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 September 09 2015 03:13 Faust852 wrote: But in this thread and the current subject, we don't give a fuck because race isn't the issue, like at all. Arab aren't more brown than italian or spanish people. Yet they aren't discriminated against. There are muslim that are as white as the queen's ass so please stop using the racist card or whatever.
Unfortunately nowadays people just use the "racist card" in order to gain benefits and if you say something about it you're a racist because you aren't being "politically correct".
Really, its just that people freak out when you type racism on the internet and then bend over backwards trying to prove the thing they are talking about isn't racist. And then they dispute the impact of racism or that it is a problem. Or that the people have "valid concerns" which are not racist. So the key is that if racism is a problem, its not their problem or its not an issue in the topic at hand.
In this case the entire debate is around if racism against people from the middle east should be labeled racism because people from the middle east are not a specific race. Which only serves to help prove that the entire concept of race and which group is assigned to specific race is completely arbitrary.
On September 09 2015 03:05 dismiss wrote: I haven't read the entire website, just what kwizach highlighted for now, but they just seem to like calling things that aren't in line with their findings arbitrary and subjective, also it's sort of disregarding that there might be other reasons for higher genetic diversity than just people running around the continent some.
I've read a bit more, essentially Relethford says "I can find that these certain groups have different clines for different characteristics, but if you mash them all together they're one big group with a huge cline and you're supposed to do that because I say so."
Thanks for debunking their entire body of research with your expert analysis. It really sounds like you have a great grasp of what they're saying.
I'm not an anthropologist but to me these at least seem questions worth answering. This study for example introduces the idea that differentiation between certain regions might in fact not be "completely arbitrary" based on regionally differences leading to varying selection pressures. But please, continue to be so condescending to anyone with a differing opinion, at least you have read 3 of those papers.
The problem is not your differing opinion, the problem is that you completely misrepresent the contents of papers I linked you to because you have no understanding of what they're saying. Did you read the conclusion of the paper you just linked? It starts with "The results of the present study could be misconstrued as support for the existence of biological races of Homo sapiens". The author studies the impact of regional factors on human diversity, which is not controversial -- my last sentence two posts ago was that variation among humans obviously exists. That is not the same as saying that there are biological races that would be based on objective clear-cut cutoff points between groups. Variation exists, but races are socially constructed.
On September 07 2015 05:00 Plansix wrote: The shocking revelation that people form less developed countries with oppressive regimes are less educated. Not really a Muslim issue, more of the state of countries in the middle east.
You sure about that? While it may be true, I don't really think that that's something you can take on faith because religion does certainly play a role in education and one's views on it.
If that were actually the case, then the education in the bible belt of the US should be lagging behind that of less religious states. Yet it isn't. Education is far more correlated with wealth than with religiousness.
Um... I'm not sure how exactly you extrapolated that conclusion from my post. I really have no idea what you are referring to and how that has anything in particular to do with my inquiry as to if education is "not really a Muslim issue."
On September 08 2015 23:40 Acrofales wrote:And don't tell me bible-thumping evangelicals in Oklahoma are more likely to accept "science and modern law" than Islamic Syrians. These are the same people who vehemently oppose gay marriage, think creationism should be taught in biology class and abstinence-only is good sex ed.
I live in a pretty strongly Republican state and I see why you might complain about education based on those who tend to be Republican. But I think you miss the point.
1. Republicans may be less educated or not, but it misses the point because the party campaigns more on emotions than on logic. The logic of their positions is generally well-known to be flawed. 2. Bible belt Christians don't advocate mass murdering people who support positions that they don't agree with. Muslims have been known to do that, and the history of Islam is much bloodier than that of Christianity. And most "bible thumping evangelicals" have no problem with science that isn't biology, outside of a bit of FUD, and so yes, I would say that they are more likely to accept "science and modern law" than Islamic Syrians. 3. I would also ask as to whether or not the correlation is reversed (low education or intelligence leads to religiosity) or if maybe it's an American problem rather than a Christian one. I would be sympathetic to an argument that Americans are less intelligent than Europeans (because the selective pressures for intelligence are lower on this side of the world).
