Reports of Forced Marriage in UK Rose in 2016, Data Shows - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51937426]you can help people in other nations without opening your borders completely. or do you seriously believe that is only pro-immigration stance in existence?[/QUOTE] Pantz said that he doesn't want people who would participate in forced marriages to come to his country. Splarg! responded by saying that if you actually wanted to help victims, then you should let them come because they would be better off. The conclusion is that if you actually care about people, then you have to let them immigrate so that they are better off. This is equivalent to having open borders. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;51937573]There [I]is[/I] however the caveat that, if said religion happens to include aspects which go against the laws of the nation they are immigrating to, they must change or adapt their practice to fit the laws of the land, as they are the ones who have chosen to come to said country which includes the choice to live under those laws.[/QUOTE] Realistically, how do you put this point into action?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937582]Pantz said that he doesn't want people who would participate in forced marriages to come to his country. Splarg! responded by saying that if you actually wanted to help victims, then you should let them come because they would be better off. The conclusion is that if you actually care about people, then you have to let them immigrate so that they are better off. This is equivalent to having open borders. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] Realistically, how do you put this point into action?[/QUOTE] By enforcing the law of the land? Eventually either they're forced to go along with the law or get arrested over and over and over again. I'm actually not opposed to deporting first-generation immigrants who commit crimes that are particularly heinous, or commit repeatedly, in the name of some deeply-held social belief either, though I'd add the caveat that if their crimes are against family (i.e. daughters, wives, etc) and that wronged family wishes to stay in the country then they should not be deported as it wouldn't really fix the injustice of the crime? Sending them to some shithole where it's legal to do what was done to them wouldn't really be justice...

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937582]Pantz said that he doesn't want people who would participate in forced marriages to come to his country. Splarg! responded by saying that if you actually wanted to help victims, then you should let them come because they would be better off. The conclusion is that if you actually care about people, then you have to let them immigrate so that they are better off. This is equivalent to having open borders.[/QUOTE] maybe if the argument was over a ban already in place. but the hypothetical here is a new ban for people who currently, can already make it into the country. splarg may very well agree with open borders, but he's not arguing for it in that post. someone who was fine with current policies and did not want to implement a muslim ban could also use his argument

[QUOTE=froztshock;51937625]By enforcing the law of the land? Eventually either they're forced to go along with the law or get arrested over and over and over again. I'm actually not opposed to deporting first-generation immigrants who commit crimes that are particularly heinous, or commit repeatedly, in the name of some deeply-held social belief either, though I'd add the caveat that if their crimes are against family (i.e. daughters, wives, etc) and that wronged family wishes to stay in the country then they should not be deported as it wouldn't really fix the injustice of the crime? Sending them to some shithole where it's legal to do what was done to them wouldn't really be justice...[/QUOTE] So it doesn't really have anything to do with immigration, then. You want to let everyone in and figure out later whether their religious beliefs conflict with the law. [QUOTE]maybe if the argument was over a ban already in place. but the hypothetical here is a new ban for people who currently, can already make it into the country. splarg may very well agree with open borders, but he's not arguing for it in that post. someone who was fine with current policies and did not want to implement a muslim ban could also use his argument[/QUOTE] How does Splarg!s argument work when we are actively denying tons of people who would be better off in our country? It seems that an application of his argument would mean that we don't actually care about victims in that case.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937652]So it doesn't really have anything to do with immigration, then. You want to let everyone in and figure out later whether their religious beliefs conflict with the law. How does Splarg!s argument work when we are actively denying tons of people who would be better off in our country? It seems that an application of his argument would mean that we don't actually care about victims in that case.[/QUOTE] Ehhh? Where did I say that? I said that there should be a review process of some kind, somewhat like what you have to go through to become a US citizen or somesuch, or what most other nations have, but that [I]being of a given religious faith should not automatically preclude your entrance.[/I] I didn't say "Let everyone in" at all.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937652]How does Splarg!s argument work when we are actively denying tons of people who would be better off in our country? It seems that an application of his argument would mean that we don't actually care about victims in that case.[/QUOTE] Why are you judging this in a vacuum? His post is very much relevant to pantz master's proposals. If I, the hypothetical "fine with current policies" man were to look at his idea of banning muslims, I could very well make the exact same post as splarg, and that wouldn't make me a supporter of open borders, since I'm declaring it's indicative of pantz master's mindset, not an end-all statement about anyone who has ever supported denying entry in some form

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51937712]Why are you judging this in a vacuum? His post is very much relevant to pantz master's proposals. If I, the hypothetical "fine with current policies" man were to look at his idea of banning muslims, I could very well make the exact same post as splarg, and that wouldn't make me a supporter of open borders, since I'm declaring it's indicative of pantz master's mindset, not an end-all statement about anyone who has ever supported denying entry in some form[/QUOTE] It was in response to Pantz saying that he cares about victims. Splarg! said that if he really cared then he would let them all in. Do you say that you care about victims? If so, but you don't let everyone in, then his argument applies equally. You don't REALLY care because you are willing to let people suffer in their own countries. If you REALLY cared, then you would let them in as well. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;51937695]Ehhh? Where did I say that? I said that there should be a review process of some kind, somewhat like what you have to go through to become a US citizen or somesuch, or what most other nations have, but that [I]being of a given religious faith should not automatically preclude your entrance.[/I] I didn't say "Let everyone in" at all.[/QUOTE] What measures would you use to pick and choose who gets to come in and who doesn't?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937736]It was in response to Pantz saying that he cares about victims. Splarg! said that if he really cared then he would let them all in. Do you say that you care about victims? If so, but you don't let everyone in, then his argument applies equally. You don't REALLY care because you are willing to let people suffer in their own countries. If you REALLY cared, then you would let them in as well.[/QUOTE] But that's only if you assume his argument applies to everyone who's not pantz master, and to every situation that's not this one, which you simply can't do with the amount of info in splarg's post

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51937757]But that's only if you assume his argument applies to everyone who's not pantz master, and to every situation that's not this one, which you simply can't do with the amount of info in splarg's post[/QUOTE] I'm applying the basic logic behind the statement. If you can't claim to actually care about victims unless you let everyone from worse off countries in, then any position which also denies access to those people can't claim to care about victims. If we are keeping the logic consistent, then it would apply to any position that denies access to victims from other countries.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937736]It was in response to Pantz saying that he cares about victims. Splarg! said that if he really cared then he would let them all in. Do you say that you care about victims? If so, but you don't let everyone in, then his argument applies equally. You don't REALLY care because you are willing to let people suffer in their own countries. If you REALLY cared, then you would let them in as well. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] What measures would you use to pick and choose who gets to come in and who doesn't?[/QUOTE] What measures would [I]you[/I] use? I don't really care overmuch which are used so long as my major point there is upheld.

[QUOTE=froztshock;51937764]What measures would [I]you[/I] use? I don't really care overmuch which are used so long as my major point there is upheld.[/QUOTE] I would look at what number of immigrants would be favorable to our country (Whatever that may be) and I would favor immigrants from similar cultures and with applicable skills to fill those spots.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51937306]Yes I am saying that. I am a nationalist, so while I think it is sad that they will be fore married, I don't think it is my concern. You're arguing for total open borders with that logic. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] I'll sum up me argument to your entire post like this: I don't think anybody should have the right to come into my country. I think that if we were to let somebody come here, it should be because they and their family can benefit us in some way. If they or their decedents are likely to be criminal, disrupt society, or otherwise harm the country, we shouldn't let them in.[/QUOTE] How do you determine whether somebody's [I]descendents[/I] are likely to be criminals? This is a dangerous ideological path you're walking.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937761]I'm applying the basic logic behind the statement.[B] If you can't claim to actually care about victims unless you let everyone from worse off countries in[/B], then any position which also denies access to those people can't claim to care about victims.[/QUOTE] But he didn't say this. You're just making shit up lol

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937771]I would look at what number of immigrants would be favorable to our country (Whatever that may be) and I would favor immigrants from similar cultures and with applicable skills to fill those spots.[/QUOTE] First part's more or less how the U.S does things, correct? As for the cultural bit, say someone signed up at about the same time as someone from a more 'similar' culture, so the person from the more similar culture gets in first. Presumably they're put on a waitlist of some kind, correct? Do they get first pick when the next 'cycle' rolls around, or are they kept in the queue if more people from similar cultures sign on? [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] I dislike the idea of the culture being such a big part of it to start with because I'd prefer to go moreso on merits than anything else if we're truly going to examine people on such a level. I'd hate to see some brilliant scientist from say, China get passed up over someone more middling from Britain just because most people would say it's [I]obviously[/I] a more similar culture, but I don't find it completely and utterly abhorent so long as it's not being used as a crutch to just keep people indefinitely on hold because we don't want 'them' here.

[QUOTE=froztshock;51937806]First part's more or less how the U.S does things, correct? As for the cultural bit, say someone signed up at about the same time as someone from a more 'similar' culture, so the person from the more similar culture gets in first. Presumably they're put on a waitlist of some kind, correct? Do they get first pick when the next 'cycle' rolls around, or are they kept in the queue if more people from similar cultures sign on?[/QUOTE] No, I wouldn't have a pure waitlist. I would always favor those from similar cultures. I'm not very concerned with being fair to those trying to immigrate. I'm concerned with having immigration be the best possible thing for our country as it can be. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;51937806]I dislike the idea of the culture being such a big part of it to start with because I'd prefer to go moreso on merits than anything else if we're truly going to examine people on such a level. I'd hate to see some brilliant scientist from say, China get passed up over someone more middling from Britain just because most people would say it's [I]obviously[/I] a more similar culture, but I don't find it completely and utterly abhorent so long as it's not being used as a crutch to just keep people indefinitely on hold because we don't want 'them' here.[/QUOTE] I did say that I would also include any applicable skills that we need. I would favor a Chinese scientists over an English construction worker, for example.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937834]No, I wouldn't have a pure waitlist. I would always favor those from similar cultures. I'm not very concerned with being fair to those trying to immigrate. I'm concerned with having immigration be the best possible thing for our country as it can be. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] I did say that I would also include any applicable skills that we need. I would favor a Chinese scientists over an English construction worker, for example.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that you would have it would be theoretically possible to [I]never[/I] be able to gain citizenship? Based only on ethnicity?

[QUOTE=froztshock;51937855]So you're saying that you would have it would be theoretically possible to [I]never[/I] be able to gain citizenship? Based only on ethnicity?[/QUOTE] If we had an ample supply of immigrants from other cultures? Yes. I see western culture as unique and extremely valuable (Note that I'm talking about ideas, not skin color or racial heritage. I couldn't give a single crap about those things.). It's not a coincidence that western culture has lead to the most thriving, equitable, and wealthy nations on the planet, even in countries that didn't originally embrace that culture. I think it's simply naive to think that people who've grown up in a totally different culture will be able to fully accept, or even want to accept, western culture. This is one of the reasons I think it's incorrect to compare the mass immigration of Irish people, for example, to the mass immigration of Syrian people. Irish people already held to a vast majority of our cultural norms and ideals. They didn't have to change much, if at all. This doesn't hold for Middle Eastern peoples. The only culture they know is extremely different than ours in a lot of vital ways.

[quote]I see western culture as unique and extremely valuable (Note that I'm talking about ideas, not skin color or racial heritage. I couldn't give a single crap about those things.). It's not a coincidence that western culture has lead to the most thriving, equitable, and wealthy nations on the planet, even in countries that didn't originally embrace that culture.[/quote] Without empirical evidence that "western culture" (and indeed, your definition of it) is the major driving factor of societal progress and innovation, that is total bung to base decisions off of. We don't have the metrics to define western culture as a independent uniform entity and driver of change, we don't have the methods to to verify your claim in any agreed upon or measurable way, and we have millenia of history providing a proponderance of evidence that culture is not only not the primary driver of prosperity or technology, but evidence that alienating immigrating groups is the perfect way to sow unrest and disparity into a society, regardless of culture. This kind of self righteous conjecture is what bullshit pseudoscience and demogaugary is based off of. [quote]I think it's simply naive to think that people who've grown up in a totally different culture will be able to fully accept, or even want to accept, western culture.[/quote] Yes and? Culture is a constantly evolving thing, and attempts in the past has shown just how badly attempting to lock culture in can get, ranging from being totally ineffective to a nasty mess. And that's skipping around the point that western culture as you define it hasn't been proven to be something worth preserving indefinately. Just because you don't accept and want to integrate with the culture doesn't make you a societal drag either. I fit in that catagory, don't cause my surroundings a drag, and find that they don't mind either, as it is with most people who don't fully integrate. Its when you attempt to force your own culture on another person, group, or society that you become a cock, regardless of what group, what numbers, and what culture. Be concerned about the eternally selfish rather than the eventual transformation of your culture.

[QUOTE=Aircraft;51937982]Without empirical evidence that "western culture" (and indeed, your definition of it) is the major driving factor of societal progress and innovation, that is total bung to base decisions off of. We don't have the metrics to define western culture as a independent uniform entity and driver of change, we don't have the methods to to verify your claim in any agreed upon or measurable way, and we have millenia of history providing a proponderance of evidence that culture is not only not the primary driver of prosperity or technology, but evidence that alienating immigrating groups is the perfect way to sow unrest and disparity into a society, regardless of culture. This kind of self righteous conjecture is what bullshit pseudoscience and demogaugary is based off of.[/QUOTE] We would have to agree to disagree. We see the world so differently that I don't see any possible point of commonality between us. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Aircraft;51937982]Just because you don't accept and want to integrate with the culture doesn't make you a societal drag either. I fit in that catagory, don't cause my surroundings a drag, and find that they don't mind either, as it is with most people who don't fully integrate. Its when you attempt to force your own culture on another person, group, or society that you become a cock, regardless of what group, what numbers, and what culture. Be concerned about the eternally selfish rather than the eventual transformation of your culture.[/QUOTE] You by yourself, sure. You and a huge number of people who agree with you, yes, you would all have an effect on the culture.

Someone oughta take the "guns, germs, and steel" pill the environment by far played the largest part in why the west grew to conquer large swaths of the world and developed the way it did

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51938058]Someone oughta take the "guns, germs, and steel" pill the environment by far played the largest part in why the west grew to conquer large swaths of the world and developed the way it did[/QUOTE] I don't buy it. The peoples of North America, for example, had incredible environmental factors and failed to develop in the same way. On the other side of the coin, you have places like South Korea that stand as a bright beacon among the nations that surround it. Even the middle east had its time of power and influence, but it still failed to develop like the west did. (And that's ignoring the strong influence of Greek and Roman culture that helped lead to the partial enlightenment in the middle east).

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51938058]Someone oughta take the "guns, germs, and steel" pill the environment by far played the largest part in why the west grew to conquer large swaths of the world and developed the way it did[/QUOTE] jared diamond wasnt a trained anthropologist and real ones consider him a hack who cherry picks heavily, don't use guns, germs, and steel as anything but baby's first anthropology book

[QUOTE=sgman91;51938077]I don't buy it. The peoples of North America, for example, had incredible environmental factors and failed to develop in the same way. On the other side of the coin, you have places like South Korea that stand as a bright beacon among the nations that surround it.[/QUOTE] So what gave their culture the edge? edit: Or rather, what gives ANY culture the edge? Is it complete chance that western culture developed the way it did? Or is this where your religious beliefs come into play?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51937992]We would have to agree to disagree. We see the world so differently that I don't see any possible point of commonality between us. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] You by yourself, sure. You and a huge number of people who agree with you, yes, you would all have an effect on the culture.[/QUOTE] Why do us acting differently be a societal drag then? Because the implication of change caused by differently acting groups is universal, regardless of ethnicity, culture, or background. At what line is this variation part of the cultural gradiant, and at what point is it a completely different culture? You're using a slippery slope to define exactly where your "desired culture" begins and ends. Even western society's own goalposts have shifted in the time its been discussed by scholars and the public alike, dramatically, and this is why the evidence you implicitly cite to limit immigration does not exist. We can agree to disagree when it comes to our own opinions. I'm free to pull up as much anecdotal evidence as I want for my own point of view, but thats not the reason I claim you are full of shit. If the very basis of your rational doesn't exist and hasn't been comfortably classified (because of the former goalposts divide and more), then pushing for policy based off of it is irresponsible. You might not be a policymaker, but your logic is cited by them when justifying and drafting their own rhetoric, ultimately filling your claim and solution to it with unrefined shit. We're free to disagree, but the onus is on you to justify your reasoning.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51938077]I don't buy it. The peoples of North America, for example, had incredible environmental factors and failed to develop in the same way. On the other side of the coin, you have places like South Korea that stand as a bright beacon among the nations that surround it.[/QUOTE] Ehh, I think you underestimate the impact that disease had on the colonization of the Americas. They were the [I]real[/I] genocide. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk[/media]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51938082]So what gave their culture the edge?[/QUOTE] The ideas of freedom being important, going all the way back to ancient Greece. The idea that all people were created as equals. The influence of Christianity and it's ideals. Etc. These ideas took time to develop, but their seeds can be seen way back in history. You read speeches from Thucydides and whole sections would fit right alongside a speech by a modern US president. It's actually amazing how much we hold in common. Of course there are some huge differences between us and them as well. I would never claim that there hasn't been development, but it hasn't been an arbitrary or random development. Many of the basic ideas led to greater revelations over time. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=froztshock;51938087]Ehh, I think you underestimate the impact that disease had on the colonization of the Americas. They were the [I]real[/I] genocide.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about far before colonization. While the people of Europe were writing philosophical masterpieces, the peoples of North America hadn't even embraced agriculture on the whole. Why? The whole "genocide" thing is nonsense as well. 90%+ of the Native Americans were killed unintentionally by disease. Yes, the colonists did some horrible things that shouldn't have happened, but the fate of the American Indians was not due to some European genocide.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51938078]jared diamond wasnt a trained anthropologist and real ones consider him a hack who cherry picks heavily, don't use guns, germs, and steel as anything but baby's first anthropology book[/QUOTE] I'm aware of the many flaws of the book (r/askhistorians has several good rundowns if anyone wants to know,) I shoulda mentioned them tho ty. Shame there hasn't really been an alternative produced after so long. Even from historians and anthropologists I still see it recommended as a "it's alright if you want to learn the gist of how this shit works"

[QUOTE=sgman91;51938096]The ideas of freedom being important, going all the way back to ancient Greece. The idea that all people were created as equals. The influence of Christianity. Etc. These ideas took time to develop, but their seeds can be seen way back in history. You read speeches from Thucydides and whole sections would fit right alongside a speech by a modern US president. It's actually amazing how much we hold in common. Of course there are some huge differences between us and them as well. I would never claim that there hasn't been development, but it hasn't been an arbitrary or random development. Many of the basic ideas led to greater revelations over time.[/QUOTE] I guess my question goes further back than that. Was it chance that these first few revelations/ideals developed in [what would later become] 'western culture', but not everywhere else? And is its perceived superiority, in your mind, a result of a positive feedback loop from those revelations and ideals? Mind you, I'm not trying to imply racism here

[QUOTE=sgman91;51938096]The ideas of freedom being important, going all the way back to ancient Greece. The idea that all people were created as equals. The influence of Christianity and it's ideals. Etc. These ideas took time to develop, but their seeds can be seen way back in history. You read speeches from Thucydides and whole sections would fit right alongside a speech by a modern US president. It's actually amazing how much we hold in common. Of course there are some huge differences between us and them as well. I would never claim that there hasn't been development, but it hasn't been an arbitrary or random development. Many of the basic ideas led to greater revelations over time. [editline]9th March 2017[/editline] I'm talking about far before colonization. While the people of Europe were writing philosophical masterpieces, the peoples of North America hadn't even embraced agriculture on the whole. Why? The whole "genocide" thing is nonsense as well. 90%+ of the Native Americans were killed unintentionally by disease. Yes, the colonists did some horrible things that shouldn't have happened, but the fate of the American Indians was not due to some European genocide.[/QUOTE] Oh I agree completely there's no way the Europeans could've understood proper quarantine procedures, when I said genocide I simply meant to refer to the thing that reduced the population the most. Though it's not the main point of the video, it also somewhat goes into the 'why' of agriculture. More easily-domesticated animals in Europe at the very least helped with the development of agriculture and large cities.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51938129]I guess my question goes further back than that. Was it chance that these first few revelations/ideals developed in [what would later become] 'western culture', but not everywhere else? And is its perceived superiority, in your mind, a result of a positive feedback loop from those revelations and ideals? Mind you, I'm not trying to imply racism here[/QUOTE] Yes, I would say that it was chance, at least at first. I don't think it's some genetic superiority of the people involved. There just happened to be a group of people in Greece who held these certain ideals that continued to grow until it encompassed much the western world. In it's most simple sense, I would say that western culture is a combination of Greek and Christian culture. It could easily have been "eastern culture" if it had developed in those areas.