Refugees are good!

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

"It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability."

 

pmp10 crushed this evil satanic nonsense with ease. What a weak weak weak argument for illegal immigration.

You're right, it should be made legal, I agree.

 

Newsflash... there is such a thing as a LEGAL immigration. You are advocating for inventing a wheel here.

 

What I'm advocating is open borders. Totally open. For anyone.

 

That's insane, we'd be getting 30+ million people per year that way.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

"It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability."

 

pmp10 crushed this evil satanic nonsense with ease. What a weak weak weak argument for illegal immigration.

You're right, it should be made legal, I agree.

Newsflash... there is such a thing as a LEGAL immigration. You are advocating for inventing a wheel here.

What I'm advocating is open borders. Totally open. For anyone.

That's insane, we'd be getting 30+ million people per year that way.

I highly doubt that the population of entire countries will move into yours every year. And even if, why is that bad? Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[redneckdevil]

Is Merkel up for reelection soon?

[Gorth]

 

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

 

It is rooted very deeply in the history and culture of the country. The 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This isn't something that is buried in the Constitution, it comes directly after the guarantee of freedom. It is a major ideal that the US was founded on, and it continues to be an important part of the lives of many Americans.  

 

edit: the personal protection argument is weak, btw. The odds of you being involved in a situation where you need a gun for protection do not significantly outweigh the odds of you accidentally getting shot. Of course, this would be easier to recognize if the NRA didn't do everything in its power to stop actual research into gun violence.

 

I wonder how many American gun owners are actually members of said 'regulated militias' that was the reason people should carry arms. Still afraid that British troops are going to invade???

[Wrath of Dagon]

More afraid of Obola's thugs.

[Barothmuk]

I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Worth quoting since you see yourself as a pupil of old Groucho

 

 

 

[Gorgon]

 

My thesis: if you live in a stable, well functioning country, increased gun ownership will lead to more shootings

Tell that to Switzerland which have forth highest gun ownership and one of the lowest gun violence. Cyprus, Sweden, Norway etc. There isn't a clear cut more guns -> more gun violence.

 

Your theory doesn't hold up. Which is not a surprise in this topic none of your claims hold up.

 

Funny you should mention it. Stockholm, Malmo, it's downtown Bagdad. I put a Breibart link in just for you. Just the other day a guy was gunned down at a bus stop.

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20151102/stockholm-worst-nordic-city-for-gun-crime

 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/02/gun-crime-just-one-swedish-city-higher-nordic-nations-combined/

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/753697/Malmo-shooting-Teenager-killed-Swedish-no-go-zone

 

But that's just gang violence, surely everything will be fine once every law biding citizen has a gun too.

[213374U]

Is Merkel up for reelection soon?

 

With no term limits, politicians are always up for reelection "soon".

 

But yeah, she is. Legislative elections in ten months.

[Gorgon]

No, it's an ancillary factor. You kinda need guns + violence in order to have gun violence. 

[majestic]

I wonder how many American gun owners are actually members of said 'regulated militias' that was the reason people should carry arms. Still afraid that British troops are going to invade???

 

Always found it funny that people actually believe that having a gun would give them a fighting chance in case the government comes for them. It's not the 18th century any more.

[Ben No.3]

 

I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Worth quoting since you see yourself as a pupil of old Groucho

 

 

Don't be short sighted... Marx had some great insights, but he also was very limited because he always tried to justify the claims he made in the communist manifesto, including of course violence. Overall, this mindset let to him also say quite a bunch of crap. Of course, his sociological contributions are still amongst the most important and highly respected, heavily influencing even non Marxist literature. Every sociologist, marxist or not, will tell you that say his (Marx) observations on for example alienation are still very important and relevant. But then again he also said such crap as violent revolution or anarchy. Edited January 15, 2017 by Ben No.3

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

 

While most sane people would find the idea that refugees inherently "lower meaning and purpose of human development" quite repugnant, but hey, who am I to judge?

[majestic]

Wut? That's not a matter of faith. That infrastructure is a good long term investment and that the private sector builds things cheaper and better than the public sector are both very grounded in reality.

 

Oh, I agree that investing in infrastructure is worthwhile in the long term. It's the rest of the post (government spending is bad, private infrastructure is great) that I don't agree with. We also weren't really talking about building things, right, just financing things. It's a bit of a difference there.

[213374U]

 

I wonder how many American gun owners are actually members of said 'regulated militias' that was the reason people should carry arms. Still afraid that British troops are going to invade???

 

Always found it funny that people actually believe that having a gun would give them a fighting chance in case the government comes for them. It's not the 18th century any more.

 

 

"You'll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead fingers" sounds way more glamorous than something like "you'll never take my ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder while I draw breath" though.

[Meshugger]

 

I wonder how many American gun owners are actually members of said 'regulated militias' that was the reason people should carry arms. Still afraid that British troops are going to invade???

 

Always found it funny that people actually believe that having a gun would give them a fighting chance in case the government comes for them. It's not the 18th century any more.

 

 

True, people need to buy more assault rifles, kevlar suits, tanks and rocket launchers.  

[Meshugger]

 

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

 

While most sane people would find the idea that refugees inherently "lower meaning and purpose of human development" quite repugnant, but hey, who am I to judge?

 

 

Not judging is the first step on getting more knowledge and understanding, you're on the right track.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

I agree, viewing humans as a mere mean of production is degrading, dehumanising and wrong. But if the refugees boost the economy, that deserves to be mentioned.

First you agree with me and then you re-enforce your earlier point which directly contradicts what you agreed upon. You're drunk, go back to bed.

 

Thanks for the laugh though.

Look, morality and what is right or wrong is completely arbitrary, and wether taking in refugees is morally right everyone will tell you something different. I think it is right. Other don't. Some say to an extent. And so on.

 

But the economy offers us an objective indication of how the refugees affect us. It's useful in that sense.

 

 

But you use measurement of economic activity as a base of moral justification, no?

Edited January 15, 2017 by Meshugger

[redneckdevil]

I always thought the main reasons we had the second amendment because of the first admendment and to overthrow our govt....but mainly if u give people the freedom to say wtf they want, they gonna need some protection lol.

[Ben No.3]

 

No, it's an ancillary factor. You kinda need guns + violence in order to have gun violence.

Sure. But are you saying that every time a gun enters a private hand it results in violence? We are all apes to you that starts shooting each other the second we have a gun? Is that what you say?

Essentially yes. If you give people weapons, they will use them.

[Barothmuk]

Don't be short sighted...

How am I being short sighted?

Marx had some great insights, but he also was very limited because he always tried to justify the claims he made in the communist manifesto,

You speak as if the Communist Manifesto represents the foundation of Marx's writings. Although an important historical document it is, in comparison to the rest of Marx's body of work, a footnote. It was quite literally little more than a political pamphlet which, although alluding to the greater project of a stateless, classless society, was primarily concerned with the immediate objectives of the mid nineteenth century working class (better working conditions, children's education etc).

 

Marx himself considered much of its content outdated decades later.

[Ben No.3]

 

Don't be short sighted...

How am I being short sighted?

Marx had some great insights, but he also was very limited because he always tried to justify the claims he made in the communist manifesto,

You speak as if the Communist Manifesto represents the foundation of Marx's writings. Although an important historical document it is, in comparison to the rest of Marx's body of work, a footnote. It was quite literally little more than a political pamphlet which, although alluding to the greater project of a stateless, classless society, was primarily concerned with the immediate objectives of the mid nineteenth century working class (better working conditions, children's education etc).

 

Marx himself considered much of its content outdated decades later.

Marx' entire work is essentially a scientific justification of the claims he made earlier in his lie (EDIT: I meant "life", but I find this typo so amusing I'll leave it ), represented best in the manifesto. And while he certainly is outdated in some ways, he remains very relevant... Adam Smith is outdated as well, yