‘Slovakia to Slovaks’: Thousands join anti-Islamization protest in Bratislava, dozens arrested - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48019277]They should but not to the detriment of their own citizens.[/QUOTE] I think nations are already punishing their own citizens enough without the need of refugee problems

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48019277]I've lived in a predominently muslim community my entire life and I have never seen anything like [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA]this[/url]. European countries are taking in refugee's who have values that go completely against the progressive ideas that Europe has and its going to fundamentally change European society if they become a major voting bloc. Imagine fleeing an Islamic nation as a moderate Muslim just to find extremism in your new country. Diversity for diversities sake shouldn't trump the fact that European countries are suffering from high unemployment and strained social systems from all of the immigration and tough economic times [I]or[/I] the problems caused by the extremist ideas that these people are bringing into their respective countries. They should but not to the detriment of their own citizens.[/QUOTE] But see, nobody here is against valid criticism of immigration, just the most common stuff is laced with subtle, or not so subtle racism. I agree that letting in too many people could possibly flood a country and make things worse, but you wouldn't see many people upset about immigrants from Russia or America because they're white.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;48019309]But see, nobody here is against valid criticism of immigration, just the most common stuff is laced with subtle, or not so subtle racism. I agree that letting in too many people could possibly flood a country and make things worse, but you wouldn't see many people upset about immigrants from Russia or America because they're white.[/QUOTE] additionally, and that's what I wanted to point out with Jordan, the EU is far far far far away from "too many people"

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;48019309]But see, nobody here is against valid criticism of immigration, just the most common stuff is laced with subtle, or not so subtle racism. I agree that letting in too many people could possibly flood a country and make things worse, but you wouldn't see many people upset about immigrants from Russia or America because they're white.[/QUOTE] The demand for high skilled labor from developed countries is pretty much always high. In general immigrants from the developing world are low-skilled workers. Introducing these workers into your country makes things difficult for the poorer side of society. Especially when you decide to open a flood gate. However you are right about alot of these right wing parties having some pretty [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farright-bnp-wish-members-a-white-christmas-in-racist-looking-greetings-card-9022775.html=b2nlIfn8tNA]racist[/url] people within them.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;48019309]But see, nobody here is against valid criticism of immigration, just the most common stuff is laced with subtle, or not so subtle racism. I agree that letting in too many people could possibly flood a country and make things worse, but you wouldn't see many people upset about immigrants from Russia or America because they're white.[/QUOTE] No, but many immigrants from America and even Russia are at least educated, are not at extreme odds with the culture of the local population, and will likely assimilate relatively fast.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;48019114]I am literally dying of laughter. That's like trying to say that India's population is composed wholly of Hindus, or China's of Buddhists. And take your tinfoil hat off, progressive thinking isn't encouraged for the sake of free trade, it's being encouraged because it's the sensible and right thing to do in any self-respecting modern society. Extremism and religious intolerance won't win anybody any friends in today's world.[/QUOTE] It's not necessarily that though. Generally people like and tend to stick to each other, their own culture and heritage, due to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme"]memes[/URL], for example. Immigration is a delicate matter that takes a lot of time to incorporate into a culture, and laws made by a supervising organization such as the EU are perceived as authoritarian by nations who want sovereignty. This among many other reasons is probably why right leaning parties are gaining popularit recently, it's the consequence of dissatisfaction with what the EU has been doing, and blaming everything on bigotry and using it as scapegoat won't help anyone. It's an incredibly complex situation, it doesn't just boil down to progressive enlightenment/middle age bigotry.

I have yet to see a sensible party that is for limiting immigration, or actually viewing the problem of integration or assimilation in a sensible manner. We basically have one group of parties that doesn't dare to bring the issue up. And then we have the populist party that brings the issue up, but also has other shit policies that they want to enforce.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48019272]a democratic society would/should help refugees, not deny them tbh[/QUOTE] What is this weird idea? Mate, a democracy is nothing more than a country ran by the people, or representatives of the people and if the people say no to immigrants then that is democracy. People have this weird idealised version of democracy in their heads where they help the down trodden masses. It's not. [quote]Democracy is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly."[1] Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."[2] According to political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: "1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. 2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. 3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens. 4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens".[3][/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Democracy[/url] Point out the part where it says a democratic society must defend all humans and not citizens of their nation.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019493][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Democracy[/url] Point out the part where it says a democratic society must defend all humans and not citizens of their nation.[/QUOTE] You are using the English version of that page. If you go left and select "America Fuck Yeah!" for the language, you'll see it.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019493]What is this weird idea? Mate, a democracy is nothing more than a country ran by the people, or representatives of the people and if the people say no to immigrants then that is democracy. People have this weird idealised version of democracy in their heads where they help the down trodden masses. It's not. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Democracy[/url] Point out the part where it says a democratic society must defend all humans and not citizens of their nation.[/QUOTE] Nah he just said it should, that's just his opinion.

