Print

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

[Erkki]

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.

Oh absolutely, as an individual, I do find myself obligated to help people. And I have, both personally and by donating, cash and clothing. But nations I dont think are obligated to help by just bringing people here. I dont think it solves anything, helps almost anyone nor is it effective. At worst we will see EU disintegrate and national economies collapse. There are 60-something million refugees around the globe and we're arguing over what to do with one million who managed to get to Europe without trying to solve the original issues or letting them help themselves.

Providing help, humanitarian, military and cash, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Libya and so forth I believe is preferable to just letting those places collapse and then dealing with whatever happens.

[Orange Wizard]

I'm on the fence about propping up a bunch of Islamic theocracies in order to help people, it sounds kinda counterproductive

[DJ]

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

No, they don't need to integrate. They need to go back to their own homes eventually, and we should be focusing on making that possible rather than importing the entire population of the Middle East. But, if any of them really want to stay in their host countries, they should have to pass the same criteria as regular immigrants: learning the language, the laws and the customs of their new country, AND getting a job.

[Dorsidwarf]

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

No, they don't need to integrate. They need to go back to their own homes eventually, and we should be focusing on making that possible rather than importing the entire population of the Middle East. But, if any of them really want to stay in their host countries, they should have to pass the same criteria as regular immigrants: learning the language, the laws and the customs of their new country, AND getting a job.

I'd also like to point out that osmosis cannot happen without a barrier between two solutions, transport across a partially-permeable barrier is literally the definition of osmosis

[martinuzz]

No, they don't need to integrate. They need to go back to their own homes eventually, and we should be focusing on making that possible rather than importing the entire population of the Middle East. But, if any of them really want to stay in their host countries, they should have to pass the same criteria as regular immigrants: learning the language, the laws and the customs of their new country, AND getting a job.

The getting a job part is hard. EU law forbids refugees to work, until they have been granted official asylum status. For the duration of the 2 to 12 years that it takes for the legal procedure about that to finish, they are forbidden by law to get a job.

[DJ]

Well that's just silly. Why? Refugees are a big burden on the economy, why not turn some of them into actual contributors?

[martinuzz]

because farmers and slaughterhouses need cheap black workers. With black I don't mean skin colour, but illegal, unregistered, not paying tax, like in black market.

[Orange Wizard]

muh bootstraps

[martinuzz]

A new law has been proposed in the Italian parliament: Parents who raise their kids as vegans, will be charged with criminal neglect, and can face up to 4 years in prison., for "feeding children with a diet that is devoid of elements that are essential for the healthy development of a child".

The politician who designed the new law, Elvira Savino, says that she "has no problem with veganism, as long as it is an adult's free choice. But I think it's absurd to allow parents to force their lifestyle on their kids in a fanatical, near religious way, without proper scientific knowledge, and without having consulted a medical professional."

Tbh, I kinda agree, although I think 4 years in prison is not the right way to go about it. Mandatory child counselling by a medical professional would be better.
Vegan all nice and dandy, but not for a kid growing up.

[DJ]

I kinda agree with his reasoning.

[Helgoland]

Well, if they're giving the kids enough supplements, it might work despite the veganism. Why not introduce a bill which makes all intentional malnutrition child abuse?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not gonna pass anyway, it's just news for wackiness.

That said, veganism is definitely one of those "can but shouldn't" things. Gotta put those incisors to work.

Well, if they're giving the kids enough supplements, it might work despite the veganism. Why not introduce a bill which makes all intentional malnutrition child abuse?

If they raise them as vegan without supplements it could be UNINTENTIONAL malnutrition.

Some of these people will feed cats vegan diets until they die. There's a line where the "lack of intent" is fueled by political desire.

[Orange Wizard]

Veganism is a pretty cruel thing to force on a kid, to be sure

To me, this has as much weight as me saying to you that I consider you obligated to spend at least an hour a day praising the Flying Spaghetti Monster for creating you.

"Feeling obligated to help people is a joke"

congrats

If you personally feel that obligation, great, and there should be avenues open for you to contribute to it (private charities, primarily). But don't force others to go along with you - at least, not without giving them a vote on the matter.

I'm not libertarian so no

As opposed to what we're doing at the moment, which is funding Israel in their efforts to destabilize half the Middle East and make the problem that much worse?

What made you think I support Israel?

[Rolepgeek]

Veganism is a pretty cruel thing to force on a kid, to be sure

To me, this has as much weight as me saying to you that I consider you obligated to spend at least an hour a day praising the Flying Spaghetti Monster for creating you.

"Feeling obligated to help people is a joke"

It's not a joke. Feel free to substitute FSM with Jehovah, Allah, Ganesh, or your own personal diety of choice. Either way, whatever actions you feel morally obligated to take or eschew are your own business - but if you consider me morally obligated to follow the same course of action, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Equally, unless you're a pretty hardcore Christian, I doubt you'd pay much heed to the people who said you were going to hell for not turning up in church every Sunday.

How enlightening. I didn't realize helping real people (as distinct from hypothetical people that evangelism, say, is supposed to help) not suffer or die was the same as going to church on Sundays. Good to know. Makes it so much easier to be a good person.

If you personally feel that obligation, great, and there should be avenues open for you to contribute to it (private charities, primarily). But don't force others to go along with you - at least, not without giving them a vote on the matter.

I'm not libertarian so no

Please expand on this. Are you saying that because you aren't libertarian, you think it's justified to force other people to perform actions against their own self-interest without their democratic mandate? Sounds pretty despotic to me, if I'm not misinterpreting you.

Democratic mandate does some pretty shitty things, sometimes. Usually I think it best to prevent demagoguery, but maybe that's just me. And personally, I think refusing to help people out of hysteria would be a pretty shitty thing to do.

[hector13]

If you personally feel that obligation, great, and there should be avenues open for you to contribute to it (private charities, primarily). But don't force others to go along with you - at least, not without giving them a vote on the matter.

I'm not libertarian so no

Please expand on this. Are you saying that because you aren't libertarian, you think it's justified to force other people to perform actions against their own self-interest without their democratic mandate? Sounds pretty despotic to me, if I'm not misinterpreting you.

Welcome to Scotland.