Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The Migration Crisis

981 replies to this topic
make total destroy
  • make total destroy

    love or a garbage disposal unit

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Not Very Punk 2016
    Most Desperate Campaign Poster 2015
    April Fools Winner 2015
    Bloody Ungrateful 2016

#31

Posted 21 April 2015 - 04:23 PM

 
Yes, but these guys are not refugees, but illegal economic migrants. Refugees tend to be women and children, these people you call "refugees" are mostly young men.
 

ref·u·gee
ˌrefyo͝oˈjē/
noun
noun: refugee; plural noun: refugees
a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
 
Where's that bit about women and children?
 
Your whole argument is sh*t--as per usual--but c'mon, at least consult a f*cking dictionary.
  • Doc Rikowski, Melchior, Ari Gold and 1 other like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#32

Posted 21 April 2015 - 04:23 PM

but these guys are not refugees, but illegal economic migrants.

Erm, no they're not.
 

"they're like us and with the same basic human rights"
 
In what way are they like me? Yes, we are all humans and so on, but I don't think I share many things with them.

So, are you disagreeing with the concept of universal human rights? A concept that, let's not forget, became international law because of the genocide of Jews during the Second World War? My my, the hypocrisy.

Blaming your inability to look at events objectively, and predisposition to casting anyone dark skinned from a majority Muslim country in a negative light, on people with political persuasions left of your own (read: basically anything that isn't Fascism) does not constitute a reasonable counter-argument to the points that have been raised. Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make your statements true.
 

Europe left Africa a lot of decades ago.

Must...resist...making same comments about two-state solution and foundation of Israel...
 

Yes, but you can expel the scum among them and let the good ones stay.

Er, in reality, no you can't.
 

So you want to turn your country into a welfare organization for illegals and infiltrators.

Do you ever listen to the sh*t that comes out of your mouth and think "wow, I really am a monumental delusional, bigoted individual, to the point at which the astounding irony of most of what I say completely escapes me"? You should. Or is your inability to remember relatively recent history also a "leftist" problem?

 

You progressives think you occupy a high moral ground and know what's best for everyone.

Oh, the hypocrisy. From the individual who feels he has the moral authority to shun any individual coming to Europe that doesn't meet his own, twisted, preconceived biases regarding what a "good immigrant" should conform to? Does this all somehow escape you when you write these rambling appeals to emotion and ignorance?
 

What's wrong with building walls?

Let's ask the Palestinians, shall we?
 

Is this your case? Just asking. Many people is like this, I just want to know if you're like them.

f*cking lol
  • Doc Rikowski, Tyler, Melchior and 8 others like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#33

Posted 21 April 2015 - 04:29 PM

Political incorrectness has nothing on your hubris, Palikari.
  • Doc Rikowski and sivispacem like this

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#34

Posted 21 April 2015 - 04:33 PM

Yes, but these guys are not refugees, but illegal economic migrants. Refugees tend to be women and children, these people you call "refugees" are mostly young men.


And what data are you basing these claims on? The recent ship that sunk contained plenty of women and children, but they were all locked away, so they all died with it capsized.

"they're like us and with the same basic human rights"


Well, despite no one having actually said that, it seems fair enough. More to the point, they are dying on and coming to our shores, so whether we like it or not, it is our problem.

In what way are they like me? Yes, we are all humans and so on, but I don't think I share many things with them.

How much do these "basic human rights" cost from the pockets of the Europeans? That's the problem, leftists. For you guys anything is a "basic human right", you turn anything you support into a "right" in order to braiwash the people. Sorry, but to ilegally and violently storm another state, stay in this state, and then live off taxpayers' money is not a "basic human right". To be an economic burden in another country is not a human right at all. They deserve human rights, of course, but REAL human rights, and in their countries, not the leftist phony idea of "human rights".


They don't have basic human rights in their countries, that's why they are coming to Europe. I am not against Europe being seeing as the 'land of opportunity' actually.

I am not opposed to immigration, but I think it should be limited, nationals should be first at jobs and illegals should be immediately deported. Law and order should not be broken, and only givers (not takers) should be allowed. Countries are not welfare organizations.


You seem pretty sure who these people are without any sources defining that, nor any statistics to prove the burden on Europe, besides the cost for patrolling the seas.

Europe left Africa a lot of decades ago.


I think you'll find that France intervened in Mali last year, and a Western coalition in Libya two years ago.

The Europeans of today have not done anything to Africa, and the illegals of today have not suffered colonization.

So Europeans should not feel guilty at all and owe Africans nothing.


While there are no more European colonies, the consequences of European colonisation is still heavily felt on the African continent. Belgians left Rwanda several decades before the genocide in 1994, but that genocide was a direct consequence of the political power structure Belgium had left.

These are not isolated examples, the border of the Middle East is a classic example of careless European imperalism.

You can argue that modern Europeans didn't do these things, but then you should also argue that modern Germany owes Israel nothing.

We have a responsible for what our ancestors did, if we wish to cheerish the civilisation they have built for us. We cannot have that without some expense. Moreover, we should also do these things because we are capable. I don't necessary say we should extend European influence everywhere, but there is nothing wrong with making the world a little better. Because that will eventually benefit Europe as well.

Funny though, all this anti-immigration bias coming from someone that comes from a people that has been migrating everywhere throughout its entire history and faced persecutions, hardships and poverty due to its migrant status.


The world only likes Jews when we are poor and oppressed and in trains heading to Auschwitz, not when we are a free people in our land and defend ourselves and our State. That's why many people can't stand a Jew giving a politically incorrect opinion.


It honestly have nothing to do with the fact you are a Jew.
  • Doc Rikowski, Irviding, Tyler and 2 others like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#35

Posted 21 April 2015 - 06:02 PM

First off, I'd just like to say thanks to Docrikowski and anyone else harping on about some "not knowing what they're talking about"/" they're just immature", etc, but perhaps some of us are here to learn? Acting like a pretentious arsehole is never a good look. And a special thanks to Melchior, as ever, for the usual "you're just a racist" drivel.

Anyway, some fascinating stuff, I must concede. A few things I'd like to put to Svip, as he appears a little less hostile in his approach to debate and, dare I say it, mature: You say "Sweden's approach to refugees is not the answer, but neither is a walled Europe.", I'm interested in your own thoughts on what the sensible solution should be. I mean, surely not administering some sort of limit simply because 'we bear a responsibility' is going to present a strain on our resources at some point? And something else I'd be interested in your thoughts on: where exactly do the human rights for those Muslims throwing Christians off the boats stand in your view?
  • Palikari likes this

acmilano
  • acmilano

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011

#36

Posted 21 April 2015 - 08:07 PM

http://www.channel4....sinks-off-libya

 

http://www.dailyreco...captain-5556903

 

 

Rest in Peace to all victims.

 

Its just too awful what hapenned. Who want,can find much more pics and videos...

Its obvious that what was done so far is not enough and it will only get worse. Problem is there and it wont end all by itself.  Maybe find a way that people there could earn for themselves and their families? After all,people were dieing from hunger in India and China until some factories are opened there and some investment from the West came. Before that millions of people were coming to the West too. So for the sake of the western countries it would be good to help conditions there to improve,otherwise people would keep pouring to the West until confrontation and even war starts between Europe and Africa,Domicile and Immigrants. And it would ruin Europe too.


Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#37

Posted 21 April 2015 - 10:53 PM

A few things I'd like to put to Svip, as he appears a little less hostile in his approach to debate and, dare I say it, mature: You say "Sweden's approach to refugees is not the answer, but neither is a walled Europe.", I'm interested in your own thoughts on what the sensible solution should be. I mean, surely not administering some sort of limit simply because 'we bear a responsibility' is going to present a strain on our resources at some point?


Part of the reason that this crisis is escalating at present is not because these people want to cheat European welfare systems for their own benefits.  If that was the case, they would have been fleeing in these numbers for decades.  Europe has always had better welfare systems than Africa, that should come as no surprise.  But the current unstable Northern Africa and Middle East is increasing demands and means people are willing to take these incredible risks to escape the war torn lands they leave behind.

 

Effectively, while I believe we should accept the refugees on a humanitarian basis and try to ensure the waters are safe, it won't solve the problem in the long run.  You can argue that eventually it'll blow over, because everything must come to an end, but there is no way to predict for how long Libya, Syria, Iraq and so forth will remain so unstable.  Unfortunately, solving the root of the problem won't be easy either.

 

Let's talk Libya for this time, I'm sure we've talked Syria and Iraq a lot elsewhere.  Say what you will about the dictators that used to rule the Northern African countries, at least they kept things stable.  I am not advocating dictatorships, but stability is at least better than chaos.  Particular if that chaos seems to yield nothing in the long run.

 

Sending foreign aid to Libya is pointless, the government has no control of the country and is quite possibly deeply corrupt anyway.  Military support or intervention is also an expensive endeavour that will most likely yield nothing but more trouble.  It's a loss-loss situation.

 

I do not believe Europe can sit idle by while our neighbour's house is burning down and their children are fleeing to us.  While we cannot directly put the fire out, we can at least keep their children for now and maybe we have some other cards to play to help with the fire that are not obvious.

 

In all honesty, I don't know the solution to the crisis.  Sending them back will stop nothing, because that's not what they worry about.  Even being in a waiting room is better than what they are leaving behind.  But keeping them all won't be economical viable, unless all of Europe help Italy maintain refugee camps.  And even then; we have to ask: When does it end?

 

In short; there are no easy answers, and none of the solutions provided in this thread are the right ones.
 

And something else I'd be interested in your thoughts on: where exactly do the human rights for those Muslims throwing Christians off the boats stand in your view?

There will always be criminals, and there will likely be some weak-minded fools among refugees that will do despicable things.  But even criminals are humans, and all humans have basic human rights.  As distasteful as such acts are, they should still be able to avail themselves of the judicial system wherein they committed these crimes or is willing to claim jurisdiction.  I don't like them, but human rights should never be annulled for any person.

  • Doc Rikowski, Irviding, Tyler and 2 others like this

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#38

Posted 22 April 2015 - 10:57 AM

In what way are they like me? Yes, we are all humans and so on, but I don't think I share many things with them.


Just quoting this cause pretty much sums up your attitude on the whole issue.
It's pretty sad to see such lack of understanding of fellow human beings.
They are like you and me cause they share with us the same need and desire of feeling safe and building a future for themselves and their own.
Only this should be enough to see that they are just like everyone else.
But hey, if you can't feel or see simple truths then I'm the one that can't share anything with you and I actually feel sorry for the way you are.

The rest of your post is as usual quite delusional and it is hard to reply to such nonsense with reasonable words.
And others already replied to most of it with words I'd also use.

What I find funny though is your obsession with labeling people that disagree with you as leftists or progressives or whatever label you have stamped in your mind.
Personally I do not stand in any spot of the political spectrum, I just prefer to be an independent thinker.
What I believe in can be labelled as you wish but depending on the subject it could be left, right, center or even anarchist.

Anyway your obsession with political labelling goes hand in hand with your obsession of public spending.
I have paid a lot of taxes during my life and I paid them in 3 different countries.
I wouldn't mind, as I said before, if my money went to welfare rather than to the salaries and pockets of incompetent and dishonest people in the parliament that earn as much as 25.000€ x month in some cases.
I'd rather give them to a Syrian refugee family that to any corrupted politician who is doing nothing to solve problems at home or abroad.
You are so worried about how Europe spends its public money but do you actually pay taxes in Europe?
If not then let us spend money on what we want if we are given the chance.
The problem certainly is not how money would be spent for refugees.
The problem is how money is spent right now incompetently and stupidly.

Your final obsession is the most delusional one. How does being a Jew has anything to do with what I said so far?
Are you paranoid? I talked about the Jewish people cause it's a good example of a migrant people that has been in the same situation as a lot of today's migrants countless of times in its history.
You'd think someone who knows well its people's past would be more sympathetic with whom is going through the same.
Just as I am because, beside being myself a "migrant", one that could just buy a plane ticket and safely land to my destination to become one, I do not forget that my people has been migrating in far worse conditions than mine for the past two centuries.
I now feel the duty as a human being, as a migrant, as an Italian, to be sympathetic with whom is going through the same.
But that's me and I rock. ;) :pp

lolleroz
  • lolleroz

    They might kill me, but they won't scare me.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2010
  • None

#39

Posted 22 April 2015 - 11:38 AM

Political correctness is killing off Europe slowly. It is just a matter of time before the majority of inhabitants become the minority, just like it's going on in UK

  • Street Mix, Palikari and Roger Cheeto like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#40

Posted 22 April 2015 - 11:50 AM

Political correctness is killing off Europe slowly. It is just a matter of time before the majority of inhabitants become the minority, just like it's going on in UK


What's really harming Europe is the new wave of nationalism, the us-and-them rhetoric and unequivocal bullsh*t of the right-leaning anti-immigration parties and the unfortunate ignorance of the ever increasing number of people who are gullible enough to buy into their bullsh*t with no regard for coherence, factual accuracy or even the most rudimentary understanding of what most of these parties actually stand for.
  • Doc Rikowski, Tyler, Melchior and 3 others like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#41

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:09 PM

Not wanting to see your people, the native population, become an ethnic minority in their own country is a bad thing now? It's no doubt racist too. Those racist native Americans, can't believe they feel aggrieved at the past 500 years of history. What a bunch of racists c*nts. Who would even dare want to have a shared national heritage, history, identity and culture which most of the population have in common. 

  • Street Mix, Carbonox, John Smith and 1 other like this

Tyler
  • Tyler

    Legit Tattoo Gun

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#42

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:26 PM

It's a little more than disingenuous to draw comparisons between the mass genocide of Native American peoples, and the frustration of Western Europeans at the hands of African immigrants, stu.

  • Otter, Zook, Melchior and 1 other like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#43

Posted 22 April 2015 - 06:51 PM

Political correctness is killing off Europe slowly. It is just a matter of time before the majority of inhabitants become the minority, just like it's going on in UK

bjvlaf.jpg

Yeah!!! F*ck those white people!!! If history has taught us anything, they need to be punished for their actions. RETRIBUTION GALORE!!! We call ourselves 'progressives' but we always look to the past instead of the future. How incredibly progressive of us!!!

...is exactly how these leftie types sound whenever they open their noisy gobs.

What astonishes me is that we are constantly force-fed the obligation to accept the cultures from countries abroad by these people, which I have no objection to so long as it doesn't infiltrate ot affect our laws, but whenever we speak of preserving or/and being proud of our own cultures, we're usually met with the typical "be quiet you racist nationalist bigo... Yeah, you know the rest of the usual buzzwords...".

On a semi-related note: I just found out the BBC's "independent" polling organisation selected to "carefully" pick the audience members for last weeks opposition leader's debate is a Guardian affiliated organisation. What an absolute f*cking disgrace, and yet another unashamed display of the BBC's agenda.
  • Street Mix and Palikari like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#44

Posted 22 April 2015 - 07:09 PM

Not wanting to see your people, the native population, become an ethnic minority in their own country is a bad thing now?

I could go into great detail, as I have many times before, about the pitfalls of something as artificial as nationality being used to create a false "us and them" dichotomy which attempts to place the subjective "cultural identity" held by a minority of Britons with a particular political persuasion and a worryingly loud voice over measurable societal good; comments on how fundamentally flawed the possessive notion of an "own" country is- how it fails to take into account the simple fact that residency of a nation, or sentimental feeling towards it, does not entitle an individual to claim that it us theirs and therefore attempt to dictate arbitrary requirements for entry into a society that, let's be honest, seems to exist solely in their imagination. But "yes" will probably suffice.

