|
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 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part.
Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU.
http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/
Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey.
On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing.
We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Or is it better to let them drown by thousands?
Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way.
Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea.
|
It's going to be a whole lot quicker to improve the conditions in Lebanon and Jordan than importing the remaining 94% Syrian refugees - and a whole lot safer. Of course the ones that are here now are here and we need to treat them humanely, however that doesn't mean allowing them to roam freely though Europe (in fact Danish police had to forcefully remove some dehydrated kids and bring them.to the hospital before bringing them back to their parents).
EDIT: We really should be doing all we can to prevent people from getting in boats and trying to cross the Mediterranean. Not preventing it is akin to encouraging suicidal behaviour.
|
How do you know? Of course I am ignorant about Marx; I am not convinced however that I am more ignorant about Marx than you are. Even presuming this to be the case, why does it matter? Why the defensiveness about Marx? Why the sneering at Tocqueville? Where are the erudite arguments to support your alleged insights? If you don't have any arguments, why bother?
Such hypocrisy. I pointed out what I thought was a ridiculous comment in your quote - because no one with a little objectivity could seriously say that Tocqueville is superior to Marx. Turns out your answer to that is a ridiculous and caricatural answer about orthodox marxism, reassuring myself that you are ignorant about Marx - and no I'm not ignorant about him.
Except I clarified that the asymmetry I was discussion was not German vs. Polish, but generic Western idealism vs. Third World realities. Such "cultural racism" is not the impression of a trained line of discourse. Some of us have actually lived in vastly different kinds of societies, and have a developed awareness of different kinds of humanity, and some of the psychological, ethical and social tendencies unique to a specific cultural climate. I am not interested in pursuing an alternative theoretical dialectic so long as my obligation is to the truth as I have seen and experienced it, and not to arbitrary philosophical fads.
You might have clarified, my point stands. Assymetry in compassion is not the right way to describe it. Compassion is a universally felt feeling - it's a humane trait, not something that appear in specific cultural context.
By the way, what you describe (how specific "culturate climate" define nations' emotions) is what I would describe as "arbitrary philosophical fads" - a psychologisation of european politics.
|
On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea.
If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe.
|
On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe.
And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too.
You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc...
I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money.
|
On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money.
I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan.
|
On September 12 2015 04:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money. I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan.
Doesn't seem to be a huge deal to Turkey right now. It costs them money though so it might become one if we don't help.
Also I already said it's be much better to create safe zones in Syria but you like to cherry pick what I say anyway.
|
On September 12 2015 04:37 Ghostcom wrote:
It's going to be a whole lot quicker to improve the conditions in Lebanon and Jordan than importing the remaining 94% Syrian refugees - and a whole lot safer. Of course the ones that are here now are here and we need to treat them humanely, however that doesn't mean allowing them to roam freely though Europe (in fact Danish police had to forcefully remove some dehydrated kids and bring them.to the hospital before bringing them back to their parents).
EDIT: We really should be doing all we can to prevent people from getting in boats and trying to cross the Mediterranean. Not preventing it is akin to encouraging suicidal behaviour.
Yes, but it is far harder. The people fleeing through Lybia are also refugees. It's not as if South Sudan or Eritrea are for the most part any better than Syria. But Lybia is an unstable hellhole, and the only way we can stop people from using the absolute shits that are human traffickers is by working with other countries in the region (Egypt mostly) to offer a humane alternative.
EDIT: forgot to link a good article about the Lybia situation: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/17/death-mediterranean-africans-migrant-sea-libya
|
On September 12 2015 05:04 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money. I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan. Doesn't seem to be a huge deal to Turkey right now. It costs them money though so it might become one if we don't help. Also I already said it's be much better to create safe zones in Syria but you like to cherry pick what I say anyway.
That would involve sending UN troops to Syria to create safe zone. I fail to see how that is cheaper than the current plan.
|
On September 12 2015 04:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money. I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan.
I'm not quite sure why you think Turkey unable to organize good, safe and humane refugee camps, given that they are already doing so. Whether we can realistically create the scale-up needed? I don't know. But I don't really know why they'd be worse off in Turkey (or Jordan or Lebanon, assuming Lebanon doesn't destabilize with the next elections). I think it's the best plan for everybody involved if capacity on site is extended to deal with as many people as possible, and overflow that still comes to Europe is offered asylum there too.
|
On September 12 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 05:04 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money. I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan. Doesn't seem to be a huge deal to Turkey right now. It costs them money though so it might become one if we don't help. Also I already said it's be much better to create safe zones in Syria but you like to cherry pick what I say anyway. That would involve sending UN troops to Syria to create safe zone. I fail to see how that is cheaper than the current plan.
No? It just involves creating large refugee camps styled after the current ones in different regions of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. It might involve UN (or more likely, NATO) forces on the borders to stop ISIS or PKK terrorists from bombing refugee camps, though.
|
On September 12 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 05:04 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:On September 12 2015 04:16 Ghostcom wrote:
The real issue is that not all those currently walking through EU are actually Syrians. Then there are the Syrians demanding to go to Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (yes, demanding) at which point they can hardly be considered refugees and they are actually resulting in less aid being send to those who can't afford to pay the human traffickers. What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:21 Ghostcom wrote:
You should have listened more carefully to Rutte then, because you are consistently doing what he warned against: Failing to differentiate between immigrants and refugees. Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money. I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan. Doesn't seem to be a huge deal to Turkey right now. It costs them money though so it might become one if we don't help. Also I already said it's be much better to create safe zones in Syria but you like to cherry pick what I say anyway. That would involve sending UN troops to Syria to create safe zone. I fail to see how that is cheaper than the current plan.
The great humanist you are should approve a NATO intervention in Syria though. There are probably over 300k deaths and rising, a military intervention will drastically reduce the future human cost. Even if it were to cost a shit ton, it's the most human thing to do ?
Anyway that wasn't my point, You just need to create safe zone, not going in all out war. You don't need 50k soldiers rooming Syrias land to create these havens.
Another way of doing it is financing already at war countries, like Turkey  .
|
Such hypocrisy. I pointed out what I thought was a ridiculous comment in your quote - because no one with a little objectivity could seriously say that Tocqueville is superior to Marx. Turns out your answer to that is a ridiculous and caricatural answer about orthodox marxism, reassuring myself that you are ignorant about Marx - and no I'm not ignorant about him.
I read the Communist Manifesto by the time I was 13, the Capital by 16, the German Ideology by 18. Long before then, I grew up and began reading serious books, because no one with a little brain could take Marx seriously after puberty. Turns out your answer is a pointless exercise in chest-thumping to disguise your insecurity. I know more than you about Marx. And Tocqueville. Hypocrite. You’re ignorant.
You might have clarified, my point stands. Assymetry in compassion is not the right way to describe it. Compassion is a universally felt feeling - it's a humane trait, not something that appear in specific cultural context.
By the way, what you describe (how specific "culturate climate" define nations' emotions) is what I would describe as "arbitrary philosophical fads" - a psychologisation of european politics.
My point stands. Compassion is not a universal feeling, everyone feels it differently. No one with a little objectivity can say that I feel compassion the same way that a Chinese peasant does. Good to reassure myself that you are ignorant about foreign cultures and mentalities.
