Refugee crisis in Europe.

[Alan]

You keep bringing that up , how is that relevant to this discussion ?

It's relevant because you're not capable of understanding simple concepts and arguments, causes and effects, and argue from the point of emotion rather than rationality. The sooner you realise that the better.


If it's cowardly not to answer idiotic questions, then by all means, I'm a coward. If you think that fear mongering on the internet is brave, then by all means, you're a hero.

[Alan]

who for the most part spoke the same language, shared the same religious beliefs and had the drive and work ethic to make a life for themselves and didn't expect the government to support them...

This is off topic, but the millions of immigrants to the US during the past two centuries definitely didn't mostly speak the same language, nor did they have the same religion. They worked hard because they were looking for work, which is why they emigrated to the US. And they didn't expect the government to support them because there was no system in place. But if you think that they were content with the way things were, read up on the labour movement.


The reason I mentioned American immigrants is that there were also criminals among them, some of whom were organised, e.g. the Mafia, the Triads, but did that warrant the expulsion of whole ethnic populations? No.

[Monty Burns]

Expand Quote

You keep bringing that up , how is that relevant to this discussion ?

[close]

It's relevant because you're not capable of understanding simple concepts and arguments, causes and effects, and argue from the point of emotion rather than rationality. The sooner you realise that the better.


If it's cowardly not to answer idiotic questions, then by all means, I'm a coward. If you think that fear mongering on the internet is brave, then by all means, you're a hero.

So the fact that I didnt want to take spanish and math in high school is valid in a discussion about the refugee crisis ? . You are ridiculous

And things are not rational in the real world Alan . Look at the difference between sunni and shiite . They are quite similar in religion  yet they are waging a bloody war in Iraq

Its not rational to hijack 3 planes full of humans and fly those planes into building to kill more humans

It would be rational that humans could live in the same country and respect eachother . But this is not the case .

It would also be rational that when the Majority of Europe doesnt want millions of refugees into europe . Then the ones who dont agree would accept it

I would also ad the only reason you want to let these "refugees" into the country is cause you feel sorry for them . Which is a EMOTIONAL response which you accuse me of when I give a RATIONAL response looking at peoples views , the housing shortage , budgets and integration

There is your rational point of view . Coward

[Monty Burns]

Expand Quote

who for the most part spoke the same language, shared the same religious beliefs and had the drive and work ethic to make a life for themselves and didn't expect the government to support them...

[close]

This is off topic, but the millions of immigrants to the US during the past two centuries definitely didn't mostly speak the same language, nor did they have the same religion. They worked hard because they were looking for work, which is why they emigrated to the US. And they didn't expect the government to support them because there was no system in place. But if you think that they were content with the way things were, read up on the labour movement.


The reason I mentioned American immigrants is that there were also criminals among them, some of whom were organised, e.g. the Mafia, the Triads, but did that warrant the expulsion of whole ethnic populations? No.

What on earth are you talking about , the whole start of the united states of america is built on the genocide of a entire people

I do assume you recognize  the native americans a ethnic population ?  


Following that they had a war against England , Then a war which dealt with if one race was basicly slaves or not . You had asians basicly being slaves to build the rail roads , sacrificing thousands . You had a segregate sociaty with blacks and whites . Where black people couldnt even drink out of the same fountains as white people

New York has been super segregated since the days of mid-19th century . Freaking gangs of new york was based on true events . Different religions and ethnicities fighting against each other

Later many burrows of new york were largely segregated .

Even today in 2016 you have huge parts of cities segregated with minorities . Look at all the "ghettos" in Los Angeles , Detroit , Chicago .


This is your example of different nationality , religions and races integrating and working together ?

[Dirtymac]

Expand Quote

who for the most part spoke the same language, shared the same religious beliefs and had the drive and work ethic to make a life for themselves and didn't expect the government to support them...

[close]

This is off topic, but the millions of immigrants to the US during the past two centuries definitely didn't mostly speak the same language, nor did they have the same religion. They worked hard because they were looking for work, which is why they emigrated to the US. And they didn't expect the government to support them because there was no system in place. But if you think that they were content with the way things were, read up on the labour movement.


The reason I mentioned American immigrants is that there were also criminals among them, some of whom were organised, e.g. the Mafia, the Triads, but did that warrant the expulsion of whole ethnic populations? No.

OK they all didn't speak the same language...what language do most of them speak now? Ever heard of assimilation?
OK so they didn't ALL share the same religion....which ones of them had beliefs and groups tied to them who were murdering non-believers randomly worldwide? It was off topic, and I did say "for the most part" I don't really have a dog in this fight. It was late, I was tired and just seen your comment as reaching. And btw I hardly think the labor movement was strictly "an immigrant movement". Granted all US citizens are immigrants to some degree. It was an organized effort to improve conditions in a country where a system of freedom existed to have such a movement. Carry on fellas. Sorry for interupting

[Alan]

So the fact that I didnt want to take spanish and math in high school is valid in a discussion about the refugee crisis ?

No, but not being able to finish high school and not being very bright is probably the reason why you can't seem to understand the situation, and are reacting emotionally. You only react to the negative aspects of the refugee crisis because that is what the media is feeding you. You have no capacity to think critically.

Case in point: a small percentage of economic immigrants and refugees are breaking the country's laws and you want them all out, not caring if they die. That is irrational, because it is not the whole population that is criminal. This point has been made several times, but you just can't seem to grasp it. It's not rational to condemn a whole population because of a minority. Saying that the terrorists are irrational is a straw man argument, and doesn't change the fact that you yourself are irrational. Personal involvement can often cloud one's judgment, and in your case, given your mental capacity, I'd say it's getting pretty dark.

On the other hand, helping people in need isn't irrational, or emotional. It's just the ethical thing to do.

What on earth are you talking about

Thanks for a fresh example of your struggle with reading comprehension.

Let me break it down for you:

Sleazy's argument was that refugees shouldn't be let in because all you get is crime

-> my counterargument was that the US let in tens of millions of overwhelmingly poor economic immigrants (not slaves, got it?) during the last two centuries, only a percentage of which turned out to be criminals, while the rest were not. The same is true for the refugees. Some are criminals, but the majority are not. In fact, a large percentage of them are highly educated, and even more have a high school diploma, and only want to live and work in a safe place. It's really simple.

[Alan]

I feel I need to clarify something. I don't think it's a problem that you're dense. The problem is that you're posting racist crap but that you're too dense to understand that it's racist.

[Monty Burns]

No, but not being able to finish high school and not being very bright is probably the reason why you can't seem to understand the situation

The Swedish school system is based on a point system , each course / class is worth a set of points . Me deciding not to 2 classes . Spanish B and Math D , gave me 90 points short from graduating . Even if I failed the classes would mean I would get the points . But I decided to not take the classes  .  That has nothing to do with " not being able to finish high school " . Thats a choice

but you just can't seem to grasp it. It's not rational to condemn a whole population because of a minority

I never said all the refugees are rapist , criminals or terrorist . My whole argument this whole time is that most of the "refugees " are not refugees . And that the strain on the countries they are entering is not worth taking them in

There is no advantage taking them in , Intergration is not working , there is a serious housing shortage , there is already high unemployment , And we cant even take care of them well in the refugee homes that we set up for them . And its a economical nightmare

You only react to the negative aspects of the refugee crisis because that is what the media is feeding you.

The Swedish media is out right covering up  refugee crimes  as are the swedish police . How is the media feeding me negative aspects ?


You have no capacity to think critically.

When the country with the most libiral refugee politics , who took in most refugees by capita . Decides to close their borders
maybe its time for you to have some critical thinking

When the majority of people in europe says we cant handle more refugees , maybe its time for you to have some critical thinking

My reasoning when we cant house them , we cant integrate them into our society , that its costing us billions upon billions , that huge parts of the refugees are not even real refugees , that we cant find jobs for them , that its a huge economical strain on all countries in the EU

that is critical thinking .  Your idea that we must save them just to save them is emotional thinking and has nothing to do with reality


my counterargument was that the US let in tens of millions of overwhelmingly poor economic immigrants (not slaves, got it?) during the last two centuries, only a percentage of which turned out to be criminals, while the rest were not. The same is true for the refugees

I would understand if your point made any sense . You seem to make the case that the US let in all these people and it worked out just fine.

I told you that the USA is hugely segregated , Entire parts of cities are filled with segregation , And in the past 200 years in America it was racialy divided . People couldnt even drink from the same fountains or use the same bathrooms without being arrested

crime statistics are extremly high . Doesnt the USA have the highest population in jail of any country ??

The whole system of lobbying politicians is corrupt as fuck . Heck if you ask Tufty USA is one of the most corrupt and evil
nations in the world ,  He blames them for pretty much everything

And the country has waged several wars against other nations , with or without the UNs approval

The current Syrian war which caused part of this refugee crisis is partly USAs fult

If anything your example that the USA took in all these people is a argument that it was wrong to do so


feel I need to clarify something. I don't think it's a problem that you're dense. The problem is that you're posting racist crap

Nothing Ive posted have been racist .  I dont care if these millions of people ( refugees ) are White , Black , Asian , Latin , Pink or blue

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

To me the refugee, immigrant, and general pc notion that it's unacceptable to generalize in anyway is lefts equililent to the gun rights stance on the right. Both are ideological stances that ignore statisics and empirical infavor of ivory tower logic and both come at the cost of innocent people suffering. I think it's perfectly reasonable if your a gun nut and feel kids getting shot up is worth that freedom or if your a PC freak and feel that women getting raped, concerts getting shot up, ect is worth it for your belief but it's so frustrating when either side argues that one thing doesn't cause another when it clearly does. Super liberal gun laws increase gun violence and super liberal policies on immigration and refugees also increases violent crime. Maybe it's worth it to your political beliefs, maybe it's not but at least man up to the cost. Poverty = more crime, that simple. Open your borders to poor and desolate masses and shit like this is going to happen.

[close]

OF course its that. However what are the ideas behind this Ideological stances??? The one is the idea of the supermacist European-American that is more entitled to resources and stealing them from undeveloped nations having to supress them when they dare to ask for a portion of that, using violence and racist propaganda. The other idea is the humanitarian one that says all people should have a portion of the produced wealth that can provide them a decent quality of life, which is totally achievable but you have to disturb some rich folks. Choose a side but when you choose No1 stop wondering why people call you a racist prick or a Nazi.

i don't see how having policies and standards around who and how many people come into your country, especially when there is a valid issue of public safety and when those countries are relatively socialized is a binary racist prick or humanitarian saint type issue. we're only discussing at what level and not discussing all or none. calling anyone that has a different idea about the types of immigration policies that they would like to see in place than you a racist is so silly it's hard to take serious. it's like when conservatives call anyone who's in favor of any kind of goverment spending a socialist. the pejoratives aren't helping and there not making people feel bad about or change their beliefs.

[Sleazy]

Sleazy's argument was that refugees shouldn't be let in because all you get is crime

-> my counterargument was that the US let in tens of millions of overwhelmingly poor economic immigrants (not slaves, got it?) during the last two centuries, only a percentage of which turned out to be criminals, while the rest were not. The same is true for the refugees. Some are criminals, but the majority are not. In fact, a large percentage of them are highly educated, and even more have a high school diploma, and only want to live and work in a safe place. It's really simple.

that actually wasn't my argument and isn't even close. you actually reiterated my argument in bold. my point was that regardless of how you feel, letting in a lot of poor will bring with it some percentage of violent crime. some innocent people will suffer because of that policy. i was pointing out that this is the same as in the gun argument how a small percentage of legal gun owners use the for violence. we all pay that cost for people to have that right. i'm just pointing out that there is a cost associated with it and that it's really annoying when in either debate people dance around the cost. to say it's a small percentage isn't going to to make the women who got raped or the people who got gunned downed in paris situation any different or less tragic. there is a real human cost that has to be paid and the people who are speaking out against this simply have different moral priorities than you. talking from the point of view of absolute correctness like you are doing doesn't make you look smart, rational or morally superior, it makes you seem self rightous and immature. i'd like to see someone who feels so strong about this, explain that belief to one of the victims families. i'd imagine the tone would be a little different and you might be a little less likely to call that person a racist if they felt differently about it than you.

[Alan]

Poverty = more crime, that simple. Open your borders to poor and desolate masses and shit like this is going to happen.

I was going by this.  And I will again remind you that most of the Paris attackers were EU citizens, born and bred.

In any case, the cost of not helping the poor and desolate masses is even greater. No one here who wants to help the refugees is saying that there is no cost, no idea where you got that from. No one here wants the rapists to go free. But saying that it's only a small percentage is necessary, to prevent more tragedies. And why would anyone talk about statistics to the victims or their families in any scenario? That's always a bad move, no idea why you brought it up here.

i'd like to see someone who feels so strong about this, explain that belief to one of the victims families.

I'd like to see someone with your POV explain to the refugees that they can't be allowed into Europe because there are potential criminals among them. I'm sure that they wouldn't see it a reasonable argument for keeping them in a war zone.





And your comparison with the guns issue makes you look insensitive to the millions on the run. I see what you're saying, but the comparison doesn't hold water.

[Sleazy]

How could it make me seem insensitive when I have taken a position. I have only commented on the positions with statements that you mostly agreed with. People rushing up on ships to save whales seem crazy to me but that doesn't mean I'm insensitive to whales, it just mean I'm not an activist.

[Monty Burns]

I was going by this.  And I will again remind you that most of the Paris attackers were EU citizens, born and bred.

This just proves even more that integration is not working . They were in 2 good countries , Belgium and France where you have freedom of religion , free school and free health care . Maybe their parents were even refugees taken in by the EU

And yet they were Radicalised  by family , friends or at the mosques they attend by radicals

No one here who wants to help the refugees is saying that there is no cost

The cost gets higher and higher for each day . There is a limit on how much money , space , jobs , and criminal acts  Sweden and EU has


I'd like to see someone with your POV explain to the refugees that they can't be allowed into Europe because there are potential criminals among them. I'm sure that they wouldn't see it a reasonable argument for keeping them in a war zone.

They are not all from War zones . Thats the problem its less then 1 in 5 of these "refugees" that are from Syria . You need to sort all the ones on fake passports , and all the ones claiming they are under age when not . Sort out all the ones lying about what country they are from

20% or less of the almost 200 000 Sweden accepted are from Syria . I can only imagine how it is in the rest of Europe

There are several political parties / governments who can explain to them why they cant come . We even have specialized government agencies set up for it



Oh and you missed my questions in the last post again . Maybe its a issue of being dense ? ,

[Alan]

How could it make me seem insensitive when I have taken a position. I have only commented on the positions with statements that you mostly agreed with. People rushing up on ships to save whales seem crazy to me but that doesn't mean I'm insensitive to whales, it just mean I'm not an activist.

Right. Ok, thanks.

[excitableboy]

I was going by this. �And I will again remind you that most of the Paris attackers were EU citizens, born and bred.

This just proves even more that integration is not working . They were in 2 good countries , Belgium and France where you have freedom of religion , free school and free health care . Maybe their parents were even refugees taken in by the EU

And yet they were Radicalised �by family , friends or at the mosques they attend by radicals

One crow does not a winter make. Not that I would say immigration in Europe is a great success, quite the opposite in some areas. It's telling that perhaps the most unsuccessful city in this respect is Bruxelles. Many countries, and the EU in general, have neglected longstanding problems with estranged youth. Rarely do family/first generation immigrants have any say in their radicalisation actually, mostly they seem as surprised as you are.

They are not all from War zones . Thats the problem its less then 1 in 5 of these "refugees" that are from Syria . You need to sort all the ones on fake passports , and all the ones claiming they are under age when not . Sort out all the ones lying about what country they are from

20% or less of the almost 200 000 Sweden accepted are from Syria . I can only imagine how it is in the rest of Europe

Right, so we are actually talking about 40.000 immigrants in Sweden. (Edit: in any case, far less than 200,000, depending on who you deem eligible.) Send the rest back and help the 20%, why send them back too?

By the way, you touched on their freedom of religion, which gets at the heart of the problem. Of course we should have rid ourselves of that schizophrenic piece of lawmaking long ago, but we're stuck with it for now. Hence our moral obligation to turn the same blind eye towards Islam that we do the other handful of recognized religions. Without this in our constitutions, the appalling passages in their scripture would be illegal as much as 'normal'  hate speech is. But that is another thread altogether perhaps.

[Alan]

Monty, we're going in circles. I'm just responding to the bogus stuff you post.  For example, saying that they're not all from war zones. Which is true. Then adding that only 1 in 5 are Syrian. Which is also probably true. But Syria is not the only war zone. And I think you know that, and I think you left that out on purpose.

Btw:

"It is not acceptable that people who want to seek asylum are being segregated by nationalities. The right to ask for asylum is universal and cannot be connected to certain nationalities," said Stephane Moissaing, MSF head of mission in Serbia.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/refugee-nationalities-screened-borders-witnesses-151119180736277.html

I think it's hilarious how you fund an organization which is in total contradiction to your beliefs. Reminds of this
http://www.thelocal.de/20141117/charity-turns-neo-nazi-march-into-fundraiser-wunseidel

[Monty Burns]

For excitableboy


One crow does not a winter make. Not that I would say immigration in Europe is a great success, quite the opposite in some areas. It's telling that perhaps the most unsuccessful city in this respect is Bruxelles. Many countries, and the EU in general, have neglected longstanding problems with estranged youth. Rarely do family/first generation immigrants have any say in their radicalisation actually, mostly they seem as surprised as you are.

This is were jobs and a place to live comes in . Giving people a purpose and self worth . But as Ive said numerous times both in Sweden and the EU there is huge unemployment rates . And Im not sure how it is in rest of EU , but the housing shortage is extreme in Sweden . Swedes cant even find a place to live , the waiting list is years .

So when even Swedes cant find a job or home , how can we expect to give refugees we are trying to integrate ? The cheapest places to live in Sweden are the "ghettos" where most people are from the same countries as the refugees , All the jobs , all the schools and all the houses . How do you get integrated in a society when its basicly like you are not in Sweden ?

In many of the ghettos there is basicly sharia law , there are sharia law guards patrolling in Sweden . This is a huge problem for integration and terrorism . I believe Sweden has the most people who left to join ISIS 

Right, so we are actually talking about 40.000 immigrants in Sweden. (Edit: in any case, far less than 200,000, depending on who you deem eligible.) Send the rest back and help the 20%, why send them back too?


I would most defiantly be for to help the syrians fleeing the war . I would prefer that we do it over in syria with camps and military . But yes I do want to help them . But its not the first year Sweden has taken refugees . Sweden has been topping the list in the world / EU several years in a row . It adds up .  That is why we need a total stop in refugees

cause we have been full for years , with illegals who wont leave , and real war refugees


By the way, you touched on their freedom of religion, which gets at the heart of the problem. Of course we should have rid ourselves of that schizophrenic piece of lawmaking long ago, but we're stuck with it for now. Hence our moral obligation to turn the same blind eye towards Islam that we do the other handful of recognized religions. Without this in our constitutions, the appalling passages in their scripture would be illegal as much as 'normal'  hate speech is. But that is another thread altogether perhaps.

Sorry dont understand what you mean here , Are you saying we should outlaw religion ? or what do you mean ?


For Alan

Monty, we're going in circles. I'm just responding to the bogus stuff you post

Abit yes , but we are both trying to prove a point , which we prob wont change views in .  What bothers me when you post
that you simply ignore things when you dont have a point or when Im correct . Just ignoring questions is a horrible
way to discuss a subject

But Syria is not the only war zone. And I think you know that, and I think you left that out on purpose.

What is a war zone ? . I mean Somalia is fucked , but this is not cause of the EU or The USA or Nato . Nato and the USA tried to help
but they shot at us . Is Sweden a better country then Somalia sure . Then there is Tunisia , Morocco and maybe 100s
of other countries where people are poor , it might be abit sketchy , but not really war

Why are they seeking asylum ?  Cause the EU and Sweden is a better country . Specially the Nordic countries and Germany . Even if you are just seeking asylum with no chance of getting it . You still get money , food , housing , medical care , dental care and you drain the system of real refugees from war zones

Sweden is specially fucked here cause our system is horrible . We are not even allowed to age check them cause the government has decided its against their human rights . You will even get paid to leave Sweden .  I almost think its a conspiracy

Sweden and the EU cant take all the people in the world who has it worse then the EU . Then the EU would become what they are trying to escape

And Alan you are simply rude . You ignore facts , you ignore questions . and you give half assed insults . Sleazy had many good points and you basicly ignored them

[excitableboy]

To Sleazy,
I agree that, on some level, this discussion boils down to a utilitarian dilemma. Either we protect an uncertain number of rape victims, or we protect an uncertain amount of refugees. I think we should shoot to minimize both and I don't think that is naive or idealistic. I realize there must be victims, we cannot avoid it altogether (as I've said all along in this thread).
  To even begin to consider choosing either would for me require a clear cut situation, and of course there never is one. I can see some people opt for one or the other to be on the safe side, though. No Swedes were directly culpable for putting those refugees in their predicament, but if they 'allow rape to happen', they would feel directly involved in facilitating this state of affairs. I suppose faraway people do weigh less heavily on one's conscience than close-to-home people, so when put so binary this problem is relatively easily solved.
   What I'm getting at is that I'm no utilitarian and I think very few people are in most situations. Because most situations cannot be reduced to a binary opposition, where you choose one and then export the downside of the decision abroad. It is a choice to sketch this problem as such, and I'm not a fan of that choice is all.

For excitableboy


One crow does not a winter make. Not that I would say immigration in Europe is a great success, quite the opposite in some areas. It's telling that perhaps the most unsuccessful city in this respect is Bruxelles. Many countries, and the EU in general, have neglected longstanding problems with estranged youth. Rarely do family/first generation immigrants have any say in their radicalisation actually, mostly they seem as surprised as you are.

This is were jobs and a place to live comes in . Giving people a purpose and self worth . But as Ive said numerous times both in Sweden and the EU there is huge unemployment rates . And Im not sure how it is in rest of EU , but the housing shortage is extreme in Sweden . Swedes cant even find a place to live , the waiting list is years .

So when even Swedes cant find a job or home , how can we expect to give refugees we are trying to integrate ? The cheapest places to live in Sweden are the "ghettos" where most people are from the same countries as the refugees , All the jobs , all the schools and all the houses . How do you get integrated in a society when its basicly like you are not in Sweden ?

In many of the ghettos there is basicly sharia law , there are sharia law guards patrolling in Sweden . This is a huge problem for integration and terrorism . I believe Sweden has the most people who left to join ISIS  

We seem to be in agreement about this. Well, I do think you are exaggerating the problems at least for Europe at large. I wouldn't know about Sweden as well as you. It is also worth noting though that there are many people in Europe whose grandparents were, for example, Berbers on camels who had never been governed before. They have arguably made some of the largest leaps in progression out of any group. But yes, there are still plenty of problems. I argue this is a failure of our states at least as much as of the 'New Europeans', so to say. At the time, we indeed imported those potential problems and over the past decades have allowed them to foster. We shouldn't take that as a reason to turn away (again, real) refugees, in my opinion.  

Right, so we are actually talking about 40.000 immigrants in Sweden. (Edit: in any case, far less than 200,000, depending on who you deem eligible.) Send the rest back and help the 20%, why send them back too?


I would most defiantly be for to help the syrians fleeing the war . I would prefer that we do it over in syria with camps and military . But yes I do want to help them . But its not the first year Sweden has taken refugees . Sweden has been topping the list in the world / EU several years in a row . It adds up .  That is why we need a total stop in refugees

cause we have been full for years , with illegals who wont leave , and real war refugees

It's been said countless times now, we do help them there. To suggest helping all Syrians in Syria is just not realistic. Like I said above, this suggests there is an easy solution to the crisis.

By the way, you touched on their freedom of religion, which gets at the heart of the problem. Of course we should have rid ourselves of that schizophrenic piece of lawmaking long ago, but we're stuck with it for now. Hence our moral obligation to turn the same blind eye towards Islam that we do the other handful of recognized religions. Without this in our constitutions, the appalling passages in their scripture would be illegal as much as 'normal'  hate speech is. But that is another thread altogether perhaps.

Sorry dont understand what you mean here , Are you saying we should outlaw religion ? or what do you mean ?

No, not at all. I've discussed this on a philosophy forum and it was controversial even there, so maybe we shouldn't get too far into it. My point, in a thimble, is that most western constitutions, who often claim to be secular, put religious dogma on a pedestal by making a distinction between two orders of thought (namely that of some religions on the one hand, and of all other thought on the other). There is no need for this as I see it, and it leads to some pretty absurd situations. Those laws were put in place to stop religion from influencing and controlling states, but in our time serves religions in operating free from influence and control by states.

[Alan]

Monty, don't be offended. I've pointed out where your arguments were wrong and answered your questions where possible. I've also pointed out the fallacies you've made. And I'm not the only one who's noticed them. If I didn't answer, it was usually because your question/argument was repetitive, pointless, irrelevant or logically flawed. This I've explained already. If it offends you that I point out flaws in your argument, well, tough. Learn how to argue.


Regarding war zones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

People coming to Europe are mostly refugees, no need for the quotation marks. But you knew that already, too.

[Mouth]

The EU owes slap a great debt of gratitude for solving this crisis.

I for one, think it's marvellous what you guys have achieved.

[Tufty]

The EU owes slap a great debt of gratitude for solving this crisis.

I for one, think it's marvellous what you guys have achieved.

 Well done smart guy. Humanity owes you big because of your wit

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

To me the refugee, immigrant, and general pc notion that it's unacceptable to generalize in anyway is lefts equililent to the gun rights stance on the right. Both are ideological stances that ignore statisics and empirical infavor of ivory tower logic and both come at the cost of innocent people suffering. I think it's perfectly reasonable if your a gun nut and feel kids getting shot up is worth that freedom or if your a PC freak and feel that women getting raped, concerts getting shot up, ect is worth it for your belief but it's so frustrating when either side argues that one thing doesn't cause another when it clearly does. Super liberal gun laws increase gun violence and super liberal policies on immigration and refugees also increases violent crime. Maybe it's worth it to your political beliefs, maybe it's not but at least man up to the cost. Poverty = more crime, that simple. Open your borders to poor and desolate masses and shit like this is going to happen.

[close]

OF course its that. However what are the ideas behind this Ideological stances??? The one is the idea of the supermacist European-American that is more entitled to resources and stealing them from undeveloped nations having to supress them when they dare to ask for a portion of that, using violence and racist propaganda. The other idea is the humanitarian one that says all people should have a portion of the produced wealth that can provide them a decent quality of life, which is totally achievable but you have to disturb some rich folks. Choose a side but when you choose No1 stop wondering why people call you a racist prick or a Nazi.

[close]

i don't see how having policies and standards around who and how many people come into your country, especially when there is a valid issue of public safety and when those countries are relatively socialized is a binary racist prick or humanitarian saint type issue. we're only discussing at what level and not discussing all or none. calling anyone that has a different idea about the types of immigration policies that they would like to see in place than you a racist is so silly it's hard to take serious. it's like when conservatives call anyone who's in favor of any kind of goverment spending a socialist. the pejoratives aren't helping and there not making people feel bad about or change their beliefs.

 Yeah poverty brings crime. I never said that we should just accept refugees and immigrants under this system. Well technically under international laws, that are being violated in Europe, you are obliged to accept refugees at their country of choice when they ask for asylum and can prove their refugee status. From an ethical point of view poor immigrants are escaping poverty caused by economic wars and colonialism, being from Greece I can assure you that I have friends that they would be homeless if they didnt immigrate to get a job at another country. So for me immigrants should be accepted because extreme poverty can kill you like a gas chamber but more silently and more effectively as there will always be an idiot that will say that they are lazy so they are poor or that we shouldnt accept him because he is a liability.

 Wether you like it or not it boils down to this. Humanitarian vs Supermacist. Even if you dont realise it and you act like a concerned citizen it boils down to that. You either accept foreigners and fight for abolition of poverty or you just deprive them of the opportunity to come to your country and probably sentence them to death, just because they were born in piece of shit countries and they are not Americans or Europeans.  

[Monty Burns]

For excitableboy

I argue this is a failure of our states at least as much as of the 'New Europeans', so to say. At the time, we indeed imported those potential problems and over the past decades have allowed them to foster. We shouldn't take that as a reason to turn away (again, real) refugees, in my opinion. 

Surely when we have huge issues with huge issues with integration , crime , religion , housing , jobs and everything ells . The solution cant be to take in more people to make the situation worse . Sweden has already saved 100s of thousands , maybe a Million through the years

Cant save them all at the expense of turning Sweden into a third world country with the years to come


It's been said countless times now, we do help them there. To suggest helping all Syrians in Syria is just not realistic. Like I said above, this suggests there is an easy solution to the crisis.

Yeah I guess , but some people in this thread still bring it up , so I bring it up again .

No, not at all. I've discussed this on a philosophy forum and it was controversial even there

I think getting rid of religions would have been a amazing idea . I understand war for resources . I never understood religious wars . Sometimes the people fighting them shared 99% but that 1% of ideas made it ok to kill millions

While most of them preach love and peace , the result is always  hate , people getting oppressed and war


For Alan

Monty, don't be offended. I've pointed out where your arguments were wrong and answered your questions where possible.

Yeah , no you havent . You have hours to respond to my posts . And it looks like when ever I prove you wrong you simply ignore it
thats why I bring it up again


I've also pointed out the fallacies you've made. And I'm not the only one who's noticed them. If I didn't answer, it was usually because your question/argument was repetitive, pointless, irrelevant or logically flawed. This I've explained already.

Says you , who are avoiding them . I explained my school situation . Which has nothing to do with the Refugee situation . Also several times you brought up that scenarios that I brought up had nothing to do with the refugee discussion yet , My school has something to do with it .

You brining up the USA as a country that has not suffered by Immigration / refugees . When while I really love the USA , cmon its pretty shitty country in all the ways I described .

Telling me I have no capacity to think critically and Im all emotions . When I bring up facts , statistics and logic . And your response is emotional . So emotional that you cant help but give small jabs and insults


Regarding war zones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
People coming to Europe are mostly refugees, no need for the quotation marks. But you knew that already, too.

Ok just quick from the list .  Countries that have on going conflicts but tons of people go on vacation every year

Afghanistan , Egypt , India , Pakistan , Thailand , Indonesia ,Philippines , Bangladesh , Nigeria , Lebanon , China , Palestine , Israel
Tunisia , Algeria , Colombia , Turkey , Saudi Arabia , Ukraine ,

And Malaysia which I visited frequently when I lived in Singapore .  I could book a ticket to all these countries and enjoy a vacation 



Mouth

The EU owes slap a great debt of gratitude for solving this crisis.  I for one, think it's marvellous what you guys have achieved.

You were one of the shittiest Goonies . even worse then Chunk

[Mouth]

Your taste in Goonies says a lot.

[Alan]

Another example:

Ok just quick from the list .  Countries that have on going conflicts but tons of people go on vacation every year

Afghanistan , Egypt , India , Pakistan , Thailand , Indonesia ,Philippines , Bangladesh , Nigeria , Lebanon , China , Palestine , Israel
Tunisia , Algeria , Colombia , Turkey , Saudi Arabia , Ukraine ,

Tons of people? Some of them, yeah. Most of them, not so much. So you would totally go to Afghanistan or Nigeria and enjoy a holiday in a country where thousands of people were killed by Muslim extremists last year, where so many are trying desperately to get out, yet you shit your pants because of a few deaths in your own country? That's quite irrational.

Another example:

Cant save them all at the expense of turning Sweden into a third world country with the years to come

This will never happen, and your fear of it happening is irrational.

Example no3:

You brining up the USA as a country that has not suffered by Immigration / refugees . When while I really love the USA , cmon its pretty shitty country in all the ways I described .

Yes, I brought up the US immigrants and refugees, you brought up slaves and segregation. Another flaw in your argument.