Your post was in answer to Plansix, who stated that the educational quality in Syria, and other countries in the middle east, is bad due to the political climate rather than the religion. You questioned that by stating that religion plays a major role in education, and therefore a religion that --- in the words of Yuljab (or whatever his name was), who sparked this conversation that you are replying to and whose phrases you are defending --- does not accept "science and modern law" is correlated with bad education (your hypothesis).
I refuted that hypothesis. I don't give a crap about republican or not, I am talking specifically about religiousness. The quality of education in the states does not seem to show much correlation at all with the religiousness of the region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education shows the whole situation is completely confused, and if you pick the right dataset you can draw pretty much any conclusion you like + Show Spoiler [statistical conclusion] +
the best conclusion to draw from that is that there are almost certainly other, more important factors at play and religiousness plays at best a minor role in comparison to those other factors. If you correct for these factors you *might* be able to say something about religiousness and education, but first you have to identify those factors and research them, which is pretty much exactly what I was stating in the first place
.
As for your other three points, point 1 has nothing to do with anything, point 2 seems to conflate violence and religion in a way that requires a lot more than a simple 1-liner to relate to the issue, and I would argue that number 3 is complete pseudoscientific drivel, and almost certainly based on false premises even if you ignore the pseudoscience about "selection".
On September 07 2015 05:00 Plansix wrote: The shocking revelation that people form less developed countries with oppressive regimes are less educated. Not really a Muslim issue, more of the state of countries in the middle east.
You sure about that? While it may be true, I don't really think that that's something you can take on faith because religion does certainly play a role in education and one's views on it.
If that were actually the case, then the education in the bible belt of the US should be lagging behind that of less religious states. Yet it isn't. Education is far more correlated with wealth than with religiousness.
Um... I'm not sure how exactly you extrapolated that conclusion from my post. I really have no idea what you are referring to and how that has anything in particular to do with my inquiry as to if education is "not really a Muslim issue."
On September 08 2015 23:40 Acrofales wrote:And don't tell me bible-thumping evangelicals in Oklahoma are more likely to accept "science and modern law" than Islamic Syrians. These are the same people who vehemently oppose gay marriage, think creationism should be taught in biology class and abstinence-only is good sex ed.
I live in a pretty strongly Republican state and I see why you might complain about education based on those who tend to be Republican. But I think you miss the point.
1. Republicans may be less educated or not, but it misses the point because the party campaigns more on emotions than on logic. The logic of their positions is generally well-known to be flawed. 2. Bible belt Christians don't advocate mass murdering people who support positions that they don't agree with. Muslims have been known to do that, and the history of Islam is much bloodier than that of Christianity. And most "bible thumping evangelicals" have no problem with science that isn't biology, outside of a bit of FUD, and so yes, I would say that they are more likely to accept "science and modern law" than Islamic Syrians. 3. I would also ask as to whether or not the correlation is reversed (low education or intelligence leads to religiosity) or if maybe it's an American problem rather than a Christian one. I would be sympathetic to an argument that Americans are less intelligent than Europeans (because the selective pressures for intelligence are lower on this side of the world).
Your post was in answer to Plansix, who stated that the educational quality in Syria, and other countries in the middle east, is bad due to the political climate rather than the religion. You questioned that by stating that religion plays a major role in education, and therefore a religion that --- in the words of Yuljab (or whatever his name was), who sparked this conversation that you are replying to and whose phrases you are defending --- does not accept "science and modern law" is correlated with bad education (your hypothesis).
I refuted that hypothesis. I don't give a crap about republican or not, I am talking specifically about religiousness. The quality of education in the states does not seem to show much correlation at all with the religiousness of the region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education shows the whole situation is completely confused, and if you pick the right dataset you can draw pretty much any conclusion you like + Show Spoiler [statistical conclusion] +
the best conclusion to draw from that is that there are almost certainly other, more important factors at play and religiousness plays at best a minor role in comparison to those other factors. If you correct for these factors you *might* be able to say something about religiousness and education, but first you have to identify those factors and research them, which is pretty much exactly what I was stating in the first place
.
As for your other three points, point 1 has nothing to do with anything, point 2 seems to conflate violence and religion in a way that requires a lot more than a simple 1-liner to relate to the issue, and I would argue that number 3 is complete pseudoscientific drivel, and almost certainly based on false premises even if you ignore the pseudoscience about "selection".
Ok, so your point is that religiosity and education are not related in the case of Islam and Syria because you said so.
Well, the most I can say is that you should really read your Wiki article more closely. To say "the issue is multi-faceted" as the article does is not the same as to say "quality of education and religiosity is not related." Nor is it fair to say that because complexity exists, that religion must not play a role. The article does draw very specific conclusions about specific religions and how they play a role in education, and how and why this tends to differ between regions.
In short, you refuted nothing, but you certainly did conflate complexity with irrelevance.
On September 09 2015 03:05 dismiss wrote: I haven't read the entire website, just what kwizach highlighted for now, but they just seem to like calling things that aren't in line with their findings arbitrary and subjective, also it's sort of disregarding that there might be other reasons for higher genetic diversity than just people running around the continent some.
I've read a bit more, essentially Relethford says "I can find that these certain groups have different clines for different characteristics, but if you mash them all together they're one big group with a huge cline and you're supposed to do that because I say so."
Thanks for debunking their entire body of research with your expert analysis. It really sounds like you have a great grasp of what they're saying.
I'm not an anthropologist but to me these at least seem questions worth answering. This study for example introduces the idea that differentiation between certain regions might in fact not be "completely arbitrary" based on regionally differences leading to varying selection pressures. But please, continue to be so condescending to anyone with a differing opinion, at least you have read 3 of those papers.
The problem is not your differing opinion, the problem is that you completely misrepresent the contents of papers I linked you to because you have no understanding of what they're saying. Did you read the conclusion of the paper you just linked? It starts with "The results of the present study could be misconstrued as support for the existence of biological races of Homo sapiens". The author studies the impact of regional factors on human diversity, which is not controversial -- my last sentence two posts ago was that variation among humans obviously exists. That is not the same as saying that there are biological races that would be based on objective clear-cut cutoff points between groups. Variation exists, but races are socially constructed.
Okay, so we have geographical regions which correspond with clusters of morphological/genetic attributes. We even have lots lots of them, have a looksie at Tang et al for example. They are capable of essentially flawlessly matching specific genetic clusters to people categorised by traditional racial groups. Here is another one for the lulz.So we can establish a correlation between ancestral origin and race. It now appears that my opinion was not as unfounded as you claimed it to be after all. Whoops.
On September 07 2015 05:00 Plansix wrote: The shocking revelation that people form less developed countries with oppressive regimes are less educated. Not really a Muslim issue, more of the state of countries in the middle east.
You sure about that? While it may be true, I don't really think that that's something you can take on faith because religion does certainly play a role in education and one's views on it.
If that were actually the case, then the education in the bible belt of the US should be lagging behind that of less religious states. Yet it isn't. Education is far more correlated with wealth than with religiousness.
Um... I'm not sure how exactly you extrapolated that conclusion from my post. I really have no idea what you are referring to and how that has anything in particular to do with my inquiry as to if education is "not really a Muslim issue."
On September 08 2015 23:40 Acrofales wrote:And don't tell me bible-thumping evangelicals in Oklahoma are more likely to accept "science and modern law" than Islamic Syrians. These are the same people who vehemently oppose gay marriage, think creationism should be taught in biology class and abstinence-only is good sex ed.
I live in a pretty strongly Republican state and I see why you might complain about education based on those who tend to be Republican. But I think you miss the point.
1. Republicans may be less educated or not, but it misses the point because the party campaigns more on emotions than on logic. The logic of their positions is generally well-known to be flawed. 2. Bible belt Christians don't advocate mass murdering people who support positions that they don't agree with. Muslims have been known to do that, and the history of Islam is much bloodier than that of Christianity. And most "bible thumping evangelicals" have no problem with science that isn't biology, outside of a bit of FUD, and so yes, I would say that they are more likely to accept "science and modern law" than Islamic Syrians. 3. I would also ask as to whether or not the correlation is reversed (low education or intelligence leads to religiosity) or if maybe it's an American problem rather than a Christian one. I would be sympathetic to an argument that Americans are less intelligent than Europeans (because the selective pressures for intelligence are lower on this side of the world).
Your post was in answer to Plansix, who stated that the educational quality in Syria, and other countries in the middle east, is bad due to the political climate rather than the religion. You questioned that by stating that religion plays a major role in education, and therefore a religion that --- in the words of Yuljab (or whatever his name was), who sparked this conversation that you are replying to and whose phrases you are defending --- does not accept "science and modern law" is correlated with bad education (your hypothesis).
I refuted that hypothesis. I don't give a crap about republican or not, I am talking specifically about religiousness. The quality of education in the states does not seem to show much correlation at all with the religiousness of the region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education shows the whole situation is completely confused, and if you pick the right dataset you can draw pretty much any conclusion you like + Show Spoiler [statistical conclusion] +
the best conclusion to draw from that is that there are almost certainly other, more important factors at play and religiousness plays at best a minor role in comparison to those other factors. If you correct for these factors you *might* be able to say something about religiousness and education, but first you have to identify those factors and research them, which is pretty much exactly what I was stating in the first place
.
As for your other three points, point 1 has nothing to do with anything, point 2 seems to conflate violence and religion in a way that requires a lot more than a simple 1-liner to relate to the issue, and I would argue that number 3 is complete pseudoscientific drivel, and almost certainly based on false premises even if you ignore the pseudoscience about "selection".
Ok, so your point is that religiosity and education are not related in the case of Islam and Syria because you said so.
Well, the most I can say is that you should really read your Wiki article more closely. To say "the issue is multi-faceted" as the article does is not the same as to say "quality of education and religiosity is not related." Nor is it fair to say that because complexity exists, that religion must not play a role. The article does draw very specific conclusions about specific religions and how they play a role in education, and how and why this tends to differ between regions.
In short, you refuted nothing, but you certainly did conflate complexity with irrelevance.
Nor did I say that. I just said that by browsing those studies, it looks like religiousness is at best very loosely correlated with education quality, and there is only very very tenuous support for a statement that their religion is to blame for their lack of education (as opposed to other factors, as Plansix pointed out).
Pointing at a group of people and saying "they are Muslims and their education sucks" does not mean there is any kind of correlation between being a (devout) Muslim and having a shitty education. And we even ignored the fact that most Syrians were (before all hell broke lose) rather modern. Their country was one of the least shitty in the region (except for having an oppressive dictator who would murder you and your family if you openly disagreed with him).
Daaamn Europe. You guys are being invaded by the 3rd world. What are you going to do about it? Commit cultural suicide and allow as many as you can in?
Earlier in this thread we discussed the economic impact of migration including its impact on public fiscal balance and employment. Today I think that's kind of irrelevant because those who are against immigration are not against it due to economic issues and those who are for it are not due to economic issues.
I think the underlying issue is how we perceive the role of the individual in society. What leads me to be for letting in the refugees is the fact that I believe that we live great lives in the West not due to our value as individuals but due to the institutions that we've mostly inherited. Similarly, I don't believe that Syria is a shithole today because of the individual quality of the Syrians who are seeking refuge in Europe. I believe that a Syrian family in any European country, given stability and the opportunity to seek employment, would thrive just as well as a native family of similar qualifications.
Because we were not the creators of the institutions that led to prosperity in our societies, we were essentially lottery winners when we were born. Syrians, on the other hand, were born to much more difficult circumstances. So I don't believe that, given we won the lottery, keep those who were more unfortunate than us from experiencing life under institutions that allow for a much more prosperous life and pursuit of happiness. I think that those who view the issue this way are able to empathize with the Syrians, whereas those who don't view it this way do not empathize with Syrians and rather focus on the differences in their quality as human beings - as they are allegedly uneducated and muslims and thus not worthy of living in Europe.
On September 09 2015 07:01 Eskendereya wrote: Daaamn Europe. You guys are being invaded by the 3rd world. What are you going to do about it? Commit cultural suicide and allow as many as you can in?
Well for Germany it could be a blessing. However people here don't seem to understand that by2031 we will not be able to pay people any pensions, due to the demographic change. Germany should be happy about all those refugees.
The problem is that the elite is unable to accept any critic towards immigrations because they're too blinded by their liberal vision that mobility (men, capital, goods and services alike) is a good thing and that immigration is always positive. They have tons of studies that show that immigration create a net gain for the state, create economic value, is necessary in a society that has trouble reproducing itself, and any critic is always pointed as irrational, created by fear and racism - even in this thread when someone points that "Republicans" are always wrong but play on fear. The reality is much more complex. Welcoming the refugee is a question of moral, it is also a good way to show that europe and its people are as they are not because of inheritance but because of what they share, their values, what they stand for, but again on this very topic - what makes you an european - most european countries have different visions.
Now, putting that aside, a good discussion can arise as soon as both party accept some ground fact : it's not about race nor culture on one hand, and, on the other hand, immigration is a difficult process, that takes years - sometime generation - to actually bear fruits (see France and second generation kids from african countries that are still suffering today). Immigration also has heterogenous impact on the society : it is a real threat for the most uneducated as immigrants usually compete with them for the lowest paid job, effectively pushing wage down - this common marxist fact that our elite seems oblivious to. The poorest usually don't have the possibility to freely choose where to live, so they either live in the same neighborhood as immigrants or they flee from the city, while the richest - who profit from lower wage from the uneducated part of society - can create many strategies in order to protect themselves from the various disorders that comes with immigration. Either way, until someone actually comes to the forefront of our political scene and actually legitimize the fears of the poorest in a meaningful and still humanist manner, the far right parties will continue to capitalize on all this fiasco, and I predict the FN to rise again. Even I, clearly pro helping the refugee, am bored to death and a little nervous about the way our media used the photo of that young kid - the ugliest political campaign I've seen thus far - and how now all politicians are somewhat finding houses and places for refugees out of nowhere - while we have none for the homeless that I pass by every day. This moral hypocrisy is driving me nuts.
oh god that video. 2015 is like some endless uphill battle of EU against some giant monster, first greeceand now this. If anything, world leaders should realize by now we are all humans who live on the same bloody planet, you cant just dump the problems to someone else and hope it goes away. I am talking about why syria crisis happened in the first place and how dumb people can be when you look at people opinions exposed on social media regarding the crisis.
WhiteDog you may have a point about unskilled labor and that problems may need to be addressed by local governments. I'd point out that it's not a deterministic fact that low-skilled immigration leads to higher unemployment among native low-skilled laborers. As you like to say, economies are dynamic - with an influx of low-wage labor companies that were previously outsourcing may invest again in local manufacturing, for example.
Nevertheless, data from the 2000 Census shows that relative wages of native dropouts are uncorrelated with the relative supply of less-educated workers, as they were in earlier years. At the aggregate level, the wage gap between dropouts and high school graduates has remained nearly constant since 1980, despite supply pressure from immigration and the rise of other education-related wage gaps. Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant.
Welcoming refugees is not so morally clear as some try and make it out to be. Imagine what would happen if the remaining 96% of Syrian refugees decided to up and move to Europe. The road to EU is fairly dangerous and moving millions of people is not an easy task - it would be absolutely impossible to ensure a safe transit.
This is actually the reason behind why Australia return/drag boat refugees to their point of origin instead of simply granting them asylum. In true mirror of this thread, opponents claim that this is racially motivated rather than actually admitting that the histories of success will only encourage more to undertake the extremely dangerous endeavor ultimately leading to even more deaths (and only those who can afford to pay a smuggler will be helped).
The ultimate solution would obviously be to secure peace in Syria, however, as that is not possible, the second best option is for the rest of the world to help the neighboring countries handle the extreme load (which we are hardly doing currently).
Focusing on immigrants: A country is completely within it's rights to turn away any immigrants they deem unwanted - and that does not make them racists. Obviously a country is only going to want immigrants which are going to contribute to the society - this means that people with parameters which have shown association to poor integration are going to get turned away. And the studies are really not all as positive as WhiteDog/Plansix have tried to portray them. Take Denmark for example:
Fertility is non-western immigrants the same as for native Danes (non-western essentially means Middle-Eastern as they make up nearly all of our non-western immigrants). 65% of non-western immigrants in the ages 55-59 are on welfare - compared to 26% of Danes. The pattern is similar for decendants of non-western immigrants. Non-western immigrants do much much much worse in school - even in 3.rd generation Non-western immigrants are disproportionately criminal (130% more criminal when adjusted for age) Source in Danish
Western immigrants fare much much much better - as one would expected that actually often fare better than native Danes (which makes sense as they are a highly selected group).
Point being: Not all immigration is good. There are very valid arguments against accepting non-western immigrants. Don't misunderstand me, there are also good arguments for accepting (some) non-western immigrants, however, everything in moderation - a countries primary responsibility is after all towards it's citizens.
Ghostcom you started your post claiming that the acceptance of the refugees was not morally clear, but then non of your arguments address the morality of it, only miscellaneous impracticalities.
As for countries being within their rights, I'm not sure how the convention on refugees is interpreted, but European countries who have Syrians in their land are not allowed to ship them back.
On September 09 2015 08:21 warding wrote: Ghostcom you started your post claiming that the acceptance of the refugees was not morally clear, but then non of your arguments address the morality of it, only miscellaneous impracticalities.
As for countries being within their rights, I'm not sure how the convention on refugees is interpreted, but European countries who have Syrians in their land are not allowed to ship them back.
Encouraging refugees to come to Europe would increase the transit-deaths - I think it is generally agreed upon that it is morally reprehensible to encourage suicidal behavior.
You are conflating immigrants and refugees - there was a reason why my post was divided in two.
In my understanding, everyone that is coming from Syria is a refugee, given that their country is a massive war zone, where several of the major factions have committed countless crimes against humanity, with no end in sight.
As for avoiding deaths, the answer of the pro-accepting the refugees would be to help them getting in rather than building more walls and sending out more vigilance boats. Then we'd come back to the moral debate of whether we should let the refugees in.
You have yet to bring up something that wasn't addressed in the original post. I.e. it is impossible to ensure safe transit for such a big population. Or, when you referred to "countries being within their rights" and said that European countries can't send Syrians back to Syria (they can however send them back to the first Schengen country they entered), you took the "countries being within their rights"-part from the part of my post that talked about immigrants, not refugees. Restating that Syrians are refugees isn't in any way conflicting with anything I wrote. I have no idea what it is you are taking issue with in my original post.
Sorry, I misunderstood your division of the subject on refugees and immigrants. My issue was, again, that your argument was not moral.* As for the practical argument, It is completely possible to transport people in those numbers safely, but only if you're willing. People are dying only because we don't want them to reach our shores/borders. The number of immigrants arriving in Greece was something like 4k a day, which is no logistical challenge whatsoever.
* More concretely, I'd like to understand why you believe that you have a right to inhabit Denmark and take advantage of the prosperous institutions that exist in your country but you don't believe these refugees do.
EPT
