Refugees disagreeing about ramadan burn their center down. - Polidicks

Send them back, if they burnt their entire camp down and ruined it for everyone just because they slept in late (at their own fault, no one elses) then imagine what else they might do.

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;50487723]You are wrong. Let me explain to you why you are wrong. Asylum seekers are members of a population. They are the population of people seeking asylum in whatever country they're seeking it in. As all populations are, they are subject to overarching generalizations and assumptions made about their personality and how they will act based on the noticeable actions of other individuals within their population. Why? Because throughout all of recorded human history, we have judged individuals based on their associations, including what populations they belong to, and we have associated attributes from high-profile individuals with their corresponding populations. We do this because it is an absolute survival imperative to be able to judge an individual instantaneously and accurately. Judging them based on their associations, including what population they belong to, is one of the most surefire and quickest way to determine how someone will act, because members of the same population tend to have the same upbringing, same morality, same thought process, etc. due to being a product of the same environment. So when refugees start shitting the bed and start breaking things and assaulting citizens of their prospective adoptive countries and burning down their own housing centers because of some fucking asinine dietary restriction, that reflects on the entire population of refugees. I don't give a shit if anyone takes issue with this phenomenon of the perception of shared attributes because it's xenophobic or racist or discriminatory in any sense of the word, because it is, and it is a discrimination deeply rooted in our survival instincts that only a moron would trade away. It's the same survival instinct that prevents you from putting your hand on a hot burner. You know that hurts, so you don't do that. But you don't just prevent your hand from touching a burner when it's on - you also tend to not touch a burner when it's perfectly safe and cool, because there's still that potential of it being hot. You don't really know until you touch the burner. [sp]If you think that's bullshit, tell me the last time you actually rested your entire hand on a burner, on purpose or just without thinking it. Probably not recently, even though they take up a lot of area in your kitchen. I know I never do it, so it might be anecdotal, but I highly doubt I'm a member of the minority on this one.[/sp] By virtue of their publicized history of violence and unrest, regardless of the proportion of the refugee population has been committing the publicized acts, refugees are now burners. That entire population of men, women, and children have now becomes burners. There is a chance that any government which lays its hands on them may get burned, or have its citizens' hands burn. The central goal of the government is to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable for a government to "clamp those borders shut like it's [their] asshole on a cold day." If I were in government, I would never risk the safety of my citizens for any reason.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature[/URL] it's irrelevant if generalization was an evolutionary advantage in the past, because that isn't an argument [I]now[/I] what you're saying is that the reaction to refugees is a caveman level response, now outdated which i suppose you're right about your argument about the burner is also completely wrong, because the minority of refugees are the one causing the problems, so you're not talking about a conditioned response (because in the vast majority of cases, you aren't burned), but an[I] irrational response [/I]based on xenophobia, something that may have been an evolutionary advantage when we were still tribal and without the notion of law and society, but now, it's utterly irrelevant

