Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Migrant Crisis.

autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2016 12:29:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I find myself torn between two diametrically opposed views; the first, that these people are human beings having a very hard time, and a second that could easily be criticized as Islamaphobia. But so be it. I'm not going to apologize for being slightly terrified of a religion that's less with the Jam and Jerusalem, and more with the murder and mayhem, not so much bake sale for the church roof, as decapitations posted on Youtube. And here they come - millions of them; having made a terrible mess of their countries of origin, moving en-masse to ours!

But then I think otherwise that Europe has upwards of 500 million people - and the entire population of Syria is only 70 million or so. Even if the whole population of Syria moved to Europe, it would only be, very approximately an 11% rise in population. Surely we could handle that. And arguably, Europe needs people - young people willing to do jobs us graying, over-weight white people don't want to do. And it's not going to be the entire population of Syria come to Europe, but a long line of destitute people - whole families, whole neighborhoods driven from their homes by a war that has as much to do with international politics as the internal religious and ethnic dynamics of the Syrian state.

I hold both of these views - that's the problem. I go back and forth from empathy and regret at the suffering of these desperate human beings - to absolute horror at the invading alien species storming our shores. Can anyone help me out?
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 2:37:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

The figure of 22.8 million is the entire population of Syria in 2010. I wasn't suggesting all those people come to Europe - but trying to set the current crisis in some sort of context. Even if all those people came to Europe, it would only be a 3.07% increase in population.
The only comparable event I can think of is the reunification of Germany from 1990. There were around 16 million East Germans - and West Germany managed it alone. So 'even if' everyone from Syria moved to Europe - not that I expect that will happen; but if it did - 28 countries should be able to handle what West Germany achieved virtually unaided.
No doubt it would require some effort, some political will and some investment - but arguably, given the political will, it could create a lot of jobs. Explicitly saying we were settling maybe a million people in the UK, we would need to build houses, schools, hospitals and so on - but instead, we get net inward migration of 300, 000 per year plus, without throwing up so much as a straw hut.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 9:24:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 2:37:20 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

The figure of 22.8 million is the entire population of Syria in 2010. I wasn't suggesting all those people come to Europe - but trying to set the current crisis in some sort of context. Even if all those people came to Europe, it would only be a 3.07% increase in population.
The only comparable event I can think of is the reunification of Germany from 1990. There were around 16 million East Germans - and West Germany managed it alone. So 'even if' everyone from Syria moved to Europe - not that I expect that will happen; but if it did - 28 countries should be able to handle what West Germany achieved virtually unaided.
No doubt it would require some effort, some political will and some investment - but arguably, given the political will, it could create a lot of jobs. Explicitly saying we were settling maybe a million people in the UK, we would need to build houses, schools, hospitals and so on - but instead, we get net inward migration of 300, 000 per year plus, without throwing up so much as a straw hut.

Many people including myself oppose net migration of 300, 000 people a year. The situation with east and west Germany was different as it was a unification not a mass migration. East Germans could continue living in the east, it's just the capitalist democracy had to extent to east Germany and distribute some of its wealth to create an usual society. One million people would be too many. It would create pressure on services and increase government borrowing. It's better rebuild Syria. Many Syrians would not want to migrate anyway as Syria is their home.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 1:40:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 9:24:34 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:37:20 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

The figure of 22.8 million is the entire population of Syria in 2010. I wasn't suggesting all those people come to Europe - but trying to set the current crisis in some sort of context. Even if all those people came to Europe, it would only be a 3.07% increase in population.
The only comparable event I can think of is the reunification of Germany from 1990. There were around 16 million East Germans - and West Germany managed it alone. So 'even if' everyone from Syria moved to Europe - not that I expect that will happen; but if it did - 28 countries should be able to handle what West Germany achieved virtually unaided.
No doubt it would require some effort, some political will and some investment - but arguably, given the political will, it could create a lot of jobs. Explicitly saying we were settling maybe a million people in the UK, we would need to build houses, schools, hospitals and so on - but instead, we get net inward migration of 300, 000 per year plus, without throwing up so much as a straw hut.

Many people including myself oppose net migration of 300, 000 people a year. The situation with east and west Germany was different as it was a unification not a mass migration. East Germans could continue living in the east, it's just the capitalist democracy had to extent to east Germany and distribute some of its wealth to create an usual society. One million people would be too many. It would create pressure on services and increase government borrowing. It's better rebuild Syria. Many Syrians would not want to migrate anyway as Syria is their home.

Simply opposing something that's happening anyway doesn't do anything to remedy the situation. Quite the opposite in fact. You've seen the mountainous piles of life-jackets on the shores of Greece - those people are coming whether we like it or not, and we can either accept the fact and do something constructive or grumble into our cornflakes, and threaten to vote for pseudo-nazi parties, that government is prohibited from anything constructive that might be seen to be pro-migration. So, when they do get here - there won't be any provision; and there will be a pressure on services, because we haven't planned for it. But at least you will be able to say 'told you so.'

Alternatively, we could recognize the crisis as a crisis requiring emergency measures - dig into the war chest to build houses, schools, hospitals and so on - creating jobs in the short term, and relieving pressure on services down the line. Do you not think that would be a better approach?

Rebuilding Syria is not an option right now - and I suspect it might be a while before it is a viable strategy.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 9:22:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's pretty reasonable to not have decided view on the migrant crisis, as its evident that there's both the humanitarian and practical elements to consider. It's not so much religion or terrorism that is issue with regards to the practical side though--at least in my opinion. The vast majority are simply people fleeing conflict zones and are thus seeking safer environments; therefore, the chances of there existing substantive terrorist fractions within these groups is extremely unlikely--and that is essentially what they're fleeing.

Rather I think the issue with regards to the practicality is the potential pressure on public services (in places such as the U.K) if significant numbers were allowed in. However, I do think that the most at risk groups and those that are particularly vulnerable should be given some priority.

Another potential way to combat the crisis is to re-assess what can be done in the countries/areas that these people are coming from, especially in taking a concentrated look at high priority places such as Syria and Iraq--as past and present alternatives clearly haven't worked. The U.S and its allies should cease in their support for the Syrian Rebels and call on *all* sides (not just Assad's forces) to hold and maintain a ceasefire.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 12:43:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 1:40:55 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 9:24:34 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/12/2016 2:37:20 AM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

The figure of 22.8 million is the entire population of Syria in 2010. I wasn't suggesting all those people come to Europe - but trying to set the current crisis in some sort of context. Even if all those people came to Europe, it would only be a 3.07% increase in population.
The only comparable event I can think of is the reunification of Germany from 1990. There were around 16 million East Germans - and West Germany managed it alone. So 'even if' everyone from Syria moved to Europe - not that I expect that will happen; but if it did - 28 countries should be able to handle what West Germany achieved virtually unaided.
No doubt it would require some effort, some political will and some investment - but arguably, given the political will, it could create a lot of jobs. Explicitly saying we were settling maybe a million people in the UK, we would need to build houses, schools, hospitals and so on - but instead, we get net inward migration of 300, 000 per year plus, without throwing up so much as a straw hut.

Many people including myself oppose net migration of 300, 000 people a year. The situation with east and west Germany was different as it was a unification not a mass migration. East Germans could continue living in the east, it's just the capitalist democracy had to extent to east Germany and distribute some of its wealth to create an usual society. One million people would be too many. It would create pressure on services and increase government borrowing. It's better rebuild Syria. Many Syrians would not want to migrate anyway as Syria is their home.

Simply opposing something that's happening anyway doesn't do anything to remedy the situation. Quite the opposite in fact. You've seen the mountainous piles of life-jackets on the shores of Greece - those people are coming whether we like it or not, and we can either accept the fact and do something constructive or grumble into our cornflakes, and threaten to vote for pseudo-nazi parties, that government is prohibited from anything constructive that might be seen to be pro-migration. So, when they do get here - there won't be any provision; and there will be a pressure on services, because we haven't planned for it. But at least you will be able to say 'told you so.'

I would like to leave the eu and implement an Australian style points based system for migration. I would only accept the right migrants for the UK economy. I would not select migrants because they are from the eu or because they are from Syria. Serrvices are already under pressure and need improvements, but this is made easier and cheaper if population growth reduces.

Alternatively, we could recognize the crisis as a crisis requiring emergency measures - dig into the war chest to build houses, schools, hospitals and so on - creating jobs in the short term, and relieving pressure on services down the line. Do you not think that would be a better approach?

unfortunately we don't have a war chest. We have a 1. 6 trillion national debt. Those measures are already needed for UK citizens. We don't have room for large numbers of people. I support paying charities to look after the refugees in camps in Turkey until the civil war ends. It's up to the eu (which I want to leave) to patrol it's borders.

Rebuilding Syria is not an option right now - and I suspect it might be a while before it is a viable strategy.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:49:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 9:22:54 PM, Emilrose wrote:
It's pretty reasonable to not have decided view on the migrant crisis, as its evident that there's both the humanitarian and practical elements to consider. It's not so much religion or terrorism that is issue with regards to the practical side though--at least in my opinion. The vast majority are simply people fleeing conflict zones and are thus seeking safer environments; therefore, the chances of there existing substantive terrorist fractions within these groups is extremely unlikely--and that is essentially what they're fleeing.

Rather I think the issue with regards to the practicality is the potential pressure on public services (in places such as the U.K) if significant numbers were allowed in. However, I do think that the most at risk groups and those that are particularly vulnerable should be given some priority.

Another potential way to combat the crisis is to re-assess what can be done in the countries/areas that these people are coming from, especially in taking a concentrated look at high priority places such as Syria and Iraq--as past and present alternatives clearly haven't worked. The U.S and its allies should cease in their support for the Syrian Rebels and call on *all* sides (not just Assad's forces) to hold and maintain a ceasefire.

That's a very reasonable view; but it's not a reasonable situation. The war in Syria continues unabated, without even agreement among allies as to the desired outcome. Everyone's fighting everyone else - or not quite, but just about all parties can say that my allies friends are my enemy - which is madness. On a human level I don't blame people for wanting to escape that kind of insanity; but my fear is they will bring it with them. Like we saw in Paris, it doesn't take a huge amount of people to cause an awful lot of damage.

Then there's the pressure on public services argument - that only gets worse while people objecting to immigration stymie any kind of planning. And while we argue back and forth, the pros and cons - the mountain of life jackets grows ever larger, and the public squares in Greece are packed with migrants. The temptation to annex Greece, its migrants and its mountain of debt from Europe should probably be resisted - but unless some other extraordinary effort is undertaken, I'm not sure how long it will be resisted.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 5:22:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:49:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 9:22:54 PM, Emilrose wrote:
It's pretty reasonable to not have decided view on the migrant crisis, as its evident that there's both the humanitarian and practical elements to consider. It's not so much religion or terrorism that is issue with regards to the practical side though--at least in my opinion. The vast majority are simply people fleeing conflict zones and are thus seeking safer environments; therefore, the chances of there existing substantive terrorist fractions within these groups is extremely unlikely--and that is essentially what they're fleeing.

Rather I think the issue with regards to the practicality is the potential pressure on public services (in places such as the U.K) if significant numbers were allowed in. However, I do think that the most at risk groups and those that are particularly vulnerable should be given some priority.

Another potential way to combat the crisis is to re-assess what can be done in the countries/areas that these people are coming from, especially in taking a concentrated look at high priority places such as Syria and Iraq--as past and present alternatives clearly haven't worked. The U.S and its allies should cease in their support for the Syrian Rebels and call on *all* sides (not just Assad's forces) to hold and maintain a ceasefire.

That's a very reasonable view; but it's not a reasonable situation. The war in Syria continues unabated, without even agreement among allies as to the desired outcome. Everyone's fighting everyone else - or not quite, but just about all parties can say that my allies friends are my enemy - which is madness. On a human level I don't blame people for wanting to escape that kind of insanity; but my fear is they will bring it with them. Like we saw in Paris, it doesn't take a huge amount of people to cause an awful lot of damage.

Indeed, that's correct about the level of in-fighting in Syria; the number of groups/militia that exist make it a difficult issue. However I do still think that if the West eased its view of Assad and ceased in its support of the Syrian rebels, there would be a difference. Certainly the removal of Assad could be addressed after a period of time, but the fighting within Syria requires a temporary solution and one that will put an equal (if nor more) amount of pressure on groups that are militarily rebelling against the Syrian government.

As for Paris, I think it's unlikely that refugees will bring that to the rest of Europe. The security and intelligence sharing between Belgium and France was obviously pretty poor--and both countries, in some cases, failed to integrate certain Muslim populations properly. The U.K is a little different in this respect.

In addition, if ISIS did intend to attack Europe again, it has the money and resources to have people enter into Europe without pretending to be refugees.

Then there's the pressure on public services argument - that only gets worse while people objecting to immigration stymie any kind of planning. And while we argue back and forth, the pros and cons - the mountain of life jackets grows ever larger, and the public squares in Greece are packed with migrants. The temptation to annex Greece, its migrants and its mountain of debt from Europe should probably be resisted - but unless some other extraordinary effort is undertaken, I'm not sure how long it will be resisted.

What's occurring in Greece is evidently troubling, but the methods in approaching it and potential *solutions* in solving it appear to be very limited at the moment; partly because Europe, does not technically have a united and definitive opinion towards incoming people from the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere. I think that many of them should be allowed to seek refuge here, but the pre-existing problems in their native countries should also be identified with and acted upon.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 6:35:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 5:22:47 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:49:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/12/2016 9:22:54 PM, Emilrose wrote:
It's pretty reasonable to not have decided view on the migrant crisis, as its evident that there's both the humanitarian and practical elements to consider. It's not so much religion or terrorism that is issue with regards to the practical side though--at least in my opinion. The vast majority are simply people fleeing conflict zones and are thus seeking safer environments; therefore, the chances of there existing substantive terrorist fractions within these groups is extremely unlikely--and that is essentially what they're fleeing.

Rather I think the issue with regards to the practicality is the potential pressure on public services (in places such as the U.K) if significant numbers were allowed in. However, I do think that the most at risk groups and those that are particularly vulnerable should be given some priority.

Another potential way to combat the crisis is to re-assess what can be done in the countries/areas that these people are coming from, especially in taking a concentrated look at high priority places such as Syria and Iraq--as past and present alternatives clearly haven't worked. The U.S and its allies should cease in their support for the Syrian Rebels and call on *all* sides (not just Assad's forces) to hold and maintain a ceasefire.

That's a very reasonable view; but it's not a reasonable situation. The war in Syria continues unabated, without even agreement among allies as to the desired outcome. Everyone's fighting everyone else - or not quite, but just about all parties can say that my allies friends are my enemy - which is madness. On a human level I don't blame people for wanting to escape that kind of insanity; but my fear is they will bring it with them. Like we saw in Paris, it doesn't take a huge amount of people to cause an awful lot of damage.

Indeed, that's correct about the level of in-fighting in Syria; the number of groups/militia that exist make it a difficult issue. However I do still think that if the West eased its view of Assad and ceased in its support of the Syrian rebels, there would be a difference. Certainly the removal of Assad could be addressed after a period of time, but the fighting within Syria requires a temporary solution and one that will put an equal (if nor more) amount of pressure on groups that are militarily rebelling against the Syrian government.

I have to admit that the Wests stance doesn't make things easier - but Assad bombed the people of his own country. Admittedly, they were engaged in a revolt - our media portrayed as an Arab Spring, but which Assad clearly didn't view in the same light. Still it would be rank hypocrisy on our part - to switch sides now; but if it would bring an end to the crisis, it's certainly worth it. But would it bring an end to the crisis - that's the question; and I don't know that it would.


As for Paris, I think it's unlikely that refugees will bring that to the rest of Europe. The security and intelligence sharing between Belgium and France was obviously pretty poor--and both countries, in some cases, failed to integrate certain Muslim populations properly. The U.K is a little different in this respect.

In addition, if ISIS did intend to attack Europe again, it has the money and resources to have people enter into Europe without pretending to be refugees.

Perhaps you're right, but fears are little assuaged by reason. I do in fact entirely accept that most muslim people are decent, moderate and peace-loving people - but there is a branch of Islamic thought that's violently antithetical to the west and liberal values. That exists wherever muslim people live; such that increasing the muslim population of Europe significantly may be viewed as significantly increasing the risk of Islamic terrorism. Most of the terrorist acts we've experienced were by 'home grown' terrorists - not new migrants, but people who have been here for many years, many who were very well integrated into western societies.

Then there's the pressure on public services argument - that only gets worse while people objecting to immigration stymie any kind of planning. And while we argue back and forth, the pros and cons - the mountain of life jackets grows ever larger, and the public squares in Greece are packed with migrants. The temptation to annex Greece, its migrants and its mountain of debt from Europe should probably be resisted - but unless some other extraordinary effort is undertaken, I'm not sure how long it will be resisted.

What's occurring in Greece is evidently troubling, but the methods in approaching it and potential *solutions* in solving it appear to be very limited at the moment; partly because Europe, does not technically have a united and definitive opinion towards incoming people from the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere. I think that many of them should be allowed to seek refuge here, but the pre-existing problems in their native countries should also be identified with and acted upon.

An impossible task. We can't sort out other countries problems - for all sorts of historic and economic reasons. The costs would be prohibitive and the imperialist argument would prevent any such strategy being devised. That's not realistic - whereas, there's already border fences going up in southern Europe. They're not yet linked together - and arguably in the wrong place - practically speaking; but clearly it shows it's possible to block access to Europe from Greece and Turkey. It's either that, or start building houses, schools and hospitals for these people - planning for the immigration that's happening, but the current equivocation is only making things worse.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:15:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 12:29:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
I find myself torn between two diametrically opposed views; the first, that these people are human beings having a very hard time, and a second that could easily be criticized as Islamaphobia. But so be it. I'm not going to apologize for being slightly terrified of a religion that's less with the Jam and Jerusalem, and more with the murder and mayhem, not so much bake sale for the church roof, as decapitations posted on Youtube. And here they come - millions of them; having made a terrible mess of their countries of origin, moving en-masse to ours!

I doubt any other major religion is worse. Fundamental Mormons practiced polygamy wherein they married 12 year old girls, had children with them, and killed them if they tried to run away. White supremicists, are even worse. They have killed more people than Al-Qaeda since 9/11. The extremists in Islam are dangerous as well, but its no reason to throw out the entire culture. By that same logic we could throw out any culture; it makes more sense to throw out the Chrisian culture since theirs has been just as bad if not worse.

But then I think otherwise that Europe has upwards of 500 million people - and the entire population of Syria is only 70 million or so. Even if the whole population of Syria moved to Europe, it would only be, very approximately an 11% rise in population. Surely we could handle that. And arguably, Europe needs people - young people willing to do jobs us graying, over-weight white people don't want to do. And it's not going to be the entire population of Syria come to Europe, but a long line of destitute people - whole families, whole neighborhoods driven from their homes by a war that has as much to do with international politics as the internal religious and ethnic dynamics of the Syrian state.

I agree

I hold both of these views - that's the problem. I go back and forth from empathy and regret at the suffering of these desperate human beings - to absolute horror at the invading alien species storming our shores. Can anyone help me out?

You should go to empathy, the other side is idiotic
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:17:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

You are basically suggesting eliminating the extremists in their homeland. This results in civilian deaths, creates a power vacuum, ends up costing more money, and ends soldier's lives, ruins diplomatic relations, etc. I'm just touching the iceberg here.
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 11:52:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:15:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/10/2016 12:29:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
I find myself torn between two diametrically opposed views; the first, that these people are human beings having a very hard time, and a second that could easily be criticized as Islamaphobia. But so be it. I'm not going to apologize for being slightly terrified of a religion that's less with the Jam and Jerusalem, and more with the murder and mayhem, not so much bake sale for the church roof, as decapitations posted on Youtube. And here they come - millions of them; having made a terrible mess of their countries of origin, moving en-masse to ours!

I doubt any other major religion is worse. Fundamental Mormons practiced polygamy wherein they married 12 year old girls, had children with them, and killed them if they tried to run away. White supremicists, are even worse. They have killed more people than Al-Qaeda since 9/11. The extremists in Islam are dangerous as well, but its no reason to throw out the entire culture. By that same logic we could throw out any culture; it makes more sense to throw out the Chrisian culture since theirs has been just as bad if not worse.

But then I think otherwise that Europe has upwards of 500 million people - and the entire population of Syria is only 70 million or so. Even if the whole population of Syria moved to Europe, it would only be, very approximately an 11% rise in population. Surely we could handle that. And arguably, Europe needs people - young people willing to do jobs us graying, over-weight white people don't want to do. And it's not going to be the entire population of Syria come to Europe, but a long line of destitute people - whole families, whole neighborhoods driven from their homes by a war that has as much to do with international politics as the internal religious and ethnic dynamics of the Syrian state.

I agree

I hold both of these views - that's the problem. I go back and forth from empathy and regret at the suffering of these desperate human beings - to absolute horror at the invading alien species storming our shores. Can anyone help me out?

You should go to empathy, the other side is idiotic

Thanks for your opinion - weighty as it is, it hasn't tipped the balance of my thoughts either way. Your assertion that there are as many wierdos from Christian culture as Islamic culture doesn't help me come to terms with the migrant crisis. While I do feel empathy for the plight of these people as human beings, there are practical and security considerations to the influx of many millions of people that must surely come first. And one could argue that Islamic religious values are not compatible with the secular liberal values of tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, equality between men and women, and so on - such that, putting terrorism aside, the ideas they carry with them and live by are inherently problematic. Ignoring all that in the name of empathy would be idiotic - so there I am, back on the fence.
(no pun intended)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 1:05:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:52:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Thanks for your opinion - weighty as it is, it hasn't tipped the balance of my thoughts either way. Your assertion that there are as many wierdos from Christian culture as Islamic culture doesn't help me come to terms with the migrant crisis.

What it does it point out the idiocy of the logic. Applying an overral attribute to a group because of the extremely few extremist minorites is idiotic. And its even more idiotic that you would only apply it to Islam, and not all the other groups (e.g. Christians, white people, etc.). Its ignorant and stupid

While I do feel empathy for the plight of these people as human beings, there are practical and security considerations to the influx of many millions of people that must surely come first.

Sure. But the lives of the millions of these people outweigh. I encourage you to see leaked footage of what their day-to-day lives are like. People are literally taken out into the streets and beheaded in front of everyone. You can recall in American Sniper, the leader literally took a drill and drilled through the kids head. The suffering that these people live through outweighs the proposed increased crime.

And one could argue that Islamic religious values are not compatible with the secular liberal values of tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, equality between men and women, and so on

Neither do Christians. Look in their Bible and its just as bad if not worse than the Quran. Again, you are taking extremely isolated examples and applying it to the whole. This is fallicious in itself, and can be reversed upon you to disallow any other accepted group in your country.

- such that, putting terrorism aside, the ideas they carry with them and live by are inherently problematic. Ignoring all that in the name of empathy would be idiotic - so there I am, back on the fence.
(no pun intended)

Not letting people into your country while they are trying to escape militant serial killers that roam the streets and violate basic human rihts left and right because of the bare and false assertion that they disagree politically with you is idiotic.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 2:21:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:05:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
Applying an overral attribute to a group because of the extremely few extremist minorites is idiotic.

Too bad the major problems with the migrants are largely restricted to them.

And one could argue that Islamic religious values are not compatible with the secular liberal values of tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, equality between men and women, and so on
Neither do Christians.

And that's why their societies are some of the only ones that generally tolerate those things. Brilliant.

Look in their Bible and its just as bad if not worse than the Quran.

Yeah, and that's why Christians are executing atheists en masse as we speak... Look, we can talk about believers or we can talk about the religions themselves. Given the context of the conversion, it's clear we're discussing the former.

Really ridiculous to pretend they're the same thing. Interpretations are not religions are not followers.

At 3/13/2016 11:52:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
- such that, putting terrorism aside, the ideas they carry with them and live by are inherently problematic. Ignoring all that in the name of empathy would be idiotic - so there I am, back on the fence.
(no pun intended)

No. Incompatibility is a problem, yes, but not so much as what it leads to.

At 3/13/2016 11:15:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
I doubt any other major religion is worse. Fundamental Mormons practiced polygamy wherein they married 12 year old girls, had children with them, and killed them if they tried to run away.

When was that? What's the case with them now?

White supremicists, are even worse. They have killed more people than Al-Qaeda since 9/11.

Not a religion, and they can hardly be considered a culture (unless you want to put every other ideology under that label too). Also, source?

By that same logic we could throw out any culture; it makes more sense to throw out the Chrisian culture since theirs has been just as bad if not worse.

It certainly isn't the case now, and hasn't been for a significant portion of history.

I'm a bit surprised neither of you have brought backlash into consideration here. It's likely to be the most important factor in the whole situation.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:10:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 1:05:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:52:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Thanks for your opinion - weighty as it is, it hasn't tipped the balance of my thoughts either way. Your assertion that there are as many wierdos from Christian culture as Islamic culture doesn't help me come to terms with the migrant crisis.

What it does it point out the idiocy of the logic. Applying an overral attribute to a group because of the extremely few extremist minorites is idiotic. And its even more idiotic that you would only apply it to Islam, and not all the other groups (e.g. Christians, white people, etc.). Its ignorant and stupid

Are you saying maybe it was a pro-Christian group that killed 130 people in Paris? Maybe it was disgruntled Buddhists, or irate Evangelicals? Wouldn't want to stereotype anyone, would we? That would be ignorant and stupid!!

While I do feel empathy for the plight of these people as human beings, there are practical and security considerations to the influx of many millions of people that must surely come first.

Sure. But the lives of the millions of these people outweigh. I encourage you to see leaked footage of what their day-to-day lives are like. People are literally taken out into the streets and beheaded in front of everyone. You can recall in American Sniper, the leader literally took a drill and drilled through the kids head. The suffering that these people live through outweighs the proposed increased crime.

You're saying that the lives of millions of muslims, being killed by other muslims - outweighs the responsibility our government owes to our citizens? No, it doesn't. I haven't seen the film American Sniper. I don't like propaganda. I like freedom of thought. Something Islam isn't too keen on. But at least I'm able to turn down the offerings of Hollywood. No doubt, it's very moving. Clearly, you're moved!

And one could argue that Islamic religious values are not compatible with the secular liberal values of tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, equality between men and women, and so on

Neither do Christians. Look in their Bible and its just as bad if not worse than the Quran. Again, you are taking extremely isolated examples and applying it to the whole. This is fallicious in itself, and can be reversed upon you to disallow any other accepted group in your country.

Islamic values are problematic in respect to the laws of the land. Take for example the penalty for apostasy in Islam; or adultery. Or more simply, the fact that in Islam men and women are accorded different rights. The practice of Christianity has grown up in relation to the development of liberal values in the west, such that - even while you can find some strange passages in the Bible, mainly old testament stuff, there are very few, if any Christian literalists. We still get problems - for example, gay marriage; accepted in liberal society - difficult for Christianity. Impossible for Islam - because of the stridency with which Muslims practice, and the intrusiveness of Islamic religious edicts into everyday life. It's not just our fundamental values, but our food, our dress, our personal grooming habits, our diversions... There's no other religion, the practice of which is so problematic for western culture.

- such that, putting terrorism aside, the ideas they carry with them and live by are inherently problematic. Ignoring all that in the name of empathy would be idiotic - so there I am, back on the fence.
(no pun intended)

Not letting people into your country while they are trying to escape militant serial killers that roam the streets and violate basic human rihts left and right because of the bare and false assertion that they disagree politically with you is idiotic.

Islamic militant serial killers! Killing people in the name of their interpretation of Islam; most often, people who have a different interpretation of Islam. Everyday on the news - right across the world, one attrocity after another attributed to Islam - and we want to invite people who practice this religion into our country? It's not like I imagine all of them are terrorists. But arguably, where you have many people, most of them perfectly decent, reasonable people practicing Islam, you have a greater seed-bed for the 'militant serial killer ideology' (to use your expression) to take root.

One last note; you may disagree with what I have to say - in which case make a meaningful argument. Describing my arguments and concerns as idiotic is not a meaningful argument. It's an insult - and that's not the level of debate I wish to engage in. If you think you know more or better than me - simply write it down and I'll read it, and think about it before replying. if I am ignorant, or my arguments or concerns are indeed stupid, they shouldn't be difficult to refute, should they?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 6:37:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 3:10:53 PM, autocorrect wrote:
At 3/14/2016 1:05:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:52:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Thanks for your opinion - weighty as it is, it hasn't tipped the balance of my thoughts either way. Your assertion that there are as many wierdos from Christian culture as Islamic culture doesn't help me come to terms with the migrant crisis.

What it does it point out the idiocy of the logic. Applying an overral attribute to a group because of the extremely few extremist minorites is idiotic. And its even more idiotic that you would only apply it to Islam, and not all the other groups (e.g. Christians, white people, etc.).

Are you saying maybe it was a pro-Christian group that killed 130 people in Paris? Maybe it was disgruntled Buddhists, or irate Evangelicals? Wouldn't want to stereotype anyone, would we? That would be ignorant and stupid!!

Again, you are taking an isolated incident and applying it to the whole. The whole is that pro-Christian groups have killed more people than Al-Qaeda since 9/11. My argument, is that even if we were to accept the idiotic logic, it is still against you since you would have to throw out every other group, e.g. christians


While I do feel empathy for the plight of these people as human beings, there are practical and security considerations to the influx of many millions of people that must surely come first.

Sure. But the lives of the millions of these people outweigh. I encourage you to see leaked footage of what their day-to-day lives are like. People are literally taken out into the streets and beheaded in front of everyone. You can recall in American Sniper, the leader literally took a drill and drilled through the kids head. The suffering that these people live through outweighs the proposed increased crime.

You're saying that the lives of millions of muslims, being killed by other muslims - outweighs the responsibility our government owes to our citizens? No, it doesn't. I haven't seen the film American Sniper. I don't like propaganda. I like freedom of thought. Something Islam isn't too keen on. But at least I'm able to turn down the offerings of Hollywood. No doubt, it's very moving. Clearly, you're moved!

People are still people. Whether they are muslim or Christian. If people's fathers are literally being taken out into the street to be excecuted is a daily occurance. And human rights are violated in multiple areas, and we don't help these people because they are muslim, or because you think that all Muslims are extremists when they are actually an extreme minority in Muslim culture [1], well. If you are that ignorant, well:
http://tinyurl.com...

And one could argue that Islamic religious values are not compatible with the secular liberal values of tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, equality between men and women, and so on

Neither do Christians. Look in their Bible and its just as bad if not worse than the Quran. Again, you are taking extremely isolated examples and applying it to the whole. This is fallicious in itself, and can be reversed upon you to disallow any other accepted group in your country.

Islamic values are problematic in respect to the laws of the land. Take for example the penalty for apostasy in Islam; or adultery. Or more simply, the fact that in Islam men and women are accorded different rights.

Same exact thing in the bible

The practice of Christianity has grown up in relation to the development of liberal values in the west, such that - even while you can find some strange passages in the Bible, mainly old testament stuff, there are very few, if any Christian literalists.

Sure, about 25% of all Christians
http://www.pewforum.org...

We still get problems - for example, gay marriage; accepted in liberal society - difficult for Christianity. Impossible for Islam - because of the stridency with which Muslims practice, and the intrusiveness of Islamic religious edicts into everyday life. It's not just our fundamental values, but our food, our dress, our personal grooming habits, our diversions... There's no other religion, the practice of which is so problematic for western culture.

Wtf, millions of lives outweigh a culture.

- such that, putting terrorism aside, the ideas they carry with them and live by are inherently problematic. Ignoring all that in the name of empathy would be idiotic - so there I am, back on the fence.
(no pun intended)

Not letting people into your country while they are trying to escape militant serial killers that roam the streets and violate basic human rihts left and right because of the bare and false assertion that they disagree politically with you is idiotic.

Islamic militant serial killers! Killing people in the name of their interpretation of Islam; most often, people who have a different interpretation of Islam. Everyday on the news - right across the world, one attrocity after another attributed to Islam - and we want to invite people who practice this religion into our country? It's not like I imagine all of them are terrorists. But arguably, where you have many people, most of them perfectly decent, reasonable people practicing Islam, you have a greater seed-bed for the 'militant serial killer ideology' (to use your expression) to take root.

Thats about 7% of all Muslims. An extreme minority. I don't know why you focus on Islam so much, when almost any other religion has more extremists than Islam. Its idiotic.

One last note; you may disagree with what I have to say - in which case make a meaningful argument. Describing my arguments and concerns as idiotic is not a meaningful argument. It's an insult - and that's not the level of debate I wish to engage in. If you think you know more or better than me - simply write it down and I'll read it, and think about it before replying. if I am ignorant, or my arguments or concerns are indeed stupid, they shouldn't be difficult to refute, should they?

I'm not personally insulting you. I am showing that the logic you are using is idiotic. I am not merely just saying your arguments are idiotic anyways, I am showing why they are. I have no malice towards you at all, I have malice towards the logic of the other side, or the other side of the fence as you will. Its blatantly contradicted by facts, and thus idiotic. Not you, the other side of the fence.

[1]https://encounteringislam.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:28:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 2:21:23 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/14/2016 1:05:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
Applying an overral attribute to a group because of the extremely few extremist minorites is idiotic.

Too bad the major problems with the migrants are largely restricted to them.

?

And one could argue that Islamic religious values are not compatible with the secular liberal values of tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, equality between men and women, and so on
Neither do Christians.

And that's why their societies are some of the only ones that generally tolerate those things. Brilliant.

Autocorrect was relating his view to the Islamic Quran. If that is the case, it is more than fair to relate it to the Christian bible. And the bible is not compatible with tolerance, freedom of speech, etc. Thats why I said "neither do Christians then". This comment is completely irrelevent to what your responding to, its straw man

Look in their Bible and its just as bad if not worse than the Quran.

Yeah, and that's why Christians are executing atheists en masse as we speak... Look, we can talk about believers or we can talk about the religions themselves. Given the context of the conversion, it's clear we're discussing the former.

Really ridiculous to pretend they're the same thing. Interpretations are not religions are not followers.

Yet, again, Autocorrect was making accusations to the entire Islamic religion based on the Quran, thus my response based on the Christian equal, the bible, is more than adequate. I agree, we should focus on the believers not the religion, but thats not what autocorrect was doing. This is strawman. Besides, even if we are talking about believers, 7% of Muslims are radical, thus its idiotic to throw out the rest of the religion based on the majority.

At 3/13/2016 11:52:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
- such that, putting terrorism aside, the ideas they carry with them and live by are inherently problematic. Ignoring all that in the name of empathy would be idiotic - so there I am, back on the fence.
(no pun intended)

No. Incompatibility is a problem, yes, but not so much as what it leads to.

At 3/13/2016 11:15:12 PM, Hayd wrote:
I doubt any other major religion is worse. Fundamental Mormons practiced polygamy wherein they married 12 year old girls, had children with them, and killed them if they tried to run away.

When was that? What's the case with them now?

40,000 in Utah still do it
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

White supremicists, are even worse. They have killed more people than Al-Qaeda since 9/11.

Not a religion, and they can hardly be considered a culture (unless you want to put every other ideology under that label too). Also, source?

It doesn't matter if its a religion or a culture, all it has to be is a group.
http://www.cnn.com...

By that same logic we could throw out any culture; it makes more sense to throw out the Chrisian culture since theirs has been just as bad if not worse.

It certainly isn't the case now, and hasn't been for a significant portion of history.

I'm a bit surprised neither of you have brought backlash into consideration here. It's likely to be the most important factor in the whole situation.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:36:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:28:27 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:21:23 AM, someloser wrote:
Too bad the major problems with the migrants are largely restricted to them.

?

Cologne/general NYE assault spree across Western Europe.

Autocorrect was relating his view to the Islamic Quran. If that is the case, it is more than fair to relate it to the Christian bible. And the bible is not compatible with tolerance, freedom of speech, etc. Thats why I said "neither do Christians then". This comment is completely irrelevent to what your responding to, its straw man

I agree, we should focus on the believers not the religion, but thats not what autocorrect was doing.
Good point, fair enough then.

Besides, even if we are talking about believers, 7% of Muslims are radical, thus its idiotic to throw out the rest of the religion based on the majority.

Depends on how we define radical. I'm assuming you're referring to the violent ones by that, yeah?

40,000 in Utah still do it
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

The 40,000 figure is cited from the Attorney General (with the link being a church's website), and only pertained to poygynous marriages.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:53:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:36:24 PM, someloser wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:28:27 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/14/2016 2:21:23 AM, someloser wrote:
Too bad the major problems with the migrants are largely restricted to them.

?

Cologne/general NYE assault spree across Western Europe.

Autocorrect was relating his view to the Islamic Quran. If that is the case, it is more than fair to relate it to the Christian bible. And the bible is not compatible with tolerance, freedom of speech, etc. Thats why I said "neither do Christians then". This comment is completely irrelevent to what your responding to, its straw man

I agree, we should focus on the believers not the religion, but thats not what autocorrect was doing.
Good point, fair enough then.

Besides, even if we are talking about believers, 7% of Muslims are radical, thus its idiotic to throw out the rest of the religion based on the majority.

Depends on how we define radical. I'm assuming you're referring to the violent ones by that, yeah?

Well, basically yes. More specifically, the ones that believe that the attack on the world trade center was justified

40,000 in Utah still do it
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

The 40,000 figure is cited from the Attorney General (with the link being a church's website), and only pertained to poygynous marriages.

http://giphy.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 11:56:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:36:24 PM, someloser wrote:
The 40,000 figure is cited from the Attorney General (with the link being a church's website), and only pertained to poygynous marriages.

The point is that those people still exist, thats truism. And the point I was trying to make in the context of me and autocorrect's argument was that by auto's logic, we could conclude all Christians practice cruel polygamy because a select minority do.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:01:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:53:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
Well, basically yes. More specifically, the ones that believe that the attack on the world trade center was justified
Figure was higher (globally) last I checked. Either way, I'm assuming it's another instance of using auto's logic against him.

http://giphy.com...
Remind me to use that sometime, nice find
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:02:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:01:21 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:53:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
Well, basically yes. More specifically, the ones that believe that the attack on the world trade center was justified
Figure was higher (globally) last I checked. Either way, I'm assuming it's another instance of using auto's logic against him.

http://giphy.com...
Remind me to use that sometime, nice find

http://www.debate.org...
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:04:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 11:56:26 PM, Hayd wrote:
The point is that those people still exist, thats truism. And the point I was trying to make in the context of me and autocorrect's argument was that by auto's logic, we could conclude all Christians practice cruel polygamy because a select minority do.
yeh agree. Thought he was referring to child marriages specifically
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 12:05:34 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 12:04:20 AM, someloser wrote:
At 3/14/2016 11:56:26 PM, Hayd wrote:
The point is that those people still exist, thats truism. And the point I was trying to make in the context of me and autocorrect's argument was that by auto's logic, we could conclude all Christians practice cruel polygamy because a select minority do.
yeh agree. Thought he was referring to child marriages specifically

Well thats a part of it. But, as long as there is one person who is mormon and does child marriages now, my point is valid. And that premise is truism, so yeah
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 1:58:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

Your naivety is beyond mindboggling
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 9:13:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/13/2016 11:17:17 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

You are basically suggesting eliminating the extremists in their homeland. This results in civilian deaths, creates a power vacuum, ends up costing more money, and ends soldier's lives, ruins diplomatic relations, etc. I'm just touching the iceberg here.

I support addressing problems at their source as opposed to letting them get out of control. I oppose multiculturalism in general. I think people can be integrated into society over a long time in small numbers but large numbers in a small timeframe is problematic. It leads to a them and us culture in which the migrants don't blend in with local culture and even become hostile to it. As for economics accepting huge numbers of people who have no assets, houses and limited skills and often do not speak the native language is a major challenge due to pressure on housing, job market, education, healthcare and public transportation.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 12:38:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 9:13:51 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/13/2016 11:17:17 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:08:51 AM, beng100 wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:57:04 PM, autocorrect wrote:
Some factual corrections based upon some very cursory research, I admit - I didn't do before. No excuse. It took me seconds to look it up - and I should have done it before. The population of Syria is apparently around 22.8 million people - and the population of Europe is apparently 742.5 million. It doesn't change the nature of my argument in the least - but that if everyone in Syria came to Europe it would be 3.07% increase in population. Surely we could handle that.

No the effects of 22. 8 million People would be huge. They need housing, schools, lessons teaching them the language of the country they would be placed in, welfare, healthcare, jobs and crucially integration completely different to their own. We should not move Syrians to Europe, we should eliminate the evil people from Syria and spend 10% of the cost of integrating the entire population of Syria into Europe on rebuilding Syria's industry, infrastructure and economy. I'm sure Syrians would prefer to stay in their home country if it was safe and they could find housing and jobs. Blending such a large number of people into Europe would be economically and socially damaging.

You are basically suggesting eliminating the extremists in their homeland. This results in civilian deaths, creates a power vacuum, ends up costing more money, and ends soldier's lives, ruins diplomatic relations, etc. I'm just touching the iceberg here.

I support addressing problems at their source as opposed to letting them get out of control. I oppose multiculturalism in general. I think people can be integrated into society over a long time in small numbers but large numbers in a small timeframe is problematic. It leads to a them and us culture in which the migrants don't blend in with local culture and even become hostile to it. As for economics accepting huge numbers of people who have no assets, houses and limited skills and often do not speak the native language is a major challenge due to pressure on housing, job market, education, healthcare and public transportation.

Millions of lives outweigh a temporarily stressed transportation system.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:03:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/10/2016 12:29:54 PM, autocorrect wrote:
I find myself torn between two diametrically opposed views; the first, that these people are human beings having a very hard time, and a second that could easily be criticized as Islamaphobia. But so be it. I'm not going to apologize for being slightly terrified of a religion that's less with the Jam and Jerusalem, and more with the murder and mayhem, not so much bake sale for the church roof, as decapitations posted on Youtube. And here they come - millions of them; having made a terrible mess of their countries of origin, moving en-masse to ours!

But then I think otherwise that Europe has upwards of 500 million people - and the entire population of Syria is only 70 million or so. Even if the whole population of Syria moved to Europe, it would only be, very approximately an 11% rise in population. Surely we could handle that. And arguably, Europe needs people - young people willing to do jobs us graying, over-weight white people don't want to do. And it's not going to be the entire population of Syria come to Europe, but a long line of destitute people - whole families, whole neighborhoods driven from their homes by a war that has as much to do with international politics as the internal religious and ethnic dynamics of the Syrian state.

I hold both of these views - that's the problem. I go back and forth from empathy and regret at the suffering of these desperate human beings - to absolute horror at the invading alien species storming our shores. Can anyone help me out?

Most immigrants coming into Europe are not Syrian, according to the EU. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... According to the European Union Commission 60% of the migrants coming to Europe seeking refugee status are economic migrants from North Africa and are not fleeing war. "More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status. More than half, 60 per cent." Said Frans Timmermans, the European Commission"s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation (NOS).
Immigration to Europe has caused a dramatic rise in crime. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org...
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org...
Is putting people in danger (from the crime caused by migration) worth it for people who aren't even refugees?