[QUOTE=Hugg;48019550]Nah he just said it should, that's just his opinion.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's cool and shit but it's inaccurate, they're attempting to impose some sort of moral obligation on a basic system that isn't built to cater to anything more than the will of the peoples of a nation. They're confusing culture for politics.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019567]Yeah that's cool and shit but it's inaccurate, they're attempting to impose some sort of moral obligation on a basic system that isn't built to cater to anything more than the will of the peoples of a nation. They're confusing culture for politics.[/QUOTE] You are the one who brought up that stuff when we said that it's the moral obligation to care for refugees after we fucked up their countries. Noone mentioned the form of government before that. [editline]21st June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019056]Yeah well done, that's great for Jordan, but if people don't want them they shouldn't be forced to take them unless you're willing to over ride their democracy and free will as a nation.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019582]You are the one who rought up that stuff when we said that it's the moral obligation to care for refugees after we fucked up their countries. [editline]21st June 2015[/editline][/QUOTE] Yeah because moral obligations mean absolutely nothing if the people don't feel obligated, you might feel obligated but they don't therefore it doesn't apply really apply to them despite how you might protest otherwise. Secondly again, democracy is nothing more than a system which allows people to make their opinions known and to allow them to have a say in how their country is ran, if they decide they're not for something then that's really the end of it unless you want to walk in and overthrow a democratic nation over your feelings.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019611]Yeah because moral obligations mean absolutely nothing if the people don't feel obligated, you might feel obligated but they don't therefore it doesn't apply really apply to them despite how you might protest otherwise. [/QUOTE] Responsibility for the people fleeing the countries you fucked over is not a matter of opinion. Hence usage of the word "obligation"

[QUOTE=Swebonny;48019470] We basically have one group of parties that doesn't dare to bring the issue up. And then we have the populist party that brings the issue up, but also has other shit policies that they want to enforce.[/QUOTE] sounds like gun regulation in america