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;50487723]You are wrong. Let me explain to you why you are wrong. Asylum seekers are members of a population. They are the population of people seeking asylum in whatever country they're seeking it in. As all populations are, they are subject to overarching generalizations and assumptions made about their personality and how they will act based on the noticeable actions of other individuals within their population. Why? Because throughout all of recorded human history, we have judged individuals based on their associations, including what populations they belong to, and we have associated attributes from high-profile individuals with their corresponding populations. We do this because it is an absolute survival imperative to be able to judge an individual instantaneously and accurately. Judging them based on their associations, including what population they belong to, is one of the most surefire and quickest way to determine how someone will act, because members of the same population tend to have the same upbringing, same morality, same thought process, etc. due to being a product of the same environment. So when refugees start shitting the bed and start breaking things and assaulting citizens of their prospective adoptive countries and burning down their own housing centers because of some fucking asinine dietary restriction, that reflects on the entire population of refugees. I don't give a shit if anyone takes issue with this phenomenon of the perception of shared attributes because it's xenophobic or racist or discriminatory in any sense of the word, because it is, and it is a discrimination deeply rooted in our survival instincts that only a moron would trade away. It's the same survival instinct that prevents you from putting your hand on a hot burner. You know that hurts, so you don't do that. But you don't just prevent your hand from touching a burner when it's on - you also tend to not touch a burner when it's perfectly safe and cool, because there's still that potential of it being hot. You don't really know until you touch the burner. [sp]If you think that's bullshit, tell me the last time you actually rested your entire hand on a burner, on purpose or just without thinking it. Probably not recently, even though they take up a lot of area in your kitchen. I know I never do it, so it might be anecdotal, but I highly doubt I'm a member of the minority on this one.[/sp] By virtue of their publicized history of violence and unrest, regardless of the proportion of the refugee population has been committing the publicized acts, refugees are now burners. That entire population of men, women, and children have now becomes burners. There is a chance that any government which lays its hands on them may get burned, or have its citizens' hands burn. The central goal of the government is to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable for a government to "clamp those borders shut like it's [their] asshole on a cold day." If I were in government, I would never risk the safety of my citizens for any reason.[/QUOTE] While well written, I can't agree with this argument. Of course it is not false that generalization is a survival instinct. However, there are some limitations to that. You forgot to ask yourself some key questions when making these statements: 1) Are survival instincts really always right? 2) Is it possible to generalize too much? For 1): No, survival instincts are [b]not[/b] always right. They are only instincts after all, and not rational thought. Example: You meet a dog. The dog is friendly. Now according to you, you would generalize that all dogs are friendly. You meet an angry dog. Now you are dead. So much for your survival instinct. Why did the generalization not work here? You overgeneralized, which does not work, because not all dogs are the same, which brings me to the second question. 2) It is possible to generalize too much, which actually goes back to your survival instinct. It is true that generalization is helpful, e.g. for a poisonous mushroom. Since all mushrooms of the same type share the same indistinguishable features, you can be sure that other ones are also poisonous, similar to your burner example. However, this does not work with humans, because humans are quite different, and often do not share the same features. Here, overgeneralization does not help, because you try to infer that because of some individuals of a very large group (we are talking millions here), all people of the whole group act like that, which is statistically incorrect. You would need a way larger sample size to conclude that, and even then, with refugees it is quite difficult because there is not "the refugee". They come from different countries, have different morals, different religious views (even if they share the same religion, like Islam), and experienced different situations. This goes the other way too. Some of the refugees are doctors, for example. Now sometimes you see this weird argument made in thread about refugees like "So much for doctors or engineers" or similar. This is the same mistake of overgeneralization, just used in a different way. [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/13/refugee-doctors-health-scotland-asylum"]Some people of them are doctors[/URL], but that does not mean everyone is and obviously, there are also bad apples inbetween the refugees. That's why you should not generalize, because on one hand you will exclude people who are nice, and on the other hand you will include people who are not nice. Does that mean that overgeneralization is generally (there's a joke here somewhere) bad? No, there are other real world examples for working overgeneralization. For example, most gun owners always treat their gun like it is loaded, even if they know that they are not. They are absolutely overgeneralizing, but it is helpful to prevent careless mistakes. Again, this does not work with humans, as explained above.

