|
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 December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in.
i think he tries to argue the immigration of jews in the USA
|
On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in.
Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet.
|
On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet.
So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea.
|
On December 25 2016 08:05 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet. So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea.
Meaning what? Are you saying you are considering each human life equally worth saving? Go look up how many children die of hunger every year. It's no secret where these children die and how they can be kept alive.
But prior to this whole shpeal, it's not like the money and effort being put towards Syrian refugees was being put towards these children. There was already a conscious effort not to save those lives. It wasn't a secret and it isn't new today.
|
On December 25 2016 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 08:05 TheDwf wrote:On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet. So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea. Meaning what? Are you saying you are considering each human life equally worth saving? Go look up how many children die of hunger every year. It's no secret where these children die and how they can be kept alive. But prior to this whole shpeal, it's not like the money and effort being put towards Syrian refugees was being put towards these children. There was already a conscious effort not to save those lives. It wasn't a secret and it isn't new today.
Give me one good reason why I should care more for your life than that of any Syrians. Why I should care more about my neighbours life than that of an African. I care for all I dpn't know equally much or little, the fact of the matter being that the less we care the more problems arise alltogether.
|
On December 25 2016 09:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 08:05 TheDwf wrote:On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet. So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea. Meaning what? Are you saying you are considering each human life equally worth saving? Go look up how many children die of hunger every year. It's no secret where these children die and how they can be kept alive. But prior to this whole shpeal, it's not like the money and effort being put towards Syrian refugees was being put towards these children. There was already a conscious effort not to save those lives. It wasn't a secret and it isn't new today. Give me one good reason why I should care more for your life than that of any Syrians. Why I should care more about my neighbours life than that of an African. I care for all I dpn't know equally much or little, the fact of the matter being that the less we care the more problems arise alltogether.
So, based on your location, if 9 Austrians died for every 10 refugees saved, you'd vote for that to continue?
|
On December 25 2016 09:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 09:27 Big J wrote:On December 25 2016 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 08:05 TheDwf wrote:On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 02:17 Sent. wrote:
Why not? Human rights convention prohibits European countries from deporting people to countries where their life would be at genuine risk. Libya is still a warzone and the guy said he's a Gaddafi supporter so there are reason to believe such risk exists. He'll probably go to prison but it's possible that he won't have to go back to his country. These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet. So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea. Meaning what? Are you saying you are considering each human life equally worth saving? Go look up how many children die of hunger every year. It's no secret where these children die and how they can be kept alive. But prior to this whole shpeal, it's not like the money and effort being put towards Syrian refugees was being put towards these children. There was already a conscious effort not to save those lives. It wasn't a secret and it isn't new today. Give me one good reason why I should care more for your life than that of any Syrians. Why I should care more about my neighbours life than that of an African. I care for all I dpn't know equally much or little, the fact of the matter being that the less we care the more problems arise alltogether. So, based on your location, if 9 Austrians died for every 10 refugees saved, you'd vote for that to continue?
There is no policy on the world that would demand that situation. It would require humans that aren't human.
|
On December 25 2016 09:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 09:35 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 09:27 Big J wrote:On December 25 2016 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 08:05 TheDwf wrote:On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:On December 24 2016 14:41 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
These laws were made when things were wildly different. They deserve a look over. Its easy to have a "we're so ethical!" circle jerk when nothing goes wrong. I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK! Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet. So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea. Meaning what? Are you saying you are considering each human life equally worth saving? Go look up how many children die of hunger every year. It's no secret where these children die and how they can be kept alive. But prior to this whole shpeal, it's not like the money and effort being put towards Syrian refugees was being put towards these children. There was already a conscious effort not to save those lives. It wasn't a secret and it isn't new today. Give me one good reason why I should care more for your life than that of any Syrians. Why I should care more about my neighbours life than that of an African. I care for all I dpn't know equally much or little, the fact of the matter being that the less we care the more problems arise alltogether. So, based on your location, if 9 Austrians died for every 10 refugees saved, you'd vote for that to continue? There is no policy on the world that would demand that situation. It would require humans that aren't human.
That shouldn't be relevant so long as all humans are identical to you. If your loved one was killed but a family was saved, that would be 2 thumbs up, right? That's an efficient exchange no matter how you slice it, so long as all humans life is equally valuable.
