EPTI guess in a sense, you can make the case that as I don't believe in free will, I am an absolute moral relativist which means that everyone is equally as good or bad as everyone - which actually would be a justification of SoSexy's point that 'they are just as bad as the terrorists', but this would necessarily also mean that 'everyone, myself included, is as bad as the terrorists', which I don't think is what he meant at all.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 514
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
I guess in a sense, you can make the case that as I don't believe in free will, I am an absolute moral relativist which means that everyone is equally as good or bad as everyone - which actually would be a justification of SoSexy's point that 'they are just as bad as the terrorists', but this would necessarily also mean that 'everyone, myself included, is as bad as the terrorists', which I don't think is what he meant at all. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
On August 12 2016 23:24 Ghostcom wrote: I think you are still misunderstanding the statement (which was poorly phrases by SoSexy). I think he meant those who jusitfy terrorism are just as bad as the terrorists themselves. You asked him to defend a position he does not hold when you required him to defend equating being acceptant of Muslims with being a terrorist. At least that is what I get from the last 2 pages but I could very well be wrong as his wording was shit. And I'm not so sure I disagree with apologists being equally bad to terrorists (they might even pose a greater threat) - but it's not a topic I've given much thought. I agree, but this is why I asked him to watch his wording. I stated 'adjust your future posting style to avoid making similar blunders in the future. ' as one of my pro-forum-tips. Another was 'If you don't consider people as bad as terrorists then you should not say they are as bad as terrorists. I am telling you to watch your language because the sentences you form through the words you choose to use have meanings beyond what you yourself think they mean'. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On August 12 2016 23:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I agree, but this is why I asked him to watch his wording. I stated 'adjust your future posting style to avoid making similar blunders in the future. ' as one of my pro-forum-tips. Another was 'If you don't consider people as bad as terrorists then you should not say they are as bad as terrorists. I am telling you to watch your language because the sentences you form through the words you choose to use have meanings beyond what you yourself think they mean'. I agree with you, but in similar vein, a pro-forum-tip to you would the be to give posters the benefit of the doubt. Communication is a two-way street. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
 | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 12 2016 19:42 xM(Z wrote: well, maybe this will make it easier for you: you could see it as an ideological thing and not as a personal thing. on a personal level you get(end up with) to hate, on an ideological level you work with who's more right which is not that bad because it lacks the practical application/the emotional involvement of the former. I'm not so sure that it being an "ideology" is much better. Maybe that's what Liquid'Drone was talking about when he mentioned the tragedy of the commons. I didn't finish high school, so I don't know much about these things. I do know that if you take hate out of the emotional equation it becomes very easy to work with whomever and you don't end up wanting to kill things like terrorists seem to want to. You can't really choose who you "work with" (in the broadest sense) in this world, because there are far too many fucking people with an incredibly broad spectrum of beliefs on the face of the planet. And when I say fucking, I mean they're all literally fucking to try and make more of them, so it's not gonna stop. We can't let ourselves be guided by things that inspire others to hate, because that's just going to mean war or something along those lines. On August 12 2016 19:51 Morfildur wrote: You are taking things said on the internet too serious. I actually don't hate Yuljan because he's just a few bytes on the internet and might not even really exist for all I know, so he isn't worth the effort. If I met him in reallife, I'd shrug and move on, because I prefer to avoid spending any time with xenophobes and bigots. That hate sentence was pretty much hyperbole for effect. It's more of a strong aversion than actual hate Yeah, but I was trying to make a point and it was very easy to use your words of hate for that point. Imagine how easy it is for the terrorists to use the words of, say, a certain American political convention to inspire some people to return the hate that was presented there right back at them. The same goes for this kind of thing in our daily lives, as you yourself so aptly put in the very post that you ended with this "hate". | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 12 2016 23:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: Just to add to this, I myself am one of those people who is sometimes understood as 'trying to justify everything'. The reality is that I am trying to understand everything, because I want to learn as much as possible, but understanding why someone acts in a particular way, especially when you don't actually believe that freedom of choice is a real thing (this is an entirely different debate and not suited for this thread - but it's a principle I fundamentally adhere to) is always to some degree going to be justification of why someone acts in the way they act. Thus, SoSexy's statement essentially says that I am as bad as terrorists. I consider myself a caring person who is genuinely interested in making the world a better place with less suffering and anger and tension, and consequently I don't really like being equated with people whose life mission is creating more suffering and anger and tension (which I would also equate with making the world a worse place), which is how I feel about terrorists. I guess in a sense, you can make the case that as I don't believe in free will, I am an absolute moral relativist which means that everyone is equally as good or bad as everyone - which actually would be a justification of SoSexy's point that 'they are just as bad as the terrorists', but this would necessarily also mean that 'everyone, myself included, is as bad as the terrorists', which I don't think is what he meant at all. I agree with a lot of things you said, altho I wouldn't phrase it this way (it is impossible to assure the moral superiority of any cultural system, we could agree, but some behavior are immoral, like killing). But aside from that there are tons of subject and questions that appears afterwards. One of the things that is often forgotten is that France, and the West, has a culture too, there are no reason for us to accept anything that comes from Islam radicals. My parents transmitted me all the ideals of the french culture, which, amongst other, see the church (not religious beliefs) as a structure of power that should be controlled and mocked. Personally, I live in a part of France where the veil is a common thing and where the burka is not a rare sight and it fucking makes my eyes bleed (and don't forget my father is of algerian descent, my grandfather was a devot muslim who never left Algeria, but he knew when and where the religious side of him had to shut up and he never tried to pour islam down my throat like many many young muslim parents are doing nowadays). Also, about finding the cause for each behavior, this is a very important subject. But people often believe religious beliefs are not a valid explanation for behaviors. With that I disagree, what is happening right now can't be entirely described in geopolitical terms. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
But yes, I agree with you, some behaviors are immoral (the gist of my argument is that despite this, the people perpetuating immoral acts are not themselves immoral), and there are aspects of the cultures of the various European nation states that are worth defending and standing up for, and there are elements of culture that immigrants bring to our societies that need to be adjusted and that cannot simply be accepted. I think the Burka is an example of likely patriarchal oppression not possible to combine with liberal western values, but I think the hijab is more of an identity-marker without it necessarily being oppressive. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Moral relativist that wants to decrease tensions overall? If X group is more violent overall than Y group in the exact same setting, X group is inherently worse. The easiest way to decrease tensions is to have a homogeneous society, you do understand that right? Brazil - America - Venezuela and other highly multicultural societies as well. Realize that in Canada, we hide our statistics on race by crime like cowards because we feel it's in our best interest to improve race relations. To basically hide the truth. (It hasn't helped btw, race relations are fine here, but the crime disparity is still the same). Here's my question, how long until the foreign crime levels are like that of the national. Specifically white nationals since their crime rates are the lowest? How many centuries is your guess? I'm assuming you hope science genetically alters people at some point to clean up what your ideology cannot. Because it certainly won't be decades without genetic modification. Or must interbreeding happen to such an extent as to blend people and find a crime rate between the different peoples? Or is this just a price you must pay for your views, that you must force on your other countrymen who do not want it? What is so wrong about giving incentives for your own countrymen to have babies instead? + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O8EQFbqu-8 A simple advertising campaign could really help countries with low birth rates tbh. It gives people a sense of pride and community. To be a part of something. Because if you are to see that once racial demographics change too much, there is no going back. There are many cities in ruins because multiculturalism had failed. So what is the single biggest reason that your countries should pay for a more criminal underclass of people that abuses your social systems and feels validated in doing so? I strongly believe that if liberals truly want to put their money where their mouth is, they should go to South Africa and fix Johannesburg first and foremost before trying what are clearly failed policies and implementing them in the first world. But they always want to change and fix a country that is already working, rather than fixing one in need. Once their policies fail, they move on to the next place. Why don't liberals emigrate to these places and fix them from the ground up? Oh, because it's hard and near impossible and because you yourself are put in danger and must sacrifice for it. Rather than emigrating and actually putting your beliefs to the actual test and put your body in harms way, you choose to throw that burden onto a large % of people who do not want it. You yourself said that, "we must slow down our progress so that other nations can catch up." I believe that to be complete folly, naive, dangerous, and fringing on evil actually even if it has the best of intentions. All you're allowing to do is allow other nations to exploit you. And they will exploit you if you give them a chance. It's what countries do. Exploit those weaker than them and throw their power around. So why do you want to equalize the powers? If anything, you should fight for a hierarchy of powers. That USA remains #1 (or China in the future unless subversion gets them) and that everyone else follows their lead. Have some memes, I want to know which are strawmen and which may poke a hole in your ideology. + Show Spoiler + First off, if we are globalized now, then "we" are a minority. Your country is tiny. Rich, but tiny. So say in 100 years African nations with their massive population increase (which literally only happened because the west sends aid) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vhHqiec.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XP2i4g0.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y9CvAYk.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZZkAePq.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bCEdqb8.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kMAHTFg.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FsRfwiM.png) (To show that it's not just an American thing and it's not just "slavery") ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pjbykaA.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hnHKrOm.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6rcmZvQ.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XOg1sm1.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ezC6Rd0.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m0xvPBY.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8p5Kubx.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KvgKEzz.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xzv3zCc.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1bY9I5G.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9BWlBXn.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zh4hbSi.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rXvCdHs.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Uq8QCcV.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VXed8CL.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/txovnPN.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kLqxXSK.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/McMZdPe.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XtSRqHQ.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2k2jEuL.gif) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/S8bHr5U.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DmG71UZ.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lAg3q46.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ifso3z2.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mXQ74Gi.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/14occVV.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mzHzdam.jpg) There is no proof that you are not going to import a people that are eternally on a higher percent of welfare and eternally commit a much higher % of crime. So to a native European these days it's, "yay, I get to pay for a higher percentage of criminals in my country that occasionally blow up. The best part is they live off my money!" So how long, or what has to happen for these numbers to become equal across the board? And will they be overall higher across the board or lower? What is the end game of your ideology beyond, 'helping people in need'. No country has gotten these numbers to be equal, you do know that right? Not even multicultural, friendly, accepting Canada. So what makes you think you'll fair better? So what I want is: For all these numbers to be roughly equal. Which I no longer believe is possible. USA has affirmative action, diversity quotas, and a lot to help people like Hispanics and Blacks. (Reminder, Asians still seem to excel.) What your side wants is: For those numbers to be roughly equal. But since they aren't, they hide it and say, 'omg it's racist to identify criminals and welfare recipients based on race. Like, who cares what race they are?' Well, I do. Because I think it's unsustainable for a country to have such a high degree of people on social programs and welfare which is why the left is toying with "universal basic income". That in order to get something or achieve something, sacrifice must be made to understand its value. When you give people free stuff, they don't truly appreciate or understand it. I can cite 94898294898 examples of this. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xFc7IkG.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VRS3h4Q.jpg) How many centuries does your visionary ideology take to kick in? And how easy is it to subvert and dominate after it does? Because right now we're mired in identity politics constantly. Identity politics that should not even exist in our countries. It should not even be a point of discussion, yet it is. Constantly. And it's being talked about every single time by the left very dishonestly and it's easy to point it out again and again. When you start the premise on dishonest conversation, don't be surprised when there is pushback. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: I stopped reading your post when you suggested that crime levels were caused by genetic differences between races. This is not a discussion I am having, I think it's complete nonsense. Literally every country follows the same pattern. There is literally no country that doesn't follow the pattern of crime by colour. With this kind of mathematical accuracy we could ascertain that it's biological. We are so ready to accept physical differences but not mental? Ridiculous. I guess Asians aren't on average shorter than Netherlanders. Or that Asians despite their small minority are disproportionately represented in American universities despite it being drastically harder for them to get in. (They have to score a lot higher to get in). And if it's cultural, why do you tolerate bad cultural practices that inhibit learning and self-improvement? Most Asians I know had strict parents that put a lot of thought into their kids school with piano lessons or violin lessons. What of the black kids where their fathers abandon them at a much higher rate than say those of the natives? That's what you're going to get with the new wave of Migrants if you keep taking migrants from Africa and the ME. Higher welfare %'s, higher crime rates, and it's going to take centuries for your ideology to pay off and that ideology may in the end fail. Because I don't believe there's a place on earth where it's worked ideally yet. Maybe some small scale place with a few hundred thousand people. But what of hundreds of millions? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28695 Posts
edit: Other people sometimes make the claim that muslim or africans have inferior culture. This is a different discussion, it's more complex, and not one where I would simply refute your arguments as racist. Testie is different - he believes that differences between races with regard to crime propensity and societal success are not founded in culture, but in biology. It's classic, old fashioned racism, and I see no point in engaging that in a civil debate. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:51 SK.Testie wrote: Literally every country follows the same pattern. There is literally no country that doesn't follow the pattern of crime by colour. With this kind of mathematical accuracy we could ascertain that it's biological. We are so ready to accept physical differences but not mental? Ridiculous. I guess Asians aren't on average shorter than Netherlanders. Or that Asians despite their small minority are disproportionately represented in American universities despite it being drastically harder for them to get in. (They have to score a lot higher to get in). Then you breed it out over hundreds of years until we get to South Park's "Goobacks" where everyone looks practically the same. So if you want to help, start looking for a middle-eastern or black wife and make children with her (but be sure to ask her permission first). Now stop being ridiculous, or I'll come back with even more ridiculous solutions. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On August 13 2016 00:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There's literally no country where africans and whites coexisted without africans being considered second class citizens until like, 2-3 generations ago. Socioeconomical differences take a lot longer than 2-3 generations to revert themselves. But like I said, I am not engaging. You are an actual, certified, self-admitted racist, there's no 'accusing you of bigotry' or whatever, you flat out say it yourself. I think it's detestable, I think your opinions are detrimental to the well-being of the world, but I also think I have no chance of convincing you of anything, but I have no interest in engaging with you because it's all bullshit and I have better things to do with my time than refute your bullshit. I'll leave it alone after this. But the biggest problem is you haven't refuted anything actually. It's not that you won't, it's that you can't. I'm a pretty logical man, if you point to places that are successes I'll gladly welcome them. And what worries and scares you more, is that you can't. The numbers are on my side. And they terrify you. But I'm letting you know for a certainty that with the new wave of migrants from Africa / the ME, you're sacrificing a lot of your own people to violence for your ideology. And it's rather cowardly to do it from a white country, and a lot braver to emigrate and do it and build their country up instead. A communist wanting to change America is evil in my eyes. A communist moving to a communist country and trying to improve it is someone I can actually respect despite disagreeing vehemently with their view. | ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
On August 12 2016 23:05 D_lux wrote: Some people said that this is okay since there can't be any terrorists among them and it is totally fine and infact our duty to do this. Other people said that this isn't such a good idea to do because its extremely likely that there are terrorists among these people. Those who said this were shunned and had been called racist, xenophobes, islamophobe etc. etc. Aren't you simplifying things a bit? There is a spectrum, it's not "you're pro-refugees, so you think they are all nice" or "you are against refugees, so you think they are all evil". I think it is our duty to help people in need. Most of those refugees are people in need, running away from a country in war where they'd just end up getting killed in various violent ways. Yes, some of them are bad people and terrorists, but we can't turn away many good people just because of a few bad people in their midst. I consider many of those that say we should deny refugees entry as xenophobes, because they are judging a large group of people by it's worst members, ignoring that every population group has it's good and bad members. That doesn't mean we should blindly accept everyone. If we know that someone is a terrorist, then yes, that person should be sent back. We should be careful and watchful, but we shouldn't turn all refugees away just because there is a chance that some of them are evil. If you are flat out against all Muslims just because some Muslims are terrorist, then, yes, you are a xenophobe and islamophobe, because you are judging people by their origin and religion instead of by their person. Black people are criminals, brown people are terrorists, red people want your scalp, yellow people want to steal your company secrets and green people fly in with their flying saucers to probe your anus. It's so simple to think like that, instead of accepting that, yes, some green people want to probe your anus, but many more other green people just want to work in your factories without having to fear getting killed by a stray deathray from the anus-probing sort of green people. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 13 2016 01:04 Morfildur wrote: and green people fly in with their flying saucers to probe your anus. It's so simple to think like that, instead of accepting that, yes, some green people want to probe your anus, but many more other green people just want to work in your factories without having to fear getting killed by a stray deathray from the anus-probing sort of green people. To be fair, I do wear my green man suit when I go hunting for anus. On August 13 2016 01:04 SK.Testie wrote: I'll leave it alone after this. But the biggest problem is you haven't refuted anything actually. It's not that you won't, it's that you can't. I'm a pretty logical man, if you point to places that are successes I'll gladly welcome them. And what worries and scares you more, is that you can't. The numbers are on my side. And they terrify you. But I'm letting you know for a certainty that with the new wave of migrants from Africa / the ME, you're sacrificing a lot of your own people to violence for your ideology. And it's rather cowardly to do it from a white country, and a lot braver to emigrate and do it and build their country up instead. A communist wanting to change America is evil in my eyes. A communist moving to a communist country and trying to improve it is someone I can actually respect despite disagreeing vehemently with their view. Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long. This whole thing is just absolute madness. When this system of enslavement started to crack, we should have given it all back, but we didn't. We keep on taking more by making deals with warlords and having corporations take resources out of these countries where these people live. We're busy consuming as the other half of the world dies. And the cycle will keep on going round... | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
There is a spectrum, it's not "you're pro-refugees, so you think they are all nice" or "you are against refugees, so you think they are all evil". The media made it this way. The debate has no sense, asylum is a constitutional right : we had to welcome refugees. The problem is how it is made : not only they opened the door to everyone without any kind of control, but they denied the risks and think simply putting those people in camps is sufficient. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On August 13 2016 01:09 a_flayer wrote: Holy crap, I just read your post in entirety, so... basically you agree with my previous post. So here we go: I'm pretty sure African-Americans "sacrificed" for hundreds of years on essentially your behalf. So yeah, I'm expecting you to sacrifice for an equal amount of time. But you're not really sacrificing anything, since you're still reaping the benefits from the society that was built, which is part of why it is taking so long. This whole thing is just absolute madness. - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 13 2016 01:22 SK.Testie wrote: - Conquer a people - Accept it when they say, "ok you conquered us, we get to conquer you back because that's fair." Nope. The more advanced people fought and conquered a less civilized people. They won. To the victor go the spoils. Right. So you're just a monster. I'm done with you. Edit: I'll add that, I'm not actually expecting any sacrificing (or reconquering as you put it). But the integration into our society is going to take a lot of time, as Liquid'Drone said. Until then, you can only use statistics like that as evidence that this unreasonable inequality still exists. Not as evidence to condemn a whole group of people based on the color of their skin. | ||
| ||
