That's pretty humerus.Good thing I don't have any more BONES to pick with you, eh Dunsparce?
Don't spoil the geno run, you raskull.on days like this,
kids like you
s h o u l d b e b u r n i n g i n h e l l.
That's pretty humerus.Good thing I don't have any more BONES to pick with you, eh Dunsparce?
Don't spoil the geno run, you raskull.on days like this,
kids like you
s h o u l d b e b u r n i n g i n h e l l.
Well, I wouldn't have been if you hadn't said that. If anyone has a bad time cause of this now, it's your fault.Don't spoil the geno run, you raskull.
France did, but the Germans just drove around.Shoulda built a wall.
What, and it wouldn't have happened if they didn't? Do you honestly believe that?
I think legitimate refugees are not responsible, but when you allow unchecked immigration from a war zone, without any checks in place, it is entirely unavoidable that some of the bad guys will come too.Like others have said, the refugees didn't do this. They're running from the same people that committed this atrocity.
But I stand by the point I made earlier that I'd rather let a minuscule amount of terrorists in than turn away millions of innocent people. I also don't know how well this study discriminates between forms of terrorism. For example, terroristic acts committed against the refugees but not the host country's population should be counted differently, yet I don't recall that study saying it counted those differently.*snip*
I looked up this study and it also showed that humanitarian aid from the UNHCR actually reduces this increase in terrorism, which incidentally refuted the other point being made against me of "humanitarian aid organizations don't actually help." Study here if anyone is actually interested. There is still a net increase of terrorism according to the study, but increasing humanitarian aid would further reduce this net increase.
*snip*
Any argument you have here is gonna boil down to whether or not a government should support its own people above others. And while I am pretty much evil, I'll never vote for anyone that'll sell me out to help some other bumfuck country. Its all about the big D (dunsparce).But I stand by the point I made earlier that I'd rather let a minuscule amount of terrorists in than turn away millions of innocent people.
The main problem there is that it's not, y'know, a one-to-one correspondence or anything. If France has twenty thousand refugees, and those refugees "caused" about a hundred and fifty deaths, that's more than a hundred refugees taken out of some hellhole of fire and sand for every French death. If your checks-and-balances come up that much in favor of the refugees and your reaction is still "Fuck 'em", you're either pretty shitty at math or kind of a racist.Any argument you have here is gonna boil down to whether or not a government should support its own people above others. And while I am pretty much evil, I'll never vote for anyone that'll sell me out to help some other bumfuck country.
As I noted above, the numbers behind the situation seem to indicate that it's pretty well worth it unless you inflate the value of [insert nationality here] lives to some arbitrarily large degree for entirely emotional reasons.I think legitimate refugees are not responsible, but when you allow unchecked immigration from a war zone, without any checks in place, it is entirely unavoidable that some of the bad guys will come too.
But it is a quantifiable thing. When you talk about favoring lives of people in your country over lives of people from other countries, you have to answer the question "well how many foreign lives outweigh one 'native' life?" Would you condemn 1,000 people from Syria to die if it would save 1 person from your country? Maybe you don't know, but do you know if there is a number of Syrians that is too many to condemn to save that single person? You probably think there is a number, but what is it? You aren't meant to answer that question precisely; the exact numbers aren't important, but they are important for illustrating that there must be a line.Human worth isn't a quantifiable number and it kinda scares me that you think it is.
It's not about the numbers to me, ya dig? I am biologically compelled to favor my own people over others. I don't think that's arbitrary.
Human worth is entirely quantifiable - just like everything else, so long as you put enough thought into it. As FD noted, you're literally quantifying the worth of one group of humans against another group of humans by making your decision on this. You've got a lot more to be worried about by your own unconscious valuing of human life than you do about my actively doing so.Tirin, I've gotta tell you something. You're a weird motherfucker.
First off, when ever you quote only part of something I said, my response always winds up being whatever I said after the part you quoted.
Second of all, you're the only person I've ever met who seems to be fundamentally Utilitarian. Human worth isn't a quantifiable number and it kinda scares me that you think it is.
If your best reason is "I am because my biology says so", that's pretty arbitrary. It's also a goddamn lie, since evidently other people disagree with you and thus don't feel any similar biological compulsion.It's not about the numbers to me, ya dig? I am biologically compelled to favor my own people over others. I don't think that's arbitrary.
If "Syrian" is an ethnicity (it is), and you're comfortable with tens or hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees dying versus the risk of a few hundred American lives, I'm pretty comfortable with calling you a racist 'cause somehow I doubt you'd be too worried if it was a bunch of French or German refugees.Also, I'm not racist because "refugee" isn't a race...
I figure that being a politician is no different from any other job. We pay them to keep the peaces and wot not. Their first and last duty is to US. I don't think of them as special or anything, I think of paying taxes as a transaction, and i'd better be happy with the service. So it's not really the in government's right to decide to help out other peoples.I'm with the "save more people" side of this. Just because someone lives in the same country doesn't mean I favour them over another human. I haven't met over 99.99% of people in my country and 99.99% of refugees. I would want to try and save people even if it meant risking the lives of a smaller number of people.
You're right. Those kinds of thought experiments are sorta intended to mess with a person's moral compass, and they're the reason some have turned to Utilitarianism.But it is a quantifiable thing. When you talk about favoring lives of people in your country over lives of people from other countries, you have to answer the question "well how many foreign lives outweigh one 'native' life?" Would you condemn 1,000 people from Syria to die if it would save 1 person from your country? Maybe you don't know, but do you know if there is a number of Syrians that is too many to condemn to save that single person? You probably think there is a number, but what is it? You aren't meant to answer that question precisely; the exact numbers aren't important, but they are important for illustrating that there must be a line.
I guess I have a really tribalistic morality. I come first, my people come second and the rest of the world comes third. I kinda assume that everyone thinks that way, but I'm starting to realize that's not the case.
Soooo... when you say "your people," what are you referring to? Other individuals who happened to be born in the same section of the map as you? Because there's nothing genetically/biologically distinct about being "American." There is some evidence showing that people are biologically predisposed to favor other people of their own ethnicity, true, and especially people of their own family, but Americans don't have anything to do with that because you're an entire nation of assorted refugees. Odds are, you'd need one of the biggest kinds of Crayola crayon packs just to get enough color variety to distinctly mark every part of the world map that "your people," here referring to you specifically, can be traced back to. As for biological imperative to sympathize with other people born within the same national borders as you were, that clearly and demonstrably isn't something that naturally exists.It's not about the numbers to me, ya dig? I am biologically compelled to favor my own people over others. I don't think that's arbitrary.
I'm confused. Do people really believe that immigration anywhere is actually letting refugees in without any sort of screening process at all?All things considered I'd probably let 'em in, but they'd have to go through some kinda screening process first. I think that pays the refugees some basic human dignity and is also fair my the people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-opens-its-gates-berlin-says-all-syrian-asylum-seekers-are-welcome-to-remain-as-britain-is-10470062.htmlI'm confused. Do people really believe that immigration anywhere is actually letting refugees in without any sort of screening process at all?