All those kids that starved to death today trouble you deeply and you've done all you could to save them, right? You are protecting kids in Africa the same way you'd protect your own family. Right?
|
On December 25 2016 10:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 09:44 Big J wrote:On December 25 2016 09:35 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 09:27 Big J wrote:On December 25 2016 08:09 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 08:05 TheDwf wrote:On December 25 2016 07:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 25 2016 07:08 Acrofales wrote:On December 25 2016 06:40 Mohdoo wrote:On December 24 2016 18:21 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
I know right? OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD OPEN A HISTORY BOOK!
Particularly to the pages on Jews trying to flee Nazi Germany... because that was the direct cause for most of the asylum laws we have today! Sure, and how hard of a time did the jews have with assimilating? Terrorism? My point is that these situations aren't the same. Europe has the same intentions in mind, but the two populations are notably distinct and have different impacts on the host countries. Are you arguing that Jews had an easy time fitting into society in Europe throughout history? There's a reason they were scapegoated, and it's not because they were so well loved... The situations are indeed different. But the underlying idea of preventing human tragedy by taking requests for asylum seriously is the same. People are being persecuted for being different. However, the team issue isn't with the actual refugees. It's with profiteering scum masquerading as refugees... like that Tunisian in Berlin. And this one they actually identified and still couldn't send him home. We need to do something about that, not the actual laws allowing real refugees in. Your argument does not account for the impact on the local population. Whether or not the problem is real refugees or not is irrelevant. The issue is the underlying policy. Let's say 100 Germans died for every 10 refugees. Would you still support the current system? An exaggeration, I realize, but my point is that none of these lines of thinking you guys suggest give any consideration for the native population. There *IS* a point at which you would be uncomfortable with this, but you aren't there yet. So far, there are what... 130 people who died in Europe in ISIS attacks in 2016? Meanwhile, in the same year, more than 5000 migrants died in the Mediterranean sea. Meaning what? Are you saying you are considering each human life equally worth saving? Go look up how many children die of hunger every year. It's no secret where these children die and how they can be kept alive. But prior to this whole shpeal, it's not like the money and effort being put towards Syrian refugees was being put towards these children. There was already a conscious effort not to save those lives. It wasn't a secret and it isn't new today. Give me one good reason why I should care more for your life than that of any Syrians. Why I should care more about my neighbours life than that of an African. I care for all I dpn't know equally much or little, the fact of the matter being that the less we care the more problems arise alltogether. So, based on your location, if 9 Austrians died for every 10 refugees saved, you'd vote for that to continue? There is no policy on the world that would demand that situation. It would require humans that aren't human. That shouldn't be relevant so long as all humans are identical to you. If your loved one was killed but a family was saved, that would be 2 thumbs up, right? That's an efficient exchange no matter how you slice it, so long as all humans life is equally valuable. All those kids that starved to death today trouble you deeply and you've done all you could to save them, right? You are protecting kids in Africa the same way you'd protect your own family. Right?
"I care for all I don't know equally ..."
They're not identical, I'm not a utilitarian. But most people I don't know. You can ask me which button I'd press in a completely unrealistic scenario. I might be pretentious, but not as pretentious to know what I would do in each and any situation and there is no point in torturing yourself with these questions just to have a consistent policy in theory when most of this is a question of your basic axioms, which you may be able to describe, yet not to the detail to answer everything. To be quite honest, I probably wouldn't be capable to make such a decision, whatever that means in such a situation.
|
Weird how we're discussing such efficient or not "trades", oh well, some kind of starcraft comparison.
But humans mostly are not identical, some of us ofc similar in terms of skills/point of views/ideas/wishes/potential and etc etc. That all depends of native country/age/education/culture/finances/social groups and many other minor aspects.
Arguably - from arrogant and ignorant point of view of an average human being, we should care more about our neighbours more than for starving people from Africa, cause there is much higher chance of u knowing your neighbours and not knowing anyone from Africa at all.
And since there are too many different humans all over the world we cannot possibly care for all of them.
Imagine every morning you woke up with ideas of starving kids on Africa, or ISIS in Middle east and tons of other different horrors - you'll get insane eventually.
This discussion may lead to a strange points like "1 high skilled neuro surgeon equal or more then 1000 of refugees", and while technicly it may be corrert, it doesn't mean someone would have to make a choice like that, and even thinking that way feels weird. Examples may be different and it does not change anything, none of us can make such decisions at least.
Since we got so many differences between us - we're not ideantical or equal, am not counting skin color cause it means the less.
|
This whole discussion is idiotic, because there is no 1:1 trade going on.
Anyway, merry Christmas!
|
On December 25 2016 03:20 LegalLord wrote:
In Russian Orthodoxy, Christmas is celebrated according to the Julian calendar which puts it in early January and it ends up being a primarily religious holiday. New Years (and the New Years of the Julian calendar) is the holiday with festivities and such. The downside is that all stores are randomly closed on a holiday I don't celebrate, but on the bright side I can buy old Christmas stuff half off after Christmas in time for New Years.
Merry Christmas.
(On that note, do any of your countries celebrate Christmas in a particularly unusual way?)
The only unusual thing is that we have 2 christmas days instead of one. The same with easter.
On December 25 2016 05:31 Toadesstern wrote:Is that a southern germany thing? I'd say Christkind / Santa somewhat co-exist here (Hessen, close to Frankfurt) and it differs from family to family. I personally never "got" any presents from Weihnachtsmann/Santa as a kid but got them from the Christkind... I think? Anyways, two different people and would have figured it's more of a northern Germany thing if anything? I think it comes from scandinavia and heard it can also be a thing in other countries like Netherlands etc but at the end of the day just hearsay and I don't really talk about Christmas traditions with anyone  That being said, merry Christmass ya'll o/
We get presents from Sinterklaas in NL instead of santa. He's based on a bishop from what's now Turkey. Sinterklaas comes every year with a steam ship from Spain and then on his birthday (5th of december) he gives kids presents. Kids who were naughty that year get taken to Spain in a burlap sack or are hit with a birch rod.
There's actually a huge discussion about Sinterklaas since he has a companion (zwarte piet or black pete). His origins might be as a slave to Sinterklaas so some people want to replace zwarte piet with a piet with different colours.
Merry Christmas.
|
On December 25 2016 16:39 Acrofales wrote:
This whole discussion is idiotic, because there is no 1:1 trade going on.
Anyway, merry Christmas!
It's not idiotic. At what point do you consider it a failed policy? It's not very popular with the locals, has completely fractured the EU, is a large reason behind brexit, has most definitely increased crime massively, increased welfare massively, and most definitely worsened your political discourse for future generations to come. (Enjoy your identity politics and marxism. Circular arguments with politically correct barriers forever!) Want to say a true fact like, "well it's mostly blacks and arabs that are doing the raping and violence" and boom there goes your career.
So at what point do you consider it a failed policy? Because you must remember, many of these people would still be alive if they were in their home countries. They just wouldn't be able to live such a comfy life on your dime.
At what point is it considered a failure? How much do you have to sacrifice? Is it a simple math question? 100,000 Germans has to have crimes committed against them but we improved the lives of 1,000,000 people? Even though a large subsection of that million people are... quite frankly huge dicks. I consider 2000 men sexually assaulting 2000 women in a single night to be the tip of the ice berg on the absolute dickish behavior.
Can you do anything to change that behavior? Are you doing anything to change that behavior? How much are you doing? Are you capitulating or are you fighting for your values? Are German prisons going to increase in # or are they going to continue with catch and release policies with slaps on the wrist because they're new and they don't know any better?
I don't expect anything even remotely similar this year but bringing down that number of sexual assaults on New Years this year had better not be touted as a success. "We had 2000 last year... and 0 this year because we carefully monitored and secured the migrants and had a massive police presence!"
So the point is at what point is it a failed policy? If Germany went from 0 terrorist attacks per year to 2 terrorist attacks per year is that a success? If it went from 0 to 20 is that a failure? There's a lot of questions not being addressed. One thing is very clear is that the attacks are not happening in Germany alone.
It makes a lot more sense when you had actual refugees from Syria and Syria only who needed help. It made sense as a temporary solution. Stay here for a few years until things die down. Sure maybe half of you can even stay here if you would like after the war but you must assimilate to our values and respect our laws. But instead it's a massive wave of migration where Italian boats are going to Libya and ferrying migrants in and it got tied in with attempting to fix birth rates, pay pensions, provide cheap labour, etc.
This all seems like it was a corporate short cut. A short cut to fix those problems on birth rates / pensions / cheap labour / make sure there's a growing market for selling products. When in reality the system would have had to suffer for a while had things been done the right and proper way. Had Europeans just advertised to their natives, "Do it for Germany!" much like the "Do it for Denmark" campaign. Had they just realized that to build a proper society attention to detail and sacrifice is needed. But this shortcut seems so foolish and naive.
It seems like it's just going to cost Europe more in the long run and never be a profitable venture. That's my supremely pessimistic view of how it's going.
|
I don't understand why North Americans are commenting on European issues with such vehemance... Testie seems to have moved slightly away from trolling the thread. Mohdoo seems to be weighing lives but probably voted Trump and now is attempting to justify it- I would not want to see 20 French/ger/scottish die, however 20 vs 5000; the answer is obvious. Tis a new year. Let's be less depressed than wtf happened last year.
|
On December 26 2016 04:44 MyTHicaL wrote:
I don't understand why North Americans are commenting on European issues with such vehemance... Testie seems to have moved slightly away from trolling the thread. Mohdoo seems to be weighing lives but probably voted Trump and now is attempting to justify it- I would not want to see 20 French/ger/scottish die, however 20 vs 5000; the answer is obvious. Tis a new year. Let's be less depressed than wtf happened last year.
Always had a hard time understanding your posts but why not debate with Testie and Mohdoo instead of doing your usual tactic and writing them off with insults or logical fallacies, hard to argue with facts isn't it?
How much money did you leech off the UK government again before leaving to France?
|
On December 26 2016 04:10 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2016 16:39 Acrofales wrote:
This whole discussion is idiotic, because there is no 1:1 trade going on.
Anyway, merry Christmas! It's not idiotic. At what point do you consider it a failed policy? It's not very popular with the locals, has completely fractured the EU, is a large reason behind brexit, has most definitely increased crime massively, increased welfare massively, and most definitely worsened your political discourse for future generations to come. (Enjoy your identity politics and marxism. Circular arguments with politically correct barriers forever!) Want to say a true fact like, "well it's mostly blacks and arabs that are doing the raping and violence" and boom there goes your career.
If we want to read shitty racist speeches, we can already do so in hundreds of places on the Internet. Be kind and don't bring that racial bullshit here.
|
That response is literally, 'let's not talk about all this bad stuff that's going on. Let's change the subject!" No, the only way to have a less depressing year in 2017 is to deal with hard issues.
Mohdoo is very far from a Trump supporter. He's always come off as a good and reasonable man who has a nuanced and intelligent view of things. But he definitely voted Hillary and is a democrat. I'm the extreme right wing asking questions.
On December 26 2016 04:57 TheDwf wrote:
If we want to read shitty racist speeches, we can already do so in hundreds of places on the Internet. Be kind and don't bring that racial bullshit here.
It doesn't matter if it's racist or not. It's true. It's a true fact. You are running from a true fact. 70% of your French prisons are Muslim. Most Muslims are coloured people if you haven't noticed by now. They are a small % of your population. The math checks out. I do not care about what progressive excuses you attach to this fact. This fact remains in every single country in the world. We're not adults if we can't just talk matter of factly about something that happens to be true.
Hiding that truth makes you nothing but a coward. In that sentence you said nothing of value nor refuted a point. You just got to say the word racist and attempt to shut down a line of questioning in the thread. Were all my other questions or criticisms of the migrant crisis overblown or not based in reality?
|
These past couple pages read like the /pol/ version of the trolley problem
|
This thread honestly needs some moderation, we don't really need 4chan race theory on here. Isn't just the past couple of pages either.
|
On December 26 2016 05:03 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 04:57 TheDwf wrote:
If we want to read shitty racist speeches, we can already do so in hundreds of places on the Internet. Be kind and don't bring that racial bullshit here. It doesn't matter if it's racist or not. It's true. It's a true fact. You are running from a true fact. 70% of your French prisons are Muslim. Most Muslims are coloured people if you haven't noticed by now. They are a small % of your population. The math checks out.
Muahahaha nope. We don't have ethnic/religious statistics, so the actual figure is unknown. This 70% figure was abusively extracted from a 2008 Washington Post article which was based on... a single prison, with the source being... chaplains who claimed that 70% of the prisoners were Muslim. And that's it. Since then it is used by far right trolls like you to justify their racist views, with literally zero solid data to back it up since this data doesn't exist. Too bad, uh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
