill any one of his male relatives in
reprisal. If a boy has the misfortune of being the son or brother of a murderer, he must
spend his days and nights in hiding, forgoing a proper education, adequate health care,
and the pleasures of a normal life. Untold numbers of Albanian men and boys live as
prisoners of their homes even now. 1
Can we say that the Albanians are morally wrong to
have structured their society in this way? Is their tradition of blood feud a form of evil?
Are their values inferior to our own?
[...]
The Bad Life
You are a young widow who has lived her entire life in the midst of civil war.
Today, your seven-year-old daughter was raped and dismembered before your eyes.
Worse still, the perpetrator was your fourteen-year-old son, who was goaded to this evil
at the point of a machete by a press gang of drug-addled soldiers. You are now running
barefoot through the jungle with killers in pursuit. While this is the worst day of your life,
it is not entirely out of character with the other days of your life: since the moment you
were born, your world has been a theater of cruelty and violence. You have never learned
to read, taken a hot shower, or traveled beyond the green hell of the jungle. Even the
luckiest people you have known have experienced little more than an occasional respite
from chronic hunger, fear, apathy, and confusion. Unfortunately, you’ve been very
unlucky, even by these bleak standards. Your life has been one long emergency, and now
it is nearly over.
The Good Life
You are married to the most loving, intelligent, and charismatic person you have
ever met. Both of you have careers that are intellectually stimulating and financially
rewarding. For decades, your wealth and social connections have allowed you to devote
yourself to activities that bring you immense personal satisfaction. One of your greatest
sources of happiness has been to find creative ways to help people who have not had your
good fortune in life. In fact, you have just won a billion-dollar grant to benefit children in
the developing world. If asked, you would say that you could not imagine how your time
on earth could be better spent. Due to a combination of good genes and optimal
circumstances, you and your closest friends and family will live very long, healthy lives,
untouched by crime, sudden bereavements, and other misfortunes.
The examples I have picked, while generic, are nonetheless real—in that they
represent lives that some human beings are likely to be leading at this moment. While
there are surely ways in which this spectrum of suffering and happiness might be
extended, I think these cases indicate the general range of experience that is accessible, in
principle, to most of us. I also think it is indisputable that most of what we do with our
lives is predicated on there being nothing more important, at least for ourselves and for
those closest to us, than the difference between the Bad Life and the Good Life.
|
// sorry inappropriate post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAyNy8yNTMvb3JpZ2luYWwvYmx1ZS1tYXJibGUuanBn)