The serious point is: if you want to be taken seriously, behave like a grown-up. If I wanted to deal with debates like this I would have gone into remedial school teaching
|
On September 12 2015 05:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2015 05:08 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 05:04 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:59 Plansix wrote:On September 12 2015 04:52 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:34 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:32 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:27 Ghostcom wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. No, I want to help them in the first safe country they arrive at. I want to spend the money where it does the most good and not only help 6% of the Syrian refugees. Sending them back to the first safe country in which they arrive also ensures that people are not encouraged to take the trip across the Mediterranean in flimsy boats. I want EU (and the world) to start actually supporting the neighbouring countries which are being overrun because they don't have the resources to handle all the refugees on their own. Agreed. But that doesn't solve, at all the short term problem, which is that Turkey and Lebanon cannot deal with the extreme influx of refugees, circumstances are subhuman and all those who possibly can are paying human traffickers to send them across the sea to Europe. It is going to take a while to change that, and the only humane way of dealing with those who HAVE made it to Europe is by letting them stay while we do indeed help out Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with the gigantic problem of finding a safe and stable solution for the refugees flooding across their borders. It would also be great if we could put some effective pressure on other Arabic nations to step the fuck up and do their part. Subhumane ? The camps in turkey are more humane than any other in the EU. http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/09/turkish-refugee-camps-for-syrians-set-high-standard/Turkey is doing the impossible and we are there, being stupid deadbeat, not helping them with funding. Imagine how the €6bn from Germany would have help Turkey. On September 12 2015 04:34 Acrofales wrote:On September 12 2015 04:30 Faust852 wrote:On September 12 2015 04:20 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
What do you want to do with them ? Send them back to Syria ? At some point we must acknowledge those people are there and we must take care of them. Of course we should deal with the one already there. The current quotas are really low for everybody so it won't be really a pain in the ass for anyone (except maybe keeping them to flee in Germany). 130K migrants is nothing, but 1M3 become a problem. But what we should also do is stopping the insentive of them coming to Europe because it's a supposed paradise. We should also reenforce the European borders, sending aid to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Create safe zones in Syria. That's the only "good" thing to do, not letting migrants into their illusions of grandeur. On September 12 2015 04:28 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Huh? I am talking specifically about refugees. Mainly Syrians, but Eritreans, Afghani and Pakistani refugees as well. They don't suddenly become economical immigrants because they managed to cross the border from Turkey to Greece (or further) Actually yes they do becomes economical migrants once they leave the first safe country they reached. Reinforcing the borders is fucking stupid. As if an extra border patrol is going to stop people willing to get into leaky rafts that can barely float, and then cross the Mediterranean. We should accept that people WILL be fleeing into Europe and treat them as human beings, giving them a place to live, while simultaneously fixing the problem at the source, so less people will actually be willing to get into leaky shitboats and hazard a sea crossing. We actually take them in in the Lybian seas, probably less than 5 miles from the coast. Why not just pushing them back from their points of origin. Especially since the one coming from Lybia aren't for the most part Syrians. Yup, patrol the sea, and push them back to where they come from, and giving them flyers explaining them how to do it the legal way. Hungary is using over 3k soldiers to patrol their border now. I'd imagine you'd need less than that at the EU level to patrol the sea. If you had read that article to the end, you would have seen that only 1/10th of the Syrian refugees are finding homes in camps. The rest aren't in nearly as nice circumstances. I agree with you that we need more camps like that one! As you read in that article, the vast majority of those people don't even want to come to Europe. And that's why we should vastly invest in these kind of camp in Syria's neighbours. It will cost much less to the EU, wont disturb the roads/transports. It will appaises the septics, will be easier for the refugee to integrate and transit back to Syria too. You would reduce drastically the smugling market, the number of deaths, the racists riots, etc... I mean, Australia will use $700m for 20k refugees, wtf. It will cost €6bn for Germany this year alone. I wonder how many hundred of thousand you could help with this money. I am 100% sure Turkey would be all about dealing with all the refugees in massive camps. Policing them and dealing with the crime and other issues. I especially like how you think it would reduce deaths and riots. Literally no flaws with that plan. Doesn't seem to be a huge deal to Turkey right now. It costs them money though so it might become one if we don't help. Also I already said it's be much better to create safe zones in Syria but you like to cherry pick what I say anyway. That would involve sending UN troops to Syria to create safe zone. I fail to see how that is cheaper than the current plan. No? It just involves creating large refugee camps styled after the current ones in different regions of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. It might involve UN (or more likely, NATO) forces on the borders to stop ISIS or PKK terrorists from bombing refugee camps, though.
Turkey is already hosting like 2 million Syrians and they are the most welcoming country from all reports. I really don't think they can deal with any more. There is a flat upper limit of refugees they can handle that no amount of money or spending will address.
|
|
|
On September 12 2015 05:18 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote + Such hypocrisy. I pointed out what I thought was a ridiculous comment in your quote - because no one with a little objectivity could seriously say that Tocqueville is superior to Marx. Turns out your answer to that is a ridiculous and caricatural answer about orthodox marxism, reassuring myself that you are ignorant about Marx - and no I'm not ignorant about him. I read the Communist Manifesto by the time I was 13, the Capital by 16, the German Ideology by 18. Long before then, I grew up and began reading serious books, because no one with a little brain could take Marx seriously after puberty. Turns out your answer is a pointless exercise in chest-thumping to disguise your insecurity. I know more than you about Marx. And Tocqueville. Hypocrite. You’re ignorant.