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019625]Responsibility for the people fleeing the countries you fucked over is not a matter of opinion. Hence the word "obligation"[/QUOTE] Right but what if they don't subscribe to your world view and disagree with how you see their obligation? What are your credentials to say that these people are wrong and that you are right? Is it the fact that you exist in a western nation where our culture dictates that if we wrong someone it is our duty to set it right? If so then who are you to say that your cultural teachings are superior to theirs? Is it from a sense of humanity and human decency? If so then what if they fundamentally just don't share such a sentiment? Again it really comes down to what you're willing to do about it? If they don't feel obliged to help then they won't.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019611]Secondly again, democracy is nothing more than a system which allows people to make their opinions known and to allow them to have a say in how their country is ran, if they decide they're not for something then that's really the end of it unless you want to walk in and overthrow a democratic nation over your feelings.[/QUOTE] I don't know why you bring up feelings. It's not about feelings. And I don't know what your point is. A democracy also includes the possibility for me to state how fucked in the head the people in protests like in the OP are.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019654]I don't know why you bring up feelings. It's not about feelings. And I don't know what your point is. A democracy also includes the possibility for me to state how fucked in the head the people in protests like in the OP are.[/QUOTE] Absolutely true, you can say that, but as someone who is most likely a Slovakian citizen you have absolutely zero right to say how their country should be ran, whereas they do, and if they decide they don't want to help then that's their choice as a people and a nation. If we were talking about Germany on the other hand you would be absolutely right to exercise your right to free speech and democratic choice and I would applaud you on that. Also I brought up feelings because you did, you said they were obligated, and they're not legally obligated so that only really leaves a moral obligation, which is essentially based on feelings.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019651]Right but what if they don't subscribe to your world view and disagree with how you see their obligation? What are your credentials to say that these people are wrong and that you are right? Is it the fact that you exist in a western nation where our culture dictates that if we wrong someone it is our duty to set it right? If so then who are you to say that your cultural teachings are superior to theirs? Is it from a sense of humanity and human decency? If so then what if they fundamentally just don't share such a sentiment? Again it really comes down to what you're willing to do about it? If they don't feel obliged to help then they won't.[/QUOTE] My credentials are basic logic. What are you even on about? I will not write the 10k word essay that would be necessary to answer questions as loaded and broad as yours. There are no easy solutions.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019625]Responsibility for the people fleeing the countries you fucked over is not a matter of opinion.[/QUOTE] Sins of the father don't pass onto the son. Yeah they're still alive but what happens in European countries affects the current generation and future generations. Like honestly, your country just refused to pay war reparations to Greece.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019654]I don't know why you bring up feelings. It's not about feelings. And I don't know what your point is. A democracy also includes the possibility for me to state how fucked in the head the people in protests like in the OP are.[/QUOTE] And on the flipside, in a Democracy, one can voice their disagreement to how you think they're fucked in the heads. Think of Democracy as you will, but Democracy is a 2 way street. If the people of a nation protest and vote for something that you disagree with, that's not the Democracy's problem. It means Democracy is working and what the people decide is the infallible will of the nation. If you step in and say "Hold up here, we can't have this.", then it's no longer a Democracy. At that point, you're just imposing your own world view on what the people have decided and it is instead a sham Democracy.When you reach a measure like that, just drop the pretenses and stop calling yourself a Democracy. If you don't like what the people of a Democracy have decided, go out and sway people to your viewpoint via protest and other measures.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019670]Absolutely true, you can say that, but as someone who is most likely a Slovakian citizen you have absolutely zero right to say how their country should be ran, whereas they do, and if they decide they don't want to help then that's their choice as a people and a nation. If we were talking about Germany on the other hand you would be absolutely right to exercise your right to free speech and democratic choice and I would applaud you on that. Also I brought up feelings because you did, you said they were obligated, and they're not legally obligated so that only really leaves a moral obligation, which is essentially based on feelings.[/QUOTE] No. Morale is not about feelings. In fact it's the opposite. And this is an internet forum. Noone in their right mind would state that they have "right to say how their(another) country should be run" I don't know why you bring that up excep for the reason that you can argue against it. Ok. Have fun. I don't even know your ultimate goal anymore. People in the OP are fucked and wrong, that's not an opinion , that's a fact. They could unite, throw a revolution and impose the Slovakian State of Muzzie and Brown People Haters under his Majesty the Whitest Boy Alive and that wouldn't make them a iota more right.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48019694]Like honestly, your country just refused to pay war reparations to Greece.[/QUOTE] Do you really think Greece was asking for money for war reparations? If they had wanted war reparations they would've asked for them in the last century. That was just the current Greek government using it as an excuse to receive even more money on top of whatever stimulus it's getting from the EU.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48019694]Sins of the father don't pass onto the son. Yeah they're still alive but what happens in European countries affects the current generation and future generations. Like honestly, your country just refused to pay war reparations to Greece.[/QUOTE] Yes they do along with the wealth that's passed on to the son.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019731]No. Morale is not about feelings. In fact it's the opposite. And this is an internet forum. Noone in their right mind would state that they have "right to say how their(another) country should be run" I don't know why you bring that up excep for the reason that you can argue against it. Ok. Have fun. I don't even know your ultimate goal anymore. People in the OP are fucked and wrong, that's not an opinion , that's a fact. They could unite, throw a revolution and impose the Slovakian State of Muzzie and Brown People Haters under his Majesty the Whitest Boy Alive and that wouldn't make them a iota more right.[/QUOTE] Morals are subjective and vary from person to person dude, you're stating yours as fact, you're making an argument here based solely on emotion whether you want to accept it or not and don't say you're not when you're busting out shit like this: [quote]People in the OP are fucked and wrong, that's not an opinion , that's a fact.[/quote] That's not a fact, that is your moral opinion. You want to help them, great, you're a good person who wants to help their fellow human beings, they're not and that sucks for the people in need but it's never going to change the fact that if they democratically decide that then they're under no obligation to help, legally or morally despite you deciding they do. Even then if they were morally obligated they can just say no, moral obligations don't really mean much to people who don't feel them.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019731]No. Morale is not about feelings. In fact it's the opposite. And this is an internet forum. Noone in their right mind would state that they have "right to say how their(another) country should be run" I don't know why you bring that up excep for the reason that you can argue against it. Ok. Have fun. I don't even know your ultimate goal anymore. People in the OP are fucked and wrong, that's not an opinion , that's a fact. They could unite, throw a revolution and impose the Slovakian State of Muzzie and Brown People Haters under his Majesty the Whitest Boy Alive and that wouldn't make them a iota more right.[/QUOTE] Under what authority is it a fact? Where is it set in stone or solidly stated and supported? I disagree with the protester's views because they use an arbitrary racial perspective rather than the more effective route of economics or politics, but I digress. Unless there is an indisputable authority or source which to base a point on, it is but a relative opinion. Where is there evidence that this is certainly, indisputably a fact? If it was stated that taking on refugees improves the economy, that would be a fact. But to state that we have a moral duty to take on refugees is groundless without more support.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019750]Yes they do along with the wealth that's passed on to the son.[/QUOTE] Isn't that directly against the tenants of western legal systems? That someone should be judged solely on the crimes they themselves have committed? By that metric I would technically be responsible for the massacre of the McDonald clan on the Isle of Islay in 1598, so when shall I be taken to court for murder and crimes against humanity?

