Print

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

[scriver]

He seems to be saying that as far as he's concerned, the moral obligation is to prevent these refugees from dying, not to give them an easy or comfortable life at the expense of the safety of our own citizens. To that effect, we'd be better off strictly controlling their numbers, movement, etc - perhaps to their detriment, and perhaps to our benefit.

Seems quite sensible to me.

Doesn't to me.

I'm not seeing them as a... distant thing, though. I'm thinking 'Well, if I was in that situation then what?'.

Then what? What changes? Why shouldn't others be able to control numbers, movement, and demographics of those who seek help just because the refugees are made up of yous or mes?

But then you were saying they need to integrate. It's like sticking a barrier between pure water and sugar solution and expecting osmosis.

I'll give you that. However. Integration of the vast majority of these immigrants is not possible anyway because of the large numbers we experience. People aren't sugar and water that will automatically solute into eachother. People are people, and many people to not want or do not have the ability to integrate.

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

I find that saying completely ridiculous, even more so in this context. Freedom and safety aren't opposites or immiscibles. They are preconditions, or co-conditions, of each other. You can't have safety without freedom, and you are never free without being safe. They come hand-in-hand.

Just the other week a 50-something woman from a village nearby was exercising her freedom to pick berries in the forest. She was gangraped by several men. Do you think she and others who want to be in the nature around there feel either safe or free now?

Immigrants confirmed as the only beings capable of rape.

No, and that's not what he was saying. That above is a pure strawman.

[hector13]

No, and that's not what he was saying. That above is a pure strawman.

Is it? He was saying that we shouldn't take immigrants because they'll rape people, which is absurd, so I came back with an absurd statement. If we shouldn't accept immigrants because they might rape people, we might as well throw everyone in prison because they might rape someone or murder someone or speak harshly to someone.

The example he gave was also not really a very good one. The article even goes into detail that the German state is essentially suppressing the details of these rapes, they aren't really prosecuting these rapes (it said something about being too lenient, without really giving examples of what that meant) the German media not covering these things, or otherwise lessening the blow (southern skin colour? what?) and then it states that Germany has a) a ridiculously narrow definition of rape (you weren't raped if you didn't fight back!) and b) ridiculously low rates of reporting all sex crimes.

In terms of choosing an example to show that immigrants are dirty raping bastards, you'd be hard-pressed to find a worse one.


Re: integration: it's a two-sided affair. You can't just expect immigrants to go out and find ways to integrate, the place they're trying to assimilate into needs to put some effort into actually helping them out. Some of them might not even speak the language. How well do you think you'd fare if you could barely communicate with anyone?

[scriver]

No, and that's not what he was saying. That above is a pure strawman.

Is it? He was saying that we shouldn't take immigrants because they'll rape people

That sounds surprisingly different from "Immigrants confirmed as the only beings capable of rape". Even then, you're still misrepresenting his point even after moving your strawman post. What he said, through the implications of the example of Germany's rape and sexual abuse problems, was that immigrants rape people at a greater amount than natives. Not that immigrants are the only ones capable of rape, or that all immigrants are rapists.

But hey, if you want to make the discussion about blinderedly assuming the worst possible about each other's arguments instead of listening to each other, then go ahead.

Re: integration: it's a two-sided affair. You can't just expect immigrants to go out and find ways to integrate, the place they're trying to assimilate into needs to put some effort into actually helping them out. Some of them might not even speak the language. How well do you think you'd fare if you could barely communicate with anyone?

Sweden has some of the most extensive integration efforts of the world. It doesn't matter when people don't want to integrate.

edit: added first sentence

[hector13]

No, and that's not what he was saying. That above is a pure strawman.

Is it? He was saying that we shouldn't take immigrants because they'll rape people

That sounds surprisingly different from "Immigrants confirmed as the only beings capable of rape".

Yes, well done. Do you understand the concept of irony? It was a ridiculous statement that I used to highlight his ridiculous statement. Natives are just as capable of raping someone as an immigrant.

Even then, you're still misrepresenting his point even after moving your strawman post. What he said, through the implications of the example of Germany's rape and sexual abuse problems, was that immigrants rape people at a greater amount than natives. Not that immigrants are the only ones capable of rape, or that all immigrants are rapists.

You must point out where the article said that, I must have missed it.

Perhaps you could also provide numbers on the bolded statement, as it relates to the article? Edit: bearing in mind I'll drop the "90% of sex crime go unreported" stat down on whatever you find out about it.

[scriver]

So wait, first you go with the "I was only saying he claimed 'immigrants are the only ones capable of rape' as a ridiculous statement" excuse for your strawman, and then in the very next sentence you go ahead and claim that the article he posted does in fact claim that "immigrants are the only ones capable of rape" anyway?

Even then, you're still misrepresenting his point even after moving your strawman post. What he said, through the implications of the example of Germany's rape and sexual abuse problems, was that immigrants rape people at a greater amount than natives. Not that immigrants are the only ones capable of rape, or that all immigrants are rapists.

You must point out where the article said that, I must have missed it.

Perhaps you could also provide numbers on the bolded statement, as it relates to the article? Edit: bearing in mind I'll drop the "90% of sex crime go unreported" stat down on whatever you find out about it.

I didn't say that the article said it, I said that it was what Covenant's point, as opposed to "only immigrants rape" or "we shouldn't take immigrants because they will rape people" that you are reducing it to.

[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.

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.

I don't think you grokked what I was trying to say. Please try again, this time keeping in mind which side wants to restrict what. They're not the same side.

There's not an obligation to take in more than you can handle. And there're approaches that work better than others, in terms of the way you aid them, long-term. But dismissing human rights in the name of egoism, 'enlightened self-interest' (I notice most people who like that term only really use half of it), and moral relativism simply because your opponents use the term is not the solution. For one thing, it helps them, because looking like you don't give a shot about anyone but you and yours isn't great for convincing people, for some reason. Why should anyone else give a shit about your opinion od you can't even being yourself to care about oi that people dying and living in fear? If you're unable to dredge up any empathy?

That quote isn't quite accurate, by the way.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Being American actually came in handy for once in this thread. Funny.

People don't always integrate easily. You get cultural centers, separated from each other, kinda like chunks of solute, from which they assimilate over generations, while still maintaining a chunk of culture. Europe doesn't have those pockets of unoccupied space/period of rapid growth to accomodate that effectively in an organic way. But if these people didn't want to be a part of society in some way, they wouldn't have come.

I find the failure to enforce laws among immigrants and refugees horrendous. I find the attribution of that failure to be the fault of the immigrants or refugees to be likewise horrendous.

[hector13]

So wait, first you go with the "I was only saying he claimed 'immigrants are the only ones capable of rape' as a ridiculous statement" excuse for your strawman, and then in the very next sentence you go ahead and claim that the article he posted does in fact claim that "immigrants are the only ones capable of rape" anyway?

Eh? You are making some outlandish inferences, bro. You need to explain that one.

I didn't say that the article said it, I said that it was what Covenant's point, as opposed to "only immigrants rape" or "we shouldn't take immigrants because they will rape people" that you are reducing it to.

But the article was used as support for Covenant's point, which has been my point all along. His point being that we need to protect our womenfolk from the dirty brown people:

Why should my sisters, daughters, friends and co-workers live in fear of violent sexual assault such as in Germany, like the many, many examples I linked to in my last post?

This is the ridiculous statement to which I'm referring. How do we interpret that?

I'm quite willing to be corrected, but it looks like what Covenant is saying is "immigrants are rapists, look what's going on in Germany, this article will provide supporting evidence", but I've already said the article doesn't say that. A very basic gist of it is "German authorities are letting immigrants get away with sexual violence."

My ridiculous statement of "immigrants confirmed as only beings capable of rape" was irony. I perhaps should've spent an extra few moments typing out "not all immigrants are rapists, not all rapists are immigrants" as well to illustrate that's what I meant, but I didn't. The question "why do we have to protect our womenfolk from immigrant rapists but not native rapists?" may also have helped. Sorry.

Hopefully that has explained what inspired the irony and where I was coming from.

[hector13]

This is why I carefully explained my point, though I also forgot to add that it's a bit redundant having two people argue over a third person's point. It could be an eternal discussion

[hector13]

I feel the same way about people who don't stand by what they say, and cherry-pick sources.

[Rolepgeek]

For one thing, it helps them, because looking like you don't give a shot about anyone but you and yours isn't great for convincing people, for some reason.

If this is true, why are our leaders so afraid of allowing us to vote directly on these issues?

You're not required to give a shit about my opinion on the subject, as much as I'm not required to care about yours. But if we live together in a democratic country and you want to see the public vote your way on an issue, you have to convince them to do so. And if you think your moral arguments will trump their own self-interest, well, I think you'll be surprised.

Or maybe not. Who knows. Let's see what happens in Hungary in October.

You guys voted your current politicians into office. LW was posting articles for weeks about people undermining attempts to have border security. Turns out, there's a lot of people who take the view of morality. They're probably afraid of letting you vote directly because they're concerned about hysteria, which if you look at the stock market, or media, or just about anything else involving opinions after heavily publicized, politicized, or otherwise dramatized events, is an actual concern. That's why we have representative democracies, rather than direct democracies. Plus, look what happened with your country when they held a referendum and fucked themselves over because people were stupid and voted against what they actually wanted, because they were trying to make a point, or didn't bother voting since they thought it was a sure thing.

Let me ask you this, Covenant. Say they did hold a referendum. What would be your response, respectively, to the country deciding in favor of refugees, and against it?

I'm also curious why you think voting to keep refugees and immigration out is in the individual's self-interest. Certainly, unfettered flow is negative. But somehow, I think that the precedent of the restrictions you would like to set might be worse. Only half muslims, no citizenship (and thus fewer rights), have to go back to a devastated country...based on what? People are getting raped, and that's horrible. But don't act like that's the only thing that happens. I mean, yeah, bringing in lots of single young men from a patriarchal culture, kindof a bad move, to put it mildly. Do you expect Muslim families to participate in this? Or just in the thoughtcrime of having their religion, which is different from the one you like? People can think what they want to think. Shariah law isn't going to be implemented. You know that as well as I do. I did the statistics on it. You think the people fleeing from the fighting, which is in part perpetrated by a group trying to establish Shariah law, are going to want to start new wars in the new place they're in? Really? That's before getting into the media's love of drama, and thus playing up of any rapes that do happen. It's fearmongering. The odds of being raped in a given time frame? How many percentage points do you believe they rose by? Gimme a number, Covenant. Hell, better, find an unbiased article (the unbiased part, either for or against, is the hard part) that gives numbers. In a country of a few dozen million people, sexual assault cases can be cherry-picked handily.

Furthermore, tell me. Is your economy set up to handle an aging population with below-replacement-rate reproduction, and an increasingly ardent youth population clamoring for better jobs, to the point of healthcare professionals going on strike? I mean, you were asking about immigrants in general. You believe they will remain unintegrated forever? That they will always be unable to speak the language, 'unwilling' to get a job, slouching and mooching? You think those are the values Islam teaches? You think once the flood stops and the country can actually digest what it's chewed, that nothing good can possibly result?

[Rolepgeek]

I meant the precedent of that sort of discrimination becoming acceptable practice. Slippery slope with that sort of thing has happened before. Tyranny of the majority is still a thing. Maybe you haven't had much experience with it, but I think Ireland did for a while. Hell, negotiating with terrorists seemed to have turned out okay, there. Could be wrong. Scotland probably feels that way right about now (in that a lot of the reason they chose to stick with England was because of the benefits the EU brought, iirc).

I dislike the 'move to Canada' people too. I just don't view 'make the country a better place' to mean 'keep out foreigners'. My values are more along the lines of 'in general, people are decent'. It's why I find myself defending the right more often than I do the left, because I'm usually around people on the left who demonize the right. This thread reminds me that there's still people who demonize minorities, and serves to widen my bubble, which is very gratifying, I must say.

[Orange Wizard]

Immigrants are fine so long as they can be culturally integrated into the country. Integration is a very complex process, but there seems to be a pretty neat correlation:

But they also rape people, so we should put them in enclosures

[hector13]

Immigrants are fine so long as they can be culturally integrated into the country. Integration is a very complex process, but there seems to be a pretty neat correlation:

But they also rape people, so we should put them in enclosures

Could charge people to view them, though. Lighten the burden they have on society.

[Erkki]

There's not an obligation to take in more than you can handle. And there're approaches that work better than others, in terms of the way you aid them, long-term. But dismissing human rights in the name of egoism, 'enlightened self-interest' (I notice most people who like that term only really use half of it), and moral relativism simply because your opponents use the term is not the solution. For one thing, it helps them, because looking like you don't give a shot about anyone but you and yours isn't great for convincing people, for some reason. Why should anyone else give a shit about your opinion od you can't even being yourself to care about oi that people dying and living in fear? If you're unable to dredge up any empathy?

There is no obligation to take any of them. In exactly zero European countries have the people been asked about their opinions when it comes the phenomenon and related issues and questions at hand. If in a democracy my opinion, a law-abiding tax-paying citizen's voice and opinion, doesnt count, why should anyone else's? EU is getting more and more integrated while the EU citizens do NOT want to get integrated and become a federation. And no its not just about rapes or medievalish muslim culture both of which I dislike. Nor about the fact that most of the people coming here are young men.

because looking like you don't give a shot about anyone but you and yours isn't great for convincing people

I do not need to convince people, I have an opinion and so do many others, and all those should count. Your thought seems to be that my opinion really doesnt even matter because its "selfish" somehow? Your perception of what is democracy differs from mine. At the moment we too, like the Brits and many others, have a government that has eaten its words several times over as have the political parties and individual politicians starting from the PM himself.

Maybe its you who should try reading again. I'm not against helping people who need protection. If you feel you arent getting through, can explain yourself about how immigration politics and gun control debates are both about public security versus individual freedoms.



PS. around here you're going to jail if you use more force than what was used on you ie. defending yourself is in practice illegal. One cant even fight back and defend oneself against "darkies" trying to rape with a knife or gas if they havent already used similar weapons on you. Rapes by foreigners have gone up 46 % from last year and all it took was 30k "refugees", a tiny, less than half-a-percent minority, is committing more than half of them all. I cant defend myself in any legal way and if I go out after dark and get raped/robbed/beaten its basically my own fault. Because I didnt vote right, oh, I did, but it doesnt count because now I'm a racist.

The times we live are getting a bit too interesting to my liking.


edit, I felt the need to provide some sources too. From the police department, statistics on foreign citizens in crime,

2014-2015
2015 January to June vs. 2016 January to June
The latter one in google translate

Rapes up by 6%, suspect foreign citizen up by 46%. Sexual harassment up by 150%, by foreigners 450%. Violent assaults went down by 2%, but numbers of assaults committed by foreigners went up by 38%.

All it took was 30k, mostly young men, refugees. Keeping them just fed and dry is about 1,5 million € every day.

[Orange Wizard]

There is no obligation to take any of them.

I disagree, fundamentally. I would consider myself, and everyone else in the west, obligated to help people when we are able. Ignoring the crisis, and letting millions of people suffer and die, would be an utterly vile decision.

All it took was 30k, mostly young men, refugees. Keeping them just fed and dry is about 1,5 million € every day.

It's almost as though having thirty thousand young men running around without any employment or understanding of the local culture is a bad idea