Lol... And you read the 1844 manuscript at 10 ? Or the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right at 5 ? You know more than me about Marx ? You sure ?
The simple fact that you discard Marx shows that you are ignorant. Anybody who is a little educated know Marx is a huge pill to swallow - whatever their ideological background may be.
Show nested quote + You might have clarified, my point stands. Assymetry in compassion is not the right way to describe it. Compassion is a universally felt feeling - it's a humane trait, not something that appear in specific cultural context.
By the way, what you describe (how specific "culturate climate" define nations' emotions) is what I would describe as "arbitrary philosophical fads" - a psychologisation of european politics. My point stands. Compassion is not a universal feeling, everyone feels it differently. No one with a little objectivity can say that I feel compassion the same way that a Chinese peasant does. Good to reassure myself that you are ignorant about foreign cultures and mentalities. The serious point is: if you want to be taken seriously, behave like a grown-up. If I wanted to deal with debates like this I would have gone into remedial school teaching
You need to take your pills and chill a little. I'm sure the chinese peasant does not feel compassion like you do - he did not read the capital at 16 after all (what a f-ing joke... hahahahaha).
Anyway, the way you feel compassion =/= the fact that some people feel more or less compassion. Again, the term assymetry of compassion means that some feel more (not differently) than others : my point stands (again). You have a little difficulty staying true to words.
PS : just out of curiosity, what is - to you - a "serious book" (the kind of book someone should read after Marx) ?
|
Well, for now it's still just Spain's headache (and has been for the last 20 years or so with nothing much changing). Having lived in Barcelona for 5 years, I know that quite a large part of the current push is inspired by disgruntlement over how the economic crisis was handled. And that dragged in all the other little problems that Catalonians have with the federal government basically since Ferran married Isabel in 1469, uniting Castilia and Aragon, including Napoleon and Franco treating Catalans as second-rank citizens.
The main issue stopping independence is that it would be unconstitutional, and to change the constitution requires a change at the federal level, which obviously the Catalans don't have a majority for. So either the Catalans unilaterally rebel, or they continue doing what they have been doing for the last 20-30 years: rumble and grumble and use their position to slowly and steadily get increasing autonomy within a federated Spain. I don't think things have regressed far enough for outright rebellion to be an option. Artur Mas pulled the same stunt in 2010 to win the Catalan elections then, claiming he would lead Catalunya to independence. Didn't happen then, and nothing much has changed since.
|
Lol... And you read the 1844 manuscript at 10 ? Or the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right at 5 ? You know more than me about Marx ? You sure ?
The simple fact that you discard Marx shows that you are ignorant. Anybody who is a little educated know Marx is a huge pill to swallow - whatever their ideological background may be.
Pretty sure now. The simple fact that you never discarded Marx into adulthood shows that you're juvenile, or simply slow. Let me guess, you started reading at the age of 21 and only ever managed to read one book. The simple fact that you consider Marx to be a huge pill shows how poor your digestion is, no matter how late you attained functional literacy. That would explain why I have to clarify myself 3 times and you still don't understand the most basic sentences.
You probably cannot locate Marx within the nexus of German idealistic philosophy either, which is probably why you think he was an original thinker. Oh, never mind, I forgot, you are "not ignorant about Marx." That is why given the opportunity, you can't make a single argument about Marx's historical vision pace Tocqueville. Because that is what Marxist experts do. They tell you how smart they are. They are so smart they cannot argue, make points or provide exposition. Hilarious.
Ignorant. Hypocrite. LoL.
read the capital at 16 after all (what a f-ing joke... hahahahaha).
Anyway, the way you feel compassion =/= the fact that some people feel more or less compassion. Again, the term assymetry of compassion means that some feel more (not differently) than others : my point stands (again). You have a little difficulty staying true to words.
Nope. Symmetry is a geometrical, not an arithmetic term. I thought France was supposed to be an upper-mid-tier PISA country, yet no literacy. No mathematics.
You need to take your pills and chill a little.
I can't. I'm going full WhiteDog mode. I like being a rude, arrogant Frenchman. It is far more fun than having good manners.
|
Take this whole Marx "argument" elsewhere. Even the original point was only tangentially related to the rest of this discussion and this is just a back and forth game of "no u" that serves no real purpose.
|
i have zero compassion for syrian male refugees. none, nada.
they should go back and fight/die for their country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