And that's quite aside from the fact that the only people who seem to think that there's any danger of British people becoming a minority in Britain are right-leaning anti-immigration loonies. It's sensationalist rubbish.
  • Doc Rikowski, Irviding, Melchior and 1 other like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#45

Posted 22 April 2015 - 08:23 PM Edited by GTA_stu, 22 April 2015 - 08:24 PM.

Whereas of course the idea of different groups of people who have vastly different competing norms, traditions, cultures, beliefs, attitudes and shared heritages, histories and experiences living together in large groups only possible thanks to recent rapid development of modern transport, is completely non-artificial and free of pitfalls? People being more loyal to and feeling more of a connection to people who are similar to them and who grew up in a similar environment with similar experiences as a wide collective group is completely natural, actually. It's part of human nature which we evolved to have, it's hardwired into us. 

 

Now that doesn't mean full on ethnic nationalism or racism are fine. But at the same time there's nothing wrong with the concept of a nation being mainly tied to a certain ethnicity and culture. You can do that and still have and accept minorities as part of your country. Most countries do this already. The concept of jus sanguinis is much more prevalent and popular in the world than jus soli. I'm sorry but someone who's ancestors have lived in Italy for dozens of generations is more Italian than someone who gets Italian citizenship or someone who was born to immigrants. Legally they're virtually the same and they're entitled to the same rights and so they should be, but one is inherently more connected to Italy and Italians than the other. The fact that jus sanguinis is the more prevalent attitude proves this is the way most people think.   

  • lolleroz and Palikari like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#46

Posted 22 April 2015 - 08:32 PM

The problem is, though, that once you're a citizen you're a citizen. There's no distinction between a naturalised first generation immigrant with citizenship and a citizen whose family have been resident somewhere for thousands of years; nor should there be. The notion that "someone who's ancestors have lived in Italy for dozens of generations is more Italian than someone who gets Italian citizenship or someone who was born to immigrants" is simply a figment of your imagination; in every technical and legal way in pretty much every country on earth, one naturalised citizen is the same as another. Nationality doesn't come in different grades; it's a binary concept.

The demographics of nations are in constant flux and largely fluid. They have been for as long as the concept if statehood has existed and arguably even before then. Most Western nations have undergone huge shifts in demographics over the last 100 or do year and going back six or seven generations, so has pretty much the world.
  • Doc Rikowski, Irviding and Melchior like this

John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#47

Posted 22 April 2015 - 08:38 PM

sivis, I don't think it's this 'us vs them' mentality you insist on bringing up, but more to do with the tradition and culture of this country being something that makes it unique, as is the same with other countries across the globe. It'd be a pretty bleak bloody planet if there weren't certain cultures and identities associated with different nations around the world. What exactly is so bad about wanting to preserve a national identity? Should we scrap the wearing of kilts at Scottish weddings because it's too "nationalistic"? Should we scrap the singing of anthems at sporting events because it's too "nationalistic"? Should we scrap the flying of flags because it's too nationalistic"?

Also, I may be right-leaning, but I'm certainly not anti-immigration. Nor are UKIP, funnily enough.
  • Irviding likes this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#48

Posted 22 April 2015 - 09:30 PM

The problem is, though, that once you're a citizen you're a citizen. There's no distinction between a naturalised first generation immigrant with citizenship and a citizen whose family have been resident somewhere for thousands of years; nor should there be. The notion that "someone who's ancestors have lived in Italy for dozens of generations is more Italian than someone who gets Italian citizenship or someone who was born to immigrants" is simply a figment of your imagination; in every technical and legal way in pretty much every country on earth, one naturalised citizen is the same as another. Nationality doesn't come in different grades; it's a binary concept.

The demographics of nations are in constant flux and largely fluid. They have been for as long as the concept if statehood has existed and arguably even before then. Most Western nations have undergone huge shifts in demographics over the last 100 or do year and going back six or seven generations, so has pretty much the world.

 

Yes legally speaking there's very little to no distinction. I said that. But it's clear that there is a large element which transcends legality and it definitely isn't a binary of only 2 absolute realities, legally speaking it may be, but in practice it's much different. It's why you get a far far higher ratio of 2nd generation immigrants who don't really identify with the country they're born in, than people who's ancestors have been living in the country for countless generations. National identity isn't just a simple legal definition, it's much more than that. I was born in Holland, but to English parents and I've lived in the UK since I was 7. I technically have dual nationality, but to say I'm just as Dutch as Mr/Mrs Van Dijk who's an ethnic Dutch person with family going back many many generations is just false. Technically I may be, but in reality I'm clearly not, I'm nowhere near.

  • Irviding likes this

Zook
  • Zook

    Banter

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2008
  • United-Kingdom

#49

Posted 22 April 2015 - 11:44 PM

sivis, I don't think it's this 'us vs them' mentality you insist on bringing up, but more to do with the tradition and culture of this country being something that makes it unique, as is the same with other countries across the globe. It'd be a pretty bleak bloody planet if there weren't certain cultures and identities associated with different nations around the world. What exactly is so bad about wanting to preserve a national identity? Should we scrap the wearing of kilts at Scottish weddings because it's too "nationalistic"? Should we scrap the singing of anthems at sporting events because it's too "nationalistic"? Should we scrap the flying of flags because it's too nationalistic"?

Also, I may be right-leaning, but I'm certainly not anti-immigration. Nor are UKIP, funnily enough.

Preserving it seems more radical than letting outside forces have their way with it. When Christianity was first brought to England would you have opposed it? Because you would have wanted to preserve our current national identity a that time? And now Christianity is arguably a part of our national identity, it's constantly changing. That is even if it exists. I hear a lot of people from the North saying they have much more in common with Scotland than the south. But what about English national identity? How could it exist in a meaningful way if people from the North identity more with the Scottish than people from their own country. 

 

Just let nature take it's course and let it shape our national identity, if it exists that is.

  • Melchior likes this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#50

Posted 23 April 2015 - 04:20 AM

First of all, the next time I see someone throw down image macros, racist mockery, or a blanket statement like 'lefty types,' (or 'righty types' for that matter) they'll be given some time off the forums.

But back to the basics. I guess I'm left wondering what culture is being protected, because culture is an ephemeral, fleetin, ever changing thing. To hold on to it so tightly is to embrace stagnation. Where would Italians be had they not imported tomatoes? Or Jolly England had they not taken tea from the east? I'm not being antagonistic - I'm genuinely interested in what needs to be protected.

And Stu, the flip side of your argument paints you as a rather lost individual, does it not? Rather absurd, when you start drawing these lines in the sand.
  • Zook likes this

Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

    Ghetto Star

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • Australia
  • GTAF Premier League Predictions League 2016/2017 [3rd Place]

#51

Posted 23 April 2015 - 04:58 AM Edited by Ari Gold, 23 April 2015 - 04:59 AM.

 
The world only likes Jews when we are poor and oppressed and in trains heading to Auschwitz, not when we are a free people in our land and defend ourselves and our State. That's why many people can't stand a Jew giving a politically incorrect opinion.
 
Is this your case? Just asking. Many people is like this, I just want to know if you're like them.

Funny though, all this anti-immigration bias coming from someone that comes from a people that has been migrating everywhere throughout its entire history and faced persecutions, hardships and poverty due to its migrant status.

 

 

 

f*cking lellll are you serious? Do you have absolutely no conception of history? Not just of the world and previous conflicts, but also that of your ancestors?

 

I mean, I'm not a Jew (according to Halakha at least, we have some Jewish ancestry but it's negligible at most, but my ancestors died alongside your ancestors in WW2, including two of my great-grandparents who died at Jasenovac concentration camp). I do fervently support Israel (I'm making this disclaimer before you decide to launch some ridiculous accusation that I'm an anti-semite). Hell, I'd tell you who I vote for before you again jump to some sh*tty conclusion that I'm some herpa derp lefty progressive but you honestly probably won't even make much sense of what I'm writing.

 

Pardon my French, but (and I apologise sivis and Otter 'cause I know this is very un-D&D of me) are you f*cking serious? Your country was literally f*cking created after being appropriated from a former British colony to provide a homeland to your ancestors who were pushed from their homes and slaughtered on a massive, state-sanctioned scale, welcomed and allowed to flourish and develop in a new homeland... Yet you have the audacity to pull some absolutely dog-breathed argument where you float your pseudo-assertive tough-guy dick around accusing Europeans of being softie, lefty bleeding hearts for simply recognising that countries should have an obligation to their fellow human being escaping a conflict zone. Imagine if the British, exercising their sovereignty over Palestine circa 1945, simply said "Well, due to economic and logistical reasons, and also due to the fact that we don't want to disrupt the current social harmony of our currently Arab populace, we don't have the obligation and, to be frank, don't really want to accept all of these Central and Eastern European Jews who almost literally cannot go back to where they came from. I mean, I'm sorry, but you have to fix your problems in Europe first before you bring to this here Levantine area." Imagine if that actually happened, and how non-sensical and just flat out f*cking retarded that line of thinking would be.

 

I mean, I like you, you're centre-right. This isn't personal. And, I'm sure you can make somewhat of a semi-reasonable (semi meaning around 3.26 out of 10 with 10 being perfectly rational) argument in that comparing this to the events after the Holocaust is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. But, on a human level, they're not. What is the point of a state and of political discourse in general if not to solve injustices and the origins of human suffering? Seriously, come on dude, think laterally for a second and don't fall into this line of completely irrational xenophobic dribble.

 

 I don't hold it against them that they want a better life, but it's not our responsibility to provide everyone with a happy and safe life in a stable prosperous country. We have enough problems giving that to our own citizens.

 

I can somewhat understand from an orderly, sovereign point-of-view why you'd want to prioritise your citizens over foreigners, but regarding that first sentence, I find that's a bit cynical stu. What is the purpose of even having a state and developing an economic/social system if not to foster sustainable happiness, safety and prosperity for people? I mean, do we spend our lives paying taxes, working, contributing to the community etc. to be miserable?

  • Der_Don, Doc Rikowski, Irviding and 2 others like this

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#52

Posted 23 April 2015 - 05:04 AM

Not to mention, and has been repeatedly underlined - it IS our responsibility, under international law.
  • Doc Rikowski and Ari Gold like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#53

Posted 23 April 2015 - 07:55 AM Edited by GTA_stu, 23 April 2015 - 07:56 AM.

They can be rejected on multiple grounds though and there are lots of loopholes and ways of getting around granting them asylum, including if they passed through a safe third country, which they nearly always do. International law regarding this subject is hardly concrete by any stretch of the imagination and a lot of it is outdated and not relevant to modern issues like these illegal boat migrants. So countries tend to follow their own ideas of how it should be implemented. It's really not a case of "The UN says you have to take them and we have a legal responsibility so discussion over."

  

Stef, I just think it's a bad long term strategy, especially for us. If we actively search for and rescue these people and grant them asylum the problem will keep getting worse. You'll just get more and more crossings, which is not only negative for EU countries but it will also lead to more deaths long term. We need the leaders to be strong and put a plan in place to deter the migrants from crossing, even if short term it leads to more deaths. They need to know the chance of death is high and that the chance of asylum of any kind is incredibly low. It's not on our conscience, we're not forcing them into the boats. 


Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

    Ghetto Star

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • Australia
  • GTAF Premier League Predictions League 2016/2017 [3rd Place]

#54

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:06 AM



including if they passed through a safe third country, which they nearly always do.

 

You consider Libya to be safe? Kek

 


Stef, I just think it's a bad long term strategy, especially for us. If we actively search for and rescue these people and grant them asylum the problem will keep getting worse. You'll just get more and more crossings, which is not only negative for EU countries but it will also lead to more deaths long term. We need the leaders to be strong and put a plan in place to deter the migrants from crossing, even if short term it leads to more deaths. They need to know the chance of death is high and that the chance of asylum of any kind is incredibly low. It's not on our conscience, we're not forcing them into the boats. 

 

Accepting refugees does not inflate the problem because the events of the source of the refugees i.e. usually full-blown conflict, can't simply be manipulated by some simplistic policy passed by cabinet. You can't insinuate (I don't think you are, but I'll address it anyway) that by accepting refugees, suddenly the conflict in the source country will inflate exponentially leading to a further rise in people seeking asylum. If people's lives are threatened, their lives are threatened. If they need to seek asylum, they need to seek asylum.

 

I mean, sure, it would be a logistical challenge if, as Palikari said, "1000 million" (keklmao) Africans tried storming Europe. But the numbers in reality are absolutely no where near that. What was it, 200,000 in 2014 as someone in this topic mentioned? And how many people live in Europe? Even if that number was to triple because of an escalation in conflict zones, that is a fraction over 0.1% of the population a year. Hardly horde-numbers. The population growth year-on-year from natural growth (i.e. the difference between births and deaths) would be far higher than that, so implying that it's going to be some bureaucratic nightmare to accept them is a bit overblown. Remember, they're seeking asylum in all of prosperous Europe, not invading some rural town in Serbia with 10,000 inhabitants.

  • Irviding, Zook, Tyler and 2 others like this

S0lo
  • S0lo

    Persona Non Grata

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2014
  • Olympics
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#55

Posted 23 April 2015 - 08:28 AM

How come that, whenever some people talk about their national cultures and identities being in danger, the one factor that actually managed to massively influence other cultures worldwide is never spoken of? Why don't you guys demand a ban on American films, music, video-games, etc.? Is it because it doesn't come alongside people of a different skin color, or because it is so easily consumable due to its simplistic structure that mirrors your thought process? Or is it maybe because you are just a bunch of inconsequential xenophobes who try to hide the fact that all your thoughts are driven by fear of anything different to what you grew up around?

 

And now for a completely different aspect of the issue; I want to thank the Italian peoples, and especially the inhabitants of those coastal regions where most refugees come ashore, for their continuing efforts to rescue and aide people in need who come in from the sea. The fact that there is no significant rise in membership of extreme right wing parties and race-based violence is admirable, seeing how other countries, for example Greece, experience just that kind of reaction, even though their immigration issue happens on a much smaller scale. I have a great amount of respect for those who help those refugees, not because they are in any way obliged to do so, but because it is the humane thing to do.

  • Doc Rikowski and Alexander like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#56

Posted 23 April 2015 - 09:01 AM

How come that, whenever some people talk about their national cultures and identities being in danger, the one factor that actually managed to massively influence other cultures worldwide is never spoken of? Why don't you guys demand a ban on American films, music, video-games, etc.? Is it because it doesn't come alongside people of a different skin color, or because it is so easily consumable due to its simplistic structure that mirrors your thought process? Or is it maybe because you are just a bunch of inconsequential xenophobes who try to hide the fact that all your thoughts are driven by fear of anything different to what you grew up around?

Well, here's the thing: wanting to protect culture is a valid concern. In Australia for instance there are limits on how much non-Australian tv or radio programming (I'm not sure it legally applies to music but there's a convention of always playing at least a few Australian songs) can be shown by a broadcaster, essentially to limit British and American influence. Pretty much a reasonable policy. Ukraine will probably look at doing something like this to limit Russian influence and the Philippines won't but should look at taking steps to limit Chinese influence. 

 

In that context, the idea of the British taking any steps whatsoever where policy is concerned to limit Pakistani or Indian influence is just too stupid to even address. If kebabs replace fish and chips, that isn't imperialism, that's just people going off a sh*tty food when they're introduced to alternatives. Anyone who is genuinely worried about an erosion of British culture is racist. Like you said, they'd be about limiting American influence, not the very, very small amount of South Asian influence that trickles in.


Should we scrap the singing of anthems at sporting events because it's too "nationalistic"? Should we scrap the flying of flags because it's too nationalistic"?

YES

 

f*cking singing a song about how badass your people are, and waving around a banner that essentially says "this is our land" is extremely nationalistic and ugly. The idea that our species should be divided into competing nation states is indefensible. What, your bond with other British people is just strong that you need to build a wall around the island and loudly declare that your Britishness separates you from the other ~7,000,000,000 people on the planet? 

  • lolleroz and S0lo like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#57

Posted 23 April 2015 - 09:08 AM

but more to do with the tradition and culture of this country being something that makes it unique

But there's not exactly a cohesive or coherent view on what these traditions and cultures actually are. It's all very well to say you want to protect them, but in order for that argument to have any real validity there must be a reasonably clear definition of them, surely? And as far as I can see that's something that's really lacking. Different people of different persuasions have wildly differing views on what constitutes "British culture" or "British traditions" or "British values" so all you're really saying when you state you want to protect them is that you want to protect your own highly subjective interpretation of them, which is potentially at odds with other people who feel they are also protecting "British values" but interpret them in a completely different way.

What exactly is so bad about wanting to preserve a national identity?

Fundamentally nothing aside from the entirely subjective nature of "national identity" as a concept, but I take issue with the notion that it actually needs preserving or protecting. The little of it which actually can be quantified doesn't really appear to be under threat in any way.

Also, I may be right-leaning, but I'm certainly not anti-immigration. Nor are UKIP, funnily enough.

Er, yes they are. Campaigning against participation in free movement of people as part of the EU on an ideological basis despite all statistical evidence demonstrating that the policy brings in net benefits for the country is explicitly "anti-immigration".

Yes legally speaking there's very little to no distinction. I said that. But it's clear that there is a large element which transcends legality and it definitely isn't a binary of only 2 absolute realities, legally speaking it may be, but in practice it's much different.

Only in your personal interpretation of nationality as a concept. The nice thing about using the law to address the subject is that it isn't really swayed by subjective prejudice, bias or individual whims. And whilst it's all well and good that you've got some kind of idea of what constitutes "nationality" but really it's just an opinion on the matter. Personally I think that most immigrants are far more representative of "traditional British values" than many white British citizens with centuries of familial residency, but then I'm a great supporter of the concept of merit over silly things like heritage which are seldom anywhere near as clear cut as you try and make out.

It's why you get a far far higher ratio of 2nd generation immigrants who don't really identify with the country they're born in, than people who's ancestors have been living in the country for countless generations.

That's debatable given the behaviour of vast swathes of the young, white British urban poor, but even if it were demonstrably true it could reasonably be argued that this is an effect of the legacy of British nationalism and hostility towards immigrants that exists and has existed in one form or another for centuries now. If I had to deal with some of the sh*t immigrants, particularly those of Muslim/North African backgrounds, do I'd probably harbour some hostility too.

National identity isn't just a simple legal definition

No, it's something far more subjective, nuanced, opinionated and complex, to the point at which most of the people who harp on about it can't actually define it.
  • Doc Rikowski and Sergiu like this

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    DILF in waiting

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#58

Posted 23 April 2015 - 10:42 AM

Stef, I meant Syrians, Eritreans, Somalis, Sub Saharan Africans, i.e. the majority that end up on these boats, travel through safe countries or originate in safe countries, not that Libya is safe. And a policy where we are more generous or lenient in granting asylum cases and rescue them sooner and more often would clearly act as a pull factor. How could it not? Obviously the primary causes are the conflicts and instability, that's the real driving force, but making it safer and easier and giving a higher chance of success in the crossings would make more people want to attempt them. That's making the problem worse not better.

 

The problem is not insignificant, despite the EU being developed. It's hardly economically sound at the minute either. It was roughly 220,000 came last year, I think BBC gives 218,000 as the figure last year, but this is a problem which is a long term one and has potential to significantly increase. The numbers coming are constantly increasing and that's without currently having a dedicated lenient asylum/rescue stance in place. You're probably talking a million overall since from when this started to by the end of 2016, quite easily. Anyways it's not just about "can we" it's also about "should we". Europe isn't in the best shape financially, and it's not a charity. Not to mention the other issues these people will inflict on Europe. 

 

Sivis, actually I think you'll find it's your concept of nationality and identity which is out of whack, even legally speaking. Most countries globally and in Europe practice laws which favour ethnicity not as "the" core concept, but at least "a" core concept. Which is why they have jus sanguinis as a belief and in the law, where people not born in the country and even who's parents weren't born in the country can still get citizenship and live there. So an ethnic German or Dane can return to Germany or Denmark In many cases there isn't even a limit to the number of generations, just as long as you can prove ethnicity. If you ask most people who is the most Dutch between the example I gave before, the overwhelming majority would say not me. It is just an opinion, but thankfully it is the most prevalent, and we don't simply rely on wishy washy diversity alone to hold us together. And if there is one side which is more artificial and abstract, it is definitely multiculturalism.

 

A particular ethnicity and culture has been linked with the concept of nationality for a long time, it's only very recently that that has started to change in Europe. I think it's incredibly naive and it flies in the face of all the facts to think that that has been completely abandoned and no longer thought of as relevant. It's still something most people believe in. At the same time most people do also believe in and recognise civic identity and that diversity is important too. That's the thing, they're not mutually exclusive and most people identify with both concepts. It's just a shame that there are extremists on both sides who think the other side should play no part whatsoever. There is definitely room for both. 

  • Street Mix and Palikari like this

Palikari
  • Palikari

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2012
  • Israel

#59

Posted 23 April 2015 - 11:17 AM

Erm, no they're not.

Most of them are not refugees but economic migrants. This is a fact that can't be denied, Sivis. This is what the EU says. Do you know more than the EU?
 

are you disagreeing with the concept of universal human rights? A concept that, let's not forget, became international law because of the genocide of Jews during the Second World War? My my, the hypocrisy.

You know I am not. I have made it clear before and already explained myself.

Please don't use the Holocaust as a political tool or to try to win a debate. It's not morally ok to trivialize the Holocaust and the suffering (and death) of millions of innocent people.

Blaming your inability to look at events objectively, and predisposition to casting anyone dark skinned from a majority Muslim country in a negative light, on people with political persuasions left of your own (read: basically anything that isn't Fascism) does not constitute a reasonable counter-argument to the points that have been raised. Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make your statements true.

Who decides what's objective? You? I live close to Muslims, I know how they are. Anti-Semitism is absolutely rampant in the Arab/Muslim world. Do you expect me to like those who want me and my people dead? This is an unreasonable demand.

Fascism? LOL. What century are you living in, Sivis?
 

Er, in reality, no you can't.

Really? Can't countries expel those foreigners who commit crimes?

Are you serious...?
 

Do you ever listen to the sh*t that comes out of your mouth and think "wow, I really am a monumental delusional, bigoted individual, to the point at which the astounding irony of most of what I say completely escapes me"? You should. Or is your inability to remember relatively recent history also a "leftist" problem?

This is nothing but a personal attack, so I won't answer to it.

Oh, the hypocrisy. From the individual who feels he has the moral authority to shun any individual coming to Europe that doesn't meet his own, twisted, preconceived biases regarding what a "good immigrant" should conform to? Does this all somehow escape you when you write these rambling appeals to emotion and ignorance?

Ad hominem.

Do you even know what my ideas about immigration are? People who commit crimes and are not willing to integrate in their new country should not be welcomed. I think I am not asking too much. To respect the country you want to live in is "twisted" according to you?
 

Let's ask the Palestinians, shall we?

The so called Palestinians asked for the wall by committing endless terror attacks killing many innocent people.

Now they have no right to complain about the consequences of their own bloody acts. Also, I don't care about their opinion.
  • Carbonox and GTA_stu like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#60

Posted 23 April 2015 - 11:57 AM

Most of them are not refugees but economic migrants. This is a fact that can't be denied, Sivis.

It can be denied fairly easily by simply looking at where migrants are coming from. War zones and despotic regimes on the whole.

This is what the EU says.

Where? Simply asserting without presenting evidence doesn't make you right

Please don't use the Holocaust as a political tool or to try to win a debate. It's not morally ok to trivialize the Holocaust and the suffering (and death) of millions of innocent people.

I'll use relevant historical events however I please. If you object, then that's your problem rather than mine.

Who decides what's objective?

No one decides, that's the whole point in objectivity. It's based on empiricism rather than belief or opinion.

Really?

Go read the numerous quotes from international treaties on the subject. Then go read those treaties. Then you can answer the question yourself. Clue- the answer is "yes, really".

Also, I don't care about their opinion.

And here we come to the crux of the issue. You believe that you're superior to other humans based solely on your heritage and self righteous opinions. You are under the illusion that your opinion is somehow worth more than those of people you decry. Except it isn't.

Most countries globally and in Europe practice laws which favour ethnicity not as "the" core concept, but at least "a" core concept.

Right of return is an entirely separate concept, as well as being basically irrelevant in Europe thanks to the Schengen agreement and common markets.

Firstly, the concept of right of return doesn't relate solely to ethnic origin but more generally to heritage. One only need demonstrate a reasonable link to a nation and self-identify as a particular heritage to be afforded the right in most cases. It is, however, up to the individual states how they determine those who do and don't have the right of return. Many of these policies which exist in Europe do so to provide the right of return to individuals displaced by the expansion of the Soviet Union and the movement of personnel between Warsaw Pact nations and aren't in fact general rights afforded to anyone of demonstrable heritage.

A particular ethnicity and culture has been linked with the concept of nationality for a long time

The fact it's historic does not give it authority. Historically Europe has been violently nationalistic, even ultra nationalistic, certainly jingoistic. I don't think this sordid history represents a legitimate reason for defending the idea of ethnic heritage as a tool of divisive nationslism.
  • ClaudeSpeed1911 and ten-a-penny like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users