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;50487723]You are wrong. Let me explain to you why you are wrong. Asylum seekers are members of a population. They are the population of people seeking asylum in whatever country they're seeking it in. As all populations are, they are subject to overarching generalizations and assumptions made about their personality and how they will act based on the noticeable actions of other individuals within their population. Why? Because throughout all of recorded human history, we have judged individuals based on their associations, including what populations they belong to, and we have associated attributes from high-profile individuals with their corresponding populations. We do this because it is an absolute survival imperative to be able to judge an individual instantaneously and accurately. Judging them based on their associations, including what population they belong to, is one of the most surefire and quickest way to determine how someone will act, because members of the same population tend to have the same upbringing, same morality, same thought process, etc. due to being a product of the same environment. So when refugees start shitting the bed and start breaking things and assaulting citizens of their prospective adoptive countries and burning down their own housing centers because of some fucking asinine dietary restriction, that reflects on the entire population of refugees. I don't give a shit if anyone takes issue with this phenomenon of the perception of shared attributes because it's xenophobic or racist or discriminatory in any sense of the word, because it is, and it is a discrimination deeply rooted in our survival instincts that only a moron would trade away. It's the same survival instinct that prevents you from putting your hand on a hot burner. You know that hurts, so you don't do that. But you don't just prevent your hand from touching a burner when it's on - you also tend to not touch a burner when it's perfectly safe and cool, because there's still that potential of it being hot. You don't really know until you touch the burner. [sp]If you think that's bullshit, tell me the last time you actually rested your entire hand on a burner, on purpose or just without thinking it. Probably not recently, even though they take up a lot of area in your kitchen. I know I never do it, so it might be anecdotal, but I highly doubt I'm a member of the minority on this one.[/sp] By virtue of their publicized history of violence and unrest, regardless of the proportion of the refugee population has been committing the publicized acts, refugees are now burners. That entire population of men, women, and children have now becomes burners. There is a chance that any government which lays its hands on them may get burned, or have its citizens' hands burn. The central goal of the government is to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable for a government to "clamp those borders shut like it's [their] asshole on a cold day." If I were in government, I would never risk the safety of my citizens for any reason.[/QUOTE] Except refugees are not any more criminal than the rest of the people, we even have hard facts and numbers now in Germany and your post is nothing but feelings, assumptions.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50489720]Except refugees are not any more criminal than the rest of the people, we even have hard facts and numbers now in Germany and your post is nothing but feelings, assumptions.[/QUOTE] Quote them then or your post is nothing more than imaginary.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50487125]You mean like Jordan? Which is fucking brimming with refugees because no other neighbouring countries are pulling their weight? Yes, we should really get the Saudis to do their part, but until they do the refugees do need to move elsewhere, as they have already saturated the neighbours that aren't total dickheads. Moving thousands of miles past a "safe zone" might be the only option in some cases unless you want to be lumped into an overcrowded asylum somewhere. Refuge isn't a case of "don't take them lmao", until you hit capacity you kinda just take whoever comes in unless you can prove they are dangerous or lying. Being picky is discriminatory practice for little reason other than presumptive fear. 99.999% of these guys aren't a threat. A super-minority of them being fucksticks shouldn't cause you to clamp those borders shut like it's your asshole on a cold day.[/QUOTE] except the majority of people advocating not letting the refugees in are not afraid of terrorism or them burning down churches, it is economically unsustainable

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50489858]Quote them then or your post is nothing more than imaginary.[/QUOTE] Sure thing [url]http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2016-06/bundeskriminalamt-statistik-straftaten-asylbewerber[/url] numbers by the federal crime agency: [url]http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Kurzmeldungen/lage-kriminalit%C3%A4t-kontextzuwanderung-1-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile[/url] [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Egevened;50489898]except the majority of people advocating not letting the refugees in are not afraid of terrorism or them burning down churches, it is economically unsustainable[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50489693][URL]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d.html#axzz4BAaToodW[/URL] please read and be surprised choice quote [editline]10th June 2016[/editline][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Egevened;50489898]except the majority of people advocating not letting the refugees in are not afraid of terrorism or them burning down churches, it is economically unsustainable[/QUOTE] It isn't economically unsustainable, what would be economically unsustainable is to mass deport them back to where they came from :v:

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50490003]It isn't economically unsustainable, what would be economically unsustainable is to mass deport them back to where they came from :v:[/QUOTE] Since when is sending them back per plane (a one-time payment) cheaper than paying for every single part of their lives for the next few decades?

[QUOTE=Jordax;50490042]Since when is sending them back per plane (a one-time payment) cheaper than paying for every single part of their lives for the next few decades?[/QUOTE] Is that all people or just those who fail their asylum application? Would you have to arrest them at the border or would you have some kind of police/military units "hunting down" through the country side? (whats a better word for this to make it more tasteful) If they fled or refused to be taken what measures would need to be taken? For those people who come across the med on boats, suppose one were to capsize or begin sinking - would you first have to rescue them to be sent back or do the alternative? All genuine questions btw I suppose at least your way you are creating a whole load more jobs for police, military, guard dog breeders, pilots and beach combers.

Since when is someone paying for every singl part of their lives for decades, they get a basic allowance of 224€ maximum per month for up to 4 years and after that they get the basic help that everyone without a job gets here in Germany. Are you also gnna calculate that it's cheaper to kick out jobless people who have low chances of getting a job?

[QUOTE=Killuah;50489973]Sure thing [url]http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2016-06/bundeskriminalamt-statistik-straftaten-asylbewerber[/url] numbers by the federal crime agency: [url]http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Kurzmeldungen/lage-kriminalit%C3%A4t-kontextzuwanderung-1-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile[/url] [editline]10th June 2016[/editline][/QUOTE] So suddenly it's supposed to have gone down by 18%? Yet a report from about 2015 has shown a huuuuge (year-by-year) increase in crimes done by non-Germans, with Syrians now representing about 14-15% of all crimes done by non-Germans (overtaking the Turks), our largest immigrant-group.. I'll post the proper stats when I'm at home later today or tomorrow, but the headline "immigrants arwn't any more criminal than native Germans" is so damn wrong it's almost funny.

[QUOTE=Firewarrior;50490163]So suddenly it's supposed to have gone down by 18%? Yet a report from about 2015 has shown a huuuuge (year-by-year) increase in crimes done by non-Germans, with Syrians now representing about 14-15% of all crimes done by non-Germans (overtaking the Turks), our largest immigrant-group.. I'll post the proper stats when I'm at home later today or tomorrow, but the headline "immigrants arwn't any more criminal than native Germans" is so damn wrong it's almost funny.[/QUOTE] These are the first official numbers about crime among refugees so I don't quite get where your ""Yet a report from about 2015 has shown a huuuuge (year-by-year) increase in crimes done by non-Germans" is coming from. Also you are missing the point that in relative terms refugees are not more criminal than non-refugees, of course the absolute numbers went up as the numbers of refugees went up. A 7 year old could tell you that much. And while you were busy talking about how some report showed an increase in absolute numbers, you even forgot how the newest report shows a decrease by 18% for 2016 in absolute numbers. Good job. [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [quote]but the headline "immigrants arwn't any more criminal than native Germans" is so damn wrong it's almost funny.[/quote] But the numbers show exactly that? Or did you not understand that this is of course meant in relative numbers?

[QUOTE=Killuah;50489973]Sure thing [url]http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2016-06/bundeskriminalamt-statistik-straftaten-asylbewerber[/url] numbers by the federal crime agency: [url]http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Kurzmeldungen/lage-kriminalit%C3%A4t-kontextzuwanderung-1-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile[/url] [editline]10th June 2016[/editline][/QUOTE] It's a bit more specific. They say Refugees are not more criminal than comparable German Citizen. So most Refugees may not be very wealthy or be as educated as others, so if you look at comparable Germans who are also poor and not very educated, you can see, that they are prone to cause the same criminal offenses as those refugees, which is pretty clear and logical. But if you look at the general numbers you can see: 1.270.000 Immigrants have caused 69.000 criminal offenses in one years quarter. Then you have 6.300.000 criminal offenses caused in general by german citizen 69000 x 4 / 1270000 = 276000 / 1270000 = 0,217 crimes per person 6300000 / 80000000 = 0,0787 crimes per person So in general, you can see that there is a great difference.

I don't think multiplying it by 4 is really fair since a third of the crimes are stuff like attempt at fradulently obtaining benefits and 28% are fabrication alone, something that non-refugee are of course less prone towards. And then the report clearly shows that crimes by immigrants have decreaed by 18% in first quarter of 2016. By just taking it by 4 you are negating that significant trend. I get your point though and I am curious why th ministry formulated it in this weird way as the report makes no comparison to the "general" numbers. More detailed statistics are also pretty interesting: 91% of these 28 are deception which can be as much as giving the wrong age or even a wrong medical condition. Then you have the split in different groups, the report says "Algerier, Marokkaner, Georgier, Serben und Tunesier" (Algeria, Morokko, Georgia,Serbia and Tunesia) are overproportioned within criminal immigrants so this is not even what makes up most of the refugees Then 50% of the violent crimes are immigrants vs immigrant. Same for thievery.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50490079]Is that all people or just those who fail their asylum application? Would you have to arrest them at the border or would you have some kind of police/military units "hunting down" through the country side? (whats a better word for this to make it more tasteful) If they fled or refused to be taken what measures would need to be taken? For those people who come across the med on boats, suppose one were to capsize or begin sinking - would you first have to rescue them to be sent back or do the alternative? All genuine questions btw I suppose at least your way you are creating a whole load more jobs for police, military, guard dog breeders, pilots and beach combers.[/QUOTE] there is really no good way to go about this, but the counterargument here is oh well whatever let them the fuck in

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;50487723]You are wrong. Let me explain to you why you are wrong. Asylum seekers are members of a population. They are the population of people seeking asylum in whatever country they're seeking it in. As all populations are, they are subject to overarching generalizations and assumptions made about their personality and how they will act based on the noticeable actions of other individuals within their population. Why? Because throughout all of recorded human history, we have judged individuals based on their associations, including what populations they belong to, and we have associated attributes from high-profile individuals with their corresponding populations. We do this because it is an absolute survival imperative to be able to judge an individual instantaneously and accurately. Judging them based on their associations, including what population they belong to, is one of the most surefire and quickest way to determine how someone will act, because members of the same population tend to have the same upbringing, same morality, same thought process, etc. due to being a product of the same environment. So when refugees start shitting the bed and start breaking things and assaulting citizens of their prospective adoptive countries and burning down their own housing centers because of some fucking asinine dietary restriction, that reflects on the entire population of refugees. I don't give a shit if anyone takes issue with this phenomenon of the perception of shared attributes because it's xenophobic or racist or discriminatory in any sense of the word, because it is, and it is a discrimination deeply rooted in our survival instincts that only a moron would trade away. It's the same survival instinct that prevents you from putting your hand on a hot burner. You know that hurts, so you don't do that. But you don't just prevent your hand from touching a burner when it's on - you also tend to not touch a burner when it's perfectly safe and cool, because there's still that potential of it being hot. You don't really know until you touch the burner. [sp]If you think that's bullshit, tell me the last time you actually rested your entire hand on a burner, on purpose or just without thinking it. Probably not recently, even though they take up a lot of area in your kitchen. I know I never do it, so it might be anecdotal, but I highly doubt I'm a member of the minority on this one.[/sp] By virtue of their publicized history of violence and unrest, regardless of the proportion of the refugee population has been committing the publicized acts, refugees are now burners. That entire population of men, women, and children have now becomes burners. There is a chance that any government which lays its hands on them may get burned, or have its citizens' hands burn. The central goal of the government is to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable for a government to "clamp those borders shut like it's [their] asshole on a cold day." If I were in government, I would never risk the safety of my citizens for any reason.[/QUOTE] What an awesome way to defend racism lol Dude it's part of my nature to hate blacks and only morons wouldn't You got "guilty by association", "it's part of our nature" and "I don't give a shit if it's racist" in the same post and yet got 15 stars, I'm honestly amazed

[QUOTE=Killuah;50490084]Since when is someone paying for every singl part of their lives for decades, they get a basic allowance of 224€ maximum per month for up to 4 years and after that they get the basic help that everyone without a job gets here in Germany. Are you also gnna calculate that it's cheaper to kick out jobless people who have low chances of getting a job?[/QUOTE] and in order to pay those expenses, you pay increased taxes, hence its economically unsustainable maybe not for germany, maybe not for france, but easy to take a liberal stance when you are surrounded by the cozy pillows of the bordering eu countries [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] hell id welcome muslim people with open arms if they actually brought economy with them but as it stands yeah let nations that are well-off deal with them and stop scrutinizing people in places that are worse off for not liking the influx of refugees, any race or religion

[QUOTE=Jordax;50490042]Since when is sending them back per plane (a one-time payment) cheaper than paying for every single part of their lives for the next few decades?[/QUOTE] Decades? I'm just saying it takes more than a one-way plane ticket to send them home. [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Egevened;50490392]there is really no good way to go about this, but the counterargument here is oh well whatever let them the fuck in[/QUOTE] Nah the counter argument is let's figure how how to effectively handle this influx of refugees.

[QUOTE=Egevened;50490392]there is really no good way to go about this, but the counterargument here is oh well whatever let them the fuck in[/QUOTE] No they are not? [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Egevened;50490400]and in order to pay those expenses, you pay increased taxes, hence its economically unsustainable [/quote] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50489693][URL]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d.html#axzz4BAaToodW[/URL] [B]please read[/B] and be surprised choice quote [editline]10th June 2016[/editline][/QUOTE] [quote] maybe not for germany, maybe not for france, but easy to take a liberal stance when you are surrounded by the cozy pillows of the bordering eu countries [/QUOTE] Funnily enough also the countries that contribute the most to the EU budget that in big big big parts goes to those cozy pillows and by the way are also taking the most Refugees.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50489669][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature[/URL] it's irrelevant if generalization was an evolutionary advantage in the past, because that isn't an argument [I]now[/I] what you're saying is that the reaction to refugees is a caveman level response, now outdated which i suppose you're right about your argument about the burner is also completely wrong, because the minority of refugees are the one causing the problems, so you're not talking about a conditioned response (because in the vast majority of cases, you aren't burned), but an[I] irrational response [/I]based on xenophobia, something that may have been an evolutionary advantage when we were still tribal and without the notion of law and society, but now, it's utterly irrelevant[/QUOTE] If you think humans have evolved past a tribal mentality, you are wrong. We're the same creatures we are today as we were then. We may have advanced culturally, but fundamentally things have not changed. Look at the groupthink fanaticism evoked by sports teams, religion, nationalism. We're tribal apes and to pretend otherwise shows you're failing to see the wood for the trees. You create a false dichotomy between tribalism and law and order when they are actually the same thing but at different stages of maturity. You may be an evolved advanced citizen of Earth, but the rest of the world has allegiance to their tribe. Why do you not?

[QUOTE=Egevened;50490392]there is really no good way to go about this, but the counterargument here is oh well whatever let them the fuck in[/QUOTE] Nope I will present it though. Regardless of your stance of whether they should, refugees/migrants are coming to europe. Unless you can answer the questions in that other post + a few others then you can't really stop them. So instead of putting half arsed effort into stopping them or worse dividing ourselves, we should seek to limit the effect of migrants. Economically by spreading them across several countries, make sure all EU countries carry their weight for the good of the whole. Then limit the effect demographically by making sure they are spread out within countries and not all concentrated in camps or slums. We should also seek to educate them with the basics to fit into our society and seek to get them working. I don't really see a viable, sustainable alternative. Unless you an answer those questions in the other post but thats just not a path I think we should be going down - that might be a point of disagreement/false assumption I'm making.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;50490464]If you think humans have evolved past a tribal mentality, you are wrong. We're the same creatures we are today as we were then. We may have advanced culturally, but fundamentally things have not changed. Look at the groupthink fanaticism evoked by sports teams, religion, nationalism. We're tribal apes and to pretend otherwise shows you're failing to see the wood for the trees. You create a false dichotomy between tribalism and law and order when they are actually the same thing but at different stages of maturity. You may be an evolved advanced citizen of Earth, but the rest of the world has allegiance to their tribe. Why do you not?[/QUOTE] You know that you are going into litrally Nazi argumentation here?

[QUOTE=Killuah;50490476]You know that you are going into litrally Nazi argumentation here?[/QUOTE] Don't care, it's my opinion. I don't have to be afraid of speaking my mind.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50490469]Nope I will present it though. Regardless of your stance of whether they should, refugees/migrants are coming to europe. Unless you can answer the questions in that other post + a few others then you can't really stop them. So instead of putting half arsed effort into stopping them or worse dividing ourselves, we should seek to limit the effect of migrants. Economically by spreading them across several countries, make sure all EU countries carry their weight for the good of the whole. Then limit the effect demographically by making sure they are spread out within countries and not all concentrated in camps or slums. We should also seek to educate them with the basics to fit into our society and seek to get them working. I don't really see a viable, sustainable alternative. Unless you an answer those questions in the other post but thats just not a path I think we should be going down - that might be a point of disagreement/false assumption I'm making.[/QUOTE] Best argument I think. We really can't do anything to stop them unless we're ready to give up on human rights and violate them. There are plenty of ways and places where we could disperse them, both reducing chances of bad stuff happening and increasing the possibility of integration. Worst case we can even seize some of the vacant million dollar homes since no one's using them anyway. It sure as hell beats formations of "migrant regions", look at US, we don't want hoods in EU. It will do no good. [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=th0rianite;50490481]Don't care, it's my opinion. I don't have to be afraid of speaking my mind.[/QUOTE]Maybe not afraid, but you should at least be worried about your willful ignorance and hate.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50490492]Maybe not afraid, but you should at least be worried about your willful ignorance and hate.[/QUOTE] Not hating on anyone in particular, tribalism exists today. As I see it it's a fact. Sorry if that offends you.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;50490464]If you think humans have evolved past a tribal mentality, you are wrong. We're the same creatures we are today as we were then. We may have advanced culturally, but fundamentally things have not changed. Look at the groupthink fanaticism evoked by sports teams, religion, nationalism. We're tribal apes and to pretend otherwise shows you're failing to see the wood for the trees. You create a false dichotomy between tribalism and law and order when they are actually the same thing but at different stages of maturity. You may be an evolved advanced citizen of Earth, but the rest of the world has allegiance to their tribe. Why do you not?[/QUOTE] did you miss the part of my post where i said that it being an evolutionary advantage in the past isn't a reason that it's acceptable now, much like a lot of shit that [I]used[/I] to be done by humanity in the past is not acceptable now? fucking hell you basically spelled it out in your post, "different stages of maturity" sure, and generalisation of people was something that was morally justifiable when you had to worry about the guy in the next field clubbing you to death unsurprisingly we've gotten past the point of justifying things by saying "but it's only nature that i think this black guy is worse than me"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50490505]did you miss the part of my post where i said that it being an evolutionary advantage in the past isn't a reason that it's acceptable now, much like a lot of shit that [I]used[/I] to be done by humanity in the past is not acceptable now? fucking hell you basically spelled it out in your post, "different stages of maturity" sure, and generalisation was something that was morally justifiable when you had to worry about the guy in the next field clubbing you to death unsurprisingly we've gotten past the point of justifying things by saying "but it's only nature that i think this black guy is worse than me"[/QUOTE] My argument was not that it is acceptable, if you reread what I said. Simply that it is the case.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;50490510]My argument was not that it is acceptable, if you reread what I said. Simply that it is the case.[/QUOTE] that's a total non-argument then, as the discussion was concerning whether or not it being natural made it permissible "here is a chance that any government which lays its hands on them may get burned, or have its citizens' hands burn. The central goal of the government is to protect its citizens. Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable for a government to "clamp those borders shut like it's [their] asshole on a cold day." "it's in our nature to stereotype and generalise" was being used as an excuse for xenophobic government policy

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50490517]that's a total non-argument then, as the discussion was concerning whether or not it being natural made it permissible[/QUOTE] My argument is that it's irrelevant whether or not it is permissible, as it is inevitable as shown time and time again throughout history. Why fight the tide? Just because you don't see yourself as belonging to your country or team or religion or tribe, others do, and you're in a weaker position without that group backing you up because you're busy pretending they don't exist or living under an assumption that members of foreign tribes are as welcome to your land as you. You're not welcome in their lands.