European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 590

On November 20 2016 22:03 xM(Z wrote:
i don't make them, they are that way. the evolution made them that way. i'm merely (re)categorizing them based on objective measurable <metrics>.

On November 20 2016 17:58 xM(Z wrote:
i'd split EU based on people(germanic people, romance people, slavic people + minorities) being totally oblivious to the economic realities:
- group germans with nordics(Denmark, Norway and so on);
- France with Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, Greece (because of Thracia); (lol, i mean seriously, look at that whole romance lineage being totally fucked now; France maybe not economically but more socially and politically);
- then you'd have the slavs grouped with the russians;
(bulgarians = minorities, go to greeks/vlachs(eastern romance); magyars = minorities, go to germans, slavs, romance; Poland split between germans and slavs; Ukraine dissolved);
- tatars, turkick and other minorities based on local/regional communities.

On November 20 2016 19:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

What is this? Is this a joke? This is not how you make a joke.
You just decided to just divide countries up without rhyme or reason. Also where is UK?

On November 20 2016 22:12 Toadesstern wrote:

Like I said, I agree that those differences exist. But you DO make them just the same way I'd make groups if I said "nono, the real important thing we should categorize with is hair color".
And you yourself realize that your idea is flawed and can't make a clear cut as each step down you go you still have people feeling both ways no matter what objective you pick unless you want to go down to individual people.
Some people want A while some people want B inside Europe? So you go down to nations and align them by which country would rather want A or B (you make an argument for what's the most important according to you but really what A and B is is completly irrelevant).
Then you realize that you have to split apart Poland because they're divided on that issue.
The same way you'd have to go down to cities and streets. There's always going to be people thinking differently to some degree.

You're just not going to get a clean cut group of people thinking the same. People might even disagree with your decision about what's important to look at in the first place.

Again, if what you said were true we wouldn't have nations because people inside Nation-X disagree from East to West. We wouldn't have cities because people disagree about matters. People make cities and nations nontheless because despite disagreeing on some issues they came to the conclusion that it's for the best.

//Edit: and what was written above me is what I was getting at with "people's opinions on those are not some kind of set-theory clear cut out groups but are going to be some kind of gradient." or whatever I called it. I can even assume your idea that this is based in nature and can't be overcome as correct (which I don't agree with either) and it STILL doesn't make any sense

On November 20 2016 22:08 Big J wrote:


If you are so sure about the bullshit your wrote, why would you have to push for that, if it happens anyways? It's the old lie of the extreme right that they are merely doing what happens anyways that you are rehasing, when in fact things happen because people - in this case extremist right-wingers - make them happen.

That is what liberalism and the European Union stand to fight against at their core.

On November 20 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
i don't know what your point is(what would "happen anyway"?+ Show Spoiler + ) so if you want to make one with an immediate practicability, i'm all ears.
from where i'm sitting your point looks like this: if one speaks english then he must be american or british.
EX: you take a polish dude+ Show Spoiler +, send him to US, teach him the language, the culture(what ever you think that is) and by your logic he is an american. by my logic, i don't care how he calls himself, he will carry the genetic predispositions of his ancestry not those of americans.

i give no value to nurture, subscribe to the principle of least resistance/of least effort and believe that mathematical and theoretical biology will give an answer to ... well, let's call them peoples deterministic inclinations.

On November 20 2016 23:26 xM(Z wrote:

yes, the idea is far from flawless(for now, humans lack the knowledge to make it statistically acceptable/relevant; medicine is making headway though) but as far as i'm concerned, i don't care about ones feelings. his physical(biological) well being, sure; it'll be my job to keep him fit and strong . feelings are an emergent and temporary propriety of bio-chemo-electro based triggers and stimuli.

everyone we're talking about here is in Europe; yea, even the russians. if you're talking about your made up EU, well that's your construct, your bauble from which you are arguing; can not help you there.

the rest of your post ... i don't know, the opinions could have some tangential applicability+ Show Spoiler + but where i'm living+ Show Spoiler +, the revelation of X belonging to Y for people would feel like someone battling with asthma for as long as he could remember is all of a sudden cured; ultimately, they'll choose to do it, submit to it.

besides i don't get it: how come people approving/supporting globalization and the free movement of people object to ... people moving freely and globally?.

On November 20 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
i don't know what your point is(what would "happen anyway"?+ Show Spoiler + ) so if you want to make one with an immediate practicability, i'm all ears.
from where i'm sitting your point looks like this: if one speaks english then he must be american or british.
EX: you take a polish dude+ Show Spoiler +, send him to US, teach him the language, the culture(what ever you think that is) and by your logic he is an american. by my logic, i don't care how he calls himself, he will carry the genetic predispositions of his ancestry not those of americans.

i give no value to nurture, subscribe to the principle of least resistance/of least effort and believe that mathematical and theoretical biology will give an answer to ... well, let's call them peoples deterministic inclinations.

On November 20 2016 23:45 Toadesstern wrote:


people aren't against people moving freely and globally. It's just your idea that people are unable to form a union for the perks involved without being able to deal with the downsides that is shocking me in particular.
I see people married around me despite perhaps a lot of them not wanting to do the extra dishes (because let's be honest, that extra work will fall onto of the two people involved) because there are some real perks to it that are more important than some dishes.
Same goes with cities, nations and ultimately the EU (for me).
I don't really get where this anarchistic (?) idea of "unions just don't work because there are downsides to it" comes from when we see thousands of them in daily life working on a daily basis and people living like that just fine.

Sure some break apart because for them it's not worth it and maybe that's what you're trying to get at but I just don't see it as a thing that is fundamentally against human nature like you seemed to imply.
Like, I'm pretty sure I can point at single cities that are strongholds for certain parties all over Germany. Maybe one voting 50% for some centre party, another one voting close to 50% for some far right party and another one voting close to 50% for a far left party. And I don't see cities leaving Germany because of that.

On November 21 2016 00:15 Big J wrote:


That's the problem with the side you are taking. You are not grabbing the concept of the side I am taking, which is that I am not perceiving the creation or continuation of a human beings identity, be it a national identity, a political identity, a religious identity or any other identity, as the business of an entity of power like a state. Which is why liberty throughout the ages has always found an end, since it allows its opponent's the room to live out their identitary fantasies. Yet, in the ages that it started, spread and dominated it created more wealth and technological advances than any other form of social ruling. I would prefer, if I could live in such times, not the ones, that political unions of identitarian mindsets have created, which were times of international blockades, war, supression and revolutions only to have a bit of extra pathos.

On November 21 2016 02:47 xM(Z wrote:
so your argument is but habituation... .
if favorable, humans can make any environment their home so what you have there are non-issues.
overall, your philosophy is that humans should + Show Spoiler + make it against all odds(that should in there being a feat of strength, of value, of worth). i see that as a total waste of non-replenishable energy.
the identities you mentioned there are descriptive constructs. i could even argue that they are forced/imposed concepts and they only exist because there's a need of something, a structure of sorts, when the natural order is missing.

i postulate that when you put together more/many of the same they they'll exhibit emergent proprieties+ Show Spoiler + independent of those of its single individuals.
Ex: if you put many germans together they'll come up with federalization as a preferred social structure(every time, in every experiment you make with them).
(note: my usage of the term german here is descriptive of people with a specific(of the same) + Show Spoiler +genetic lineage/provenience; it's not something region/nation/citizenship bound as you implied earlier).