I don't have time to spend hours on answers, but I don't need hours.  It does, however, seem that you need a full time tutor to understand simple concepts. Maybe one of the educated Syrian refugees would do it for free.

[Sleazy]

To Sleazy,
I agree that, on some level, this discussion boils down to a utilitarian dilemma. Either we protect an uncertain number of rape victims, or we protect an uncertain amount of refugees. I think we should shoot to minimize both and I don't think that is naive or idealistic. I realize there must be victims, we cannot avoid it altogether (as I've said all along in this thread).
  To even begin to consider choosing either would for me require a clear cut situation, and of course there never is one. I can see some people opt for one or the other to be on the safe side, though. No Swedes were directly culpable for putting those refugees in their predicament, but if they 'allow rape to happen', they would feel directly involved in facilitating this state of affairs. I suppose faraway people do weigh less heavily on one's conscience than close-to-home people, so when put so binary this problem is relatively easily solved.
   What I'm getting at is that I'm no utilitarian and I think very few people are in most situations. Because most situations cannot be reduced to a binary opposition, where you choose one and then export the downside of the decision abroad. It is a choice to sketch this problem as such, and I'm not a fan of that choice is all.

this is a great example of the kind of balanced rational debate that could be helpful. while people like alan, who are just calling anyone who doesn't align with their ivory tower, rose tinted lenses position racist aren't helping anything. it should be for those who are impacted to decide what they want to take on, not for outsiders. if you decided to take some refugees in your home, good on ya... but that doesn't mean that your neighbor who didn't is a racist or morally inferior. they might just be dedicating their efforts to other causes or they might just not be charitable or an activists types which is also fine. this idea that people have a moral obligation to be charitable is hard to defend outside the constructs of religious dogma and definitely really hard to quantify. i'm probably super outdated on philosophy but are their any notable thinkers who have attempted to make that argument? i can't think of any. and it seems really crazy to have people who don't live in countries and won't be affected by the consequences to have such strong opinions about what those who are directly impacted should be doing. every person that comes in will need aid, will need assistance and brings in a crime risk to the local population. it seems obvious that we should let those people who have to carry the burden decide how much they want to shoulder and not judge them about what they choose.

[Alan]

rose tinted lenses position

How is my position rose tinted?

if you decided to take some refugees in your home, good on ya...

You know that taking refugees in your home is not how aid works, right?

it seems really crazy to have people who don't live in countries and won't be affected by the consequences to have such strong opinions about what those who are directly impacted should be doing. every person that comes in will need aid, will need assistance and brings in a crime risk to the local population. it seems obvious that we should let those people who have to carry the burden decide how much they want to shoulder and not judge them about what they choose.

Most of the posters in this thread are European. I'm European, from one of the countries, much poorer than Sweden, on one of the refugee routes. So it seems crazy to me that you're passing judgement on us.

[Monty Burns]

Mouth

Your taste in Goonies says a lot.

Thanks Data was the best

For Alan

Tons of people? Some of them, yeah. Most of them, not so much. So you would totally go to Afghanistan or Nigeria and enjoy a holiday in a country where thousands of people were killed by Muslim extremists last year, where so many are trying desperately to get out, yet you shit your pants because of a few deaths in your own country? That's quite irrational.


a ton is 1000kg . Thats about 13 people . So yeah a ton of people go back every year . I said before I have a afghan friend here in Sweden who in the 10 years I known him has gone back to kabul multiple times to visit family . Like I said Multiple of those nations are still popular vacation destinations

India ,  Thailand , Indonesia ,Philippines , Bangladesh  , Lebanon , China , Palestine , Israel
Tunisia , Colombia , Turkey , Saudi Arabia , Ukraine ,

Are all countries I would visit for a vacation . I was in Turkey about 8 months ago , And Ive been to Israel afew times . Lebanon I would love to visit

This will never happen, and your fear of it happening is irrational.

Says who ? you ? Just look at the ghettos we didnt have 20 years ago . rape statistics up 1000% . Crime is up huge numbers . Its not going to happen now but the worse and worse it gets it gets closer to that

There will be political change in the EU and Sweden so it prob wont happen . But if nothing changes its gonna be a shit storm


Yes, I brought up the US immigrants and refugees, you brought up slaves and segregation. Another flaw in your argument.


You used it as a successful example of Immigration , refugees and integration . And its not , its just not



You know that taking refugees in your home is not how aid works, right?

You have said that in the past . You even made fun of when I used that as a example before in this thread . But before Sweden shut the borders the government actually sent out press releases that Swedish citizens should take in refugees to make the burden lighter

Ive brought that up before . 2 times before . As I bring up many other examples of you dodging questions and not answering

Ive asked 3 times in a row how does me not wanting to take spanish B and Math  have any relevance in this discussion
but hypothetical situations and facts , news articles  about refugees does not ?


Sleazy is right . Every time somebody shows you that you are wrong you ignore it and hurl insult s . You are full of shit

[Alan]

Are all countries I would visit for a vacation .

And even with the economic situation and war (thousands of people killed) in some of those countries, you are shitting your pants because of the refugee crisis in Europe. That's irrational.

You have said that in the past . You even made fun of when I used that as a example before in this thread . But before Sweden shut the borders the government actually sent out press releases that Swedish citizens should take in refugees to make the burden lighter

Ive brought that up before . 2 times before . As I bring up many other examples of you dodging questions and not answering

So, was that an order by the government? Are they forcing people to take in refugees? Are they kicking Swedes out of their homes and putting Syrians in their place?  You do understand the difference, right? Right? And I've already said why I don't answer all your questions. I'm not here to teach you how to think and argue. That's something that you need to work on irl with a specialist.

it prob wont happen

Yeah, "probably"...

You used it as a successful example of Immigration , refugees and integration . And its not , its just not

Yeah, that's why so many Americans have ancestors with various ethnic backgrounds. Because they refuse to mix with other groups.
And they're also very bad for the economy. Like this latest example: http://fusion.net/story/238682/the-miracle-of-little-bosnia/

a ton is 1000kg . Thats about 13 people .

Are you trying to prove that you can actually do math?

. So yeah a ton of people go back every year

Fuck, that was very clever.

Ive asked 3 times in a row how does me not wanting to take spanish B and Math  have any relevance in this discussion
but hypothetical situations and facts , news articles  about refugees does not ?

I didn't say it's relevant to the discussion. I said it's probably the reason why you can't form an argument, and why your examples are bad and don't make sense. Also probably the reason why you're struggling with reading comprehension. Then there is the selective choice of sources regarding the refugees, mostly negative. We get it, you don't like refugees, but don't act surprised when people call you out for that.

Sleazy is right . Every time somebody shows you that you are wrong you ignore it and hurl insult s . You are full of shit

You didn't prove me wrong. You only proved that you don't like refugees, and I helped you by providing additional evidence.

Ill admit Im not the smartest guy , Im a high school drop out and theres alot of shit I dont get . Id just try to remind you guys again that this is just my opinion .

This should be on every page of this thread.

[excitableboy]

Expand Quote

To Sleazy,
I agree that, on some level, this discussion boils down to a utilitarian dilemma. Either we protect an uncertain number of rape victims, or we protect an uncertain amount of refugees. I think we should shoot to minimize both and I don't think that is naive or idealistic. I realize there must be victims, we cannot avoid it altogether (as I've said all along in this thread).
  To even begin to consider choosing either would for me require a clear cut situation, and of course there never is one. I can see some people opt for one or the other to be on the safe side, though. No Swedes were directly culpable for putting those refugees in their predicament, but if they 'allow rape to happen', they would feel directly involved in facilitating this state of affairs. I suppose faraway people do weigh less heavily on one's conscience than close-to-home people, so when put so binary this problem is relatively easily solved.
   What I'm getting at is that I'm no utilitarian and I think very few people are in most situations. Because most situations cannot be reduced to a binary opposition, where you choose one and then export the downside of the decision abroad. It is a choice to sketch this problem as such, and I'm not a fan of that choice is all.

[close]

this is a great example of the kind of balanced rational debate that could be helpful. while people like alan, who are just calling anyone who doesn't align with their ivory tower, rose tinted lenses position racist aren't helping anything. it should be for those who are impacted to decide what they want to take on, not for outsiders. if you decided to take some refugees in your home, good on ya... but that doesn't mean that your neighbor who didn't is a racist or morally inferior. they might just be dedicating their efforts to other causes or they might just not be charitable or an activists types which is also fine. this idea that people have a moral obligation to be charitable is hard to defend outside the constructs of religious dogma and definitely really hard to quantify. i'm probably super outdated on philosophy but are their any notable thinkers who have attempted to make that argument? i can't think of any. and it seems really crazy to have people who don't live in countries and won't be affected by the consequences to have such strong opinions about what those who are directly impacted should be doing. every person that comes in will need aid, will need assistance and brings in a crime risk to the local population. it seems obvious that we should let those people who have to carry the burden decide how much they want to shoulder and not judge them about what they choose.

Well it sort of depends what you take to mean charitable, but Kant was pretty adamant about moral duties. His categorical imperative is more or less what Christians seem to mean with 'don't do unto others...', or the Golden Rule. It is very defendable outside the scope of religion too, as a matter of fact, maybe more so. For believers, their motivation is ultimately a spot on the guestlist. Kant justified it all in this life.

Like Alan, I also live in the EU. We have our own little Trump, a populist who will make our country great again. Even has a funny hairdo. It's one thing when an internet pal is afraid his super rich country is on the verge of becoming a third world country, it's another thing when a politician sells such fear, and is raking it in too. Such hysteria is by now expected from Monty but there is a majority in my country that has started to buy into this nonsense as well. This binary way of presenting the problem is actually gaining traction. If you are sincere in such beliefs, it's not racist or morally inferior to think in this way, you are right about that. But it still is factually wrong, and so misguided that it is hard to imagine people actually believe it.

Monty, not sure if you actually mean everything you say. Maybe some of it is rhetoric. But if you don't think saying 'Sweden is turning into a third world country' is in extremely poor taste, I bow out.

[CigaretteBeer]

I'm extremely embarassed by the way most Americans, despite being too uninformed to understand the impact this migration will have on the future of Europe (our key ally!!!), are more than happy to tell people in Europe who have different opinion, that they are wrong. If what is happening in Europe right now was happening in America, I guarantee more of you would be against such a destructive mass migration.

They should be kept out of Europe & if they ever start coming to this country I'll be right there fighting against them and anyone helping them.

Most Americans are too pacified to be able to fight for anything, so they lay down and pretend integration ever works, despite the fact that we've been unable to integrate even the few minority groups we do have in this country into our society fully (see BLM and NC La Raza and others). Good for you Monty!

Anyone that thinks most Muslims are moderate peaceful people that will respect western values should watch this