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;48019835]Isn't that directly against the tenants of western legal systems? That someone should be judged solely on the crimes they themselves have committed? [/QUOTE] Who said solely? Who said judging? If you want to or feel the need to judge: fine. Judge me by how I deal with the stuff that's passed on to me by my father. Not by the stuff itself. Yes Germany should pay reparations to Greece or at least acknowledge the massacres that the Regime did. The least we could do is finally issueing an official apology. And what are you on about? Why are you exagerating my arguments to a ridiculous degree so you can argue against them with the paradox of the exaggerated, non-applicable examples? [editline]21st June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=General_Lee;48019819]Under what authority is it a fact? Where is it set in stone or solidly stated and supported? I disagree with the protester's views because they use an arbitrary racial perspective rather than the more effective route of economics or politics, but I digress. Unless there is an indisputable authority or source which to base a point on, it is but a relative opinion. Where is there evidence that this is certainly, indisputably a fact? If it was stated that taking on refugees improves the economy, that would be a fact. But to state that we have a moral duty to take on refugees is groundless without more support.[/QUOTE] Facts are under no authority. Rules are set in stone or paper because somebody set them. It's a stupid phrase. Facts exist. You fuck shit up, you shut the fuck up and deal with the consequences in a proactive way. Or you don't sell weapons to the guy barrel bombing peoples homes and using toxic gas built with your ingrediences and tech in the first place. How is that not a fact.

[QUOTE=Killuah;48019932]Facts are under no authority. Rules are set in stone or paper because somebody set them. It's a stupid phrase. Facts exist. You fuck shit up, you shut the fuck up and deal with the consequences in a proactive way. Or you don't sell weapons to the guy barrel bombing peoples homes and using toxic gas built with your ingrediences and tech in the first place. How is that not a fact.[/QUOTE] Of course facts exist, but facts have to have authority in some form to make them indisputable, whether that be evidence or sources. Morality is disputable simply by virtue of the many different perspectives on it. People have different views on how to handle immigration, and as a result, that makes it disputable and therefore not a fact. If a fact doesn't need support to make it indisputable, what separates a fact from a claim?

[QUOTE=Arrows;48019061]The world is hardly "Globalized" Only the west is diversified by forced diversity, china, india, korea, japan, [B]the entire middle east and africa. None are diverse in terms of ethnicity or religion[/B]. The west is the only ones who are "progressive" and diversity is being forced upon everyone for corporate benefit.[/QUOTE] i'm sorry, wot? africa isn't diverse? its one the main reasons they're killing each other over there, same for the middle east, middle east isn't only arabs you know(and even they fight among each other due to tribal issues and shit), lack of tolerance(alongside poverty) are the main reasons for civil conflicts atm. its funny how some people think africa = everyone is the same, because having dark skin and being born in africa means you're part of the same ethnicity :downs: