Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Orange Wizard]

How the sod are they supposed to assimilate when they're stuck in an overcrowded, unhygienic den of violence and misery

[DJ]

That's their problem. There's a moral obligation to save these people from ISIS, there's no moral obligation to pretty much hand them out citizenships. The goal isn't to keep them in EU, it's to send them back to their own homes eventually.

[Orange Wizard]

>sticks refugees in internment camps
>"it's their problem"

smh tbqh fam

[DJ]

Like I said, them becoming full member of society is not a desired outcome. That's what was done with Bosnian refugees in '95 - vast majority of them got kicked out as soon as Dayton agreement was signed, and there was zero terrorism associated with them.

[Rolepgeek]

And if you have to worry about 'being a bad liberal' for some thoughtcrime you may have had, I'd say that's rather telling of what kind of ideology you're forging for yourself.

Mostly in the sense that it fit the narrative of giving in to pressures from the other side. I don't actually worry too much about that sort of thing; it's why I get into arguments with my parents a lot over this sorta stuff.

I did notice something else though, that border control and gun control seem to be very similar issues in that one side thinks it's a matter of public safety and the other side thinks it's fearmongering and an attempt to restrict civil liberties/civil rights.

[hector13]

The extradition was delayed rather than stopped over concerns that he'd receive similar treatment to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, life imprisonment without parole, and being held in isolation for extended periods of time. Basically inhumane treatment, a violation of Article 3 (I think) of the European Convention for Human Rights. He was eventually extradited after those concerns were assuaged.

I don't find that treatment inhumane given his crimes and what he espouses. Either way, you seem to have asked a question to which you already knew the answer.

My intent was to find out why you thought the European Court of Human Rights was a ridiculous institution, though my ability to communicate that at 1am was a little bit impaired.

Evidently it's because you think human rights are conditional rather than absolute.

[Sergarr]

The extradition was delayed rather than stopped over concerns that he'd receive similar treatment to the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, life imprisonment without parole, and being held in isolation for extended periods of time. Basically inhumane treatment, a violation of Article 3 (I think) of the European Convention for Human Rights. He was eventually extradited after those concerns were assuaged.

I don't find that treatment inhumane given his crimes and what he espouses. Either way, you seem to have asked a question to which you already knew the answer.

My intent was to find out why you thought the European Court of Human Rights was a ridiculous institution, though my ability to communicate that at 1am was a little bit impaired.

Evidently it's because you think human rights are conditional rather than absolute.

No, I think the concept of human rights is an obstructionist sham that infringes on national sovereignty while claiming to do what laws already do. I don't believe in a 'right' to asylum, I don't believe in a 'right' to broadband, and I don't believe in a right to life.  People only have rights because we as a society agree to dispense them. It stands to reason that in cases where dispensing these rights becomes harmful to society, we will choose to rescind them.

Wow. I didn't expect to see such... Sovietism, from what I assume is a native Western European. Have you thought that the concept of human rights may be so beneficial, that discarding it for a short-sighted gain of "security" is never the right choice?

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

[Sergarr]

Who said anything about surrendering freedom? We have the right to vote in this country, for example. If they tried to take it away, I and many others would fight in the streets to prevent them. Freedom and rights aren't given, they are earned, often with blood, as they have been earned in my country with the blood of my ancestors.

Contrast that with things like the 'right to asylum'. Because of 'human rights', my country is apparently obligated to take in large numbers of refugees, even if most people are opposed to it? Doesn't sound very free to me. I believe in democracy; if that's what most people vote for, alright, let's do it. But I don't believe in being obligated to harm myself by a moral code I didn't sign up for. I don't believe in 'Original Sin' either, because that seems to be the road we're going down.

But you do surrender freedom, you surrender the freedom of those people to live in a place that isn't a war-torn hell-hole! You say that, just because your people don't want to help those people, that you can just leave them out there to be killed at the leisure of tyrants and fanatics - and that's utterly, completely wrong, on a moral level. You're helping those tyrants to retain their grasp on the world with isolationistic policies like that.

And ultimately, you're setting up your Europe for a material failure, as well. You know what happened with USSR, right? If Europe goes the same way the USSR went on its policy towards supporting tyrants and dictators and reneging on human rights, then it is surely doomed, it will fall the same way the USSR fell, crashing down underneath its weight, with the economical system, led by short-sighted populist bureaucrats believing in bullshit economical theories being unable to cope with the pressure of the modern world.

With belief in basic universal human freedom, you have a chance to renew your system and form a more perfect union, without it, you do not, you'll get an "every man for himself" situation and it will just fall apart at the seams.

[Sergarr]

I'm not exactly saying that the current path of Europe is right. That's why I've not said that "ohh if you continue to do what you're doing, you'll be okay", because evidently, it's not. But, as I've said, the only chance to persevere through the future troubles without fragmenting and turning Europe into a battleground yet again, is to form a strong ideological background for Europeans, and through that unity of ideology, forge a new, better, union, an ideological enterprise, just like USA did.

That's the only way to keep it together for any long-ish period of time. All alternatives have historically failed. A confederacy of independent, sovereign states will fall apart, will form enmities, will start fighting each other instead of helping, and will ultimately be divided and conquered by those that did their homework and formed a more perfect union, like, for example, USA. USA would be very keen on spreading freedom back to Europe which abandoned it.

[smjjames]

I'm not exactly saying that the current path of Europe is right. That's why I've not said that "ohh if you continue to do what you're doing, you'll be okay", because evidently, it's not. But, as I've said, the only chance to persevere through the future troubles without fragmenting and turning Europe into a battleground yet again, is to form a strong ideological background for Europeans, and through that unity of ideology, forge a new, better, union, an ideological enterprise, just like USA did.

That's the only way to keep it together for any long-ish period of time. All alternatives have historically failed. A confederacy of independent, sovereign states will fall apart, will form enmities, will start fighting each other instead of helping, and will ultimately be divided and conquered by those that did their homework and formed a more perfect union, like, for example, USA. USA would be very keen on spreading freedom back to Europe which abandoned it.

The only problem is that the histories are completely different, the US effectively started from scratch, there weren't any existing countries in the European sense, while Europe has millenia of history, old grievances, etc. Not to mention different cultures and identities.

I'm not neccesarily saying that they can't be overcome, just that it's a heck of a lot harder for Europe.

And you have to remember that even the US went through a period where we could easily have fragmented.

Anyway, meanwhile, Erdogan gets cozy with Putin:

http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-and-russia-meet-to-restart-dialogue-recep-tayyip-erdogan-vladimir-putin/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37018562

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37009931

[Zangi]

I'm here to just say from a buncha pages back: 

"humane western torture" = LULZ

[Erkki]

And if you have to worry about 'being a bad liberal' for some thoughtcrime you may have had, I'd say that's rather telling of what kind of ideology you're forging for yourself.

Mostly in the sense that it fit the narrative of giving in to pressures from the other side. I don't actually worry too much about that sort of thing; it's why I get into arguments with my parents a lot over this sorta stuff.

I did notice something else though, that border control and gun control seem to be very similar issues in that one side thinks it's a matter of public safety and the other side thinks it's fearmongering and an attempt to restrict civil liberties/civil rights.

So, you think taking over a million immigrants/social service shoppers/refugees, with majority of with opposite values compared to the average European and little to no hope of housing or feeding themselves or getting a job, into EU was a matter of improving public security? While leaving another 10+ millions, that are without a home in warzones and couldn't move to Europe, through the middle-East where they are and not bat an eyelid?

Interesting.


Yes, its cruel but I too do not think that it is our job to be the social service for half of the world. Its not EU's responsibility, and our economies wont survive trying. We can help them where they are by stopping the war and helping them help themselves, but just bringing everyone from over there to here because of "human rights" is madness. I also cannot become Swiss citizen even if I cross the border, of course I'd realize I'd be a leech.

And of course we should keep anyone who has managed to get this far and isnt from a safe area or willing to return on their own safe and fed.

[Orange Wizard]

Is it just me or is everyone here arguing either "humanitarianism" or "national security" with literally no rational compromise to be seen

Like I thought my approach was actually pretty good - let in however many X country can reasonably afford (except at-risk demographics), offer them a chance at integration, if they don't start making an effort after a year or two, send them back to Turkey.

But apparently FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY trump all else so we have to shut our borders and fuck the refugees, it's their fault they're refugees

Or HUMAN RIGHTS trump all else and we have to bring in an arseload of refugees because fuck our country, these people need to leech of our govt

E: strawmanning, etc.

[DJ]

I thought my concept of letting them in but restricting their movement is a compromise.

[hector13]

Immigrants confirmed as the only beings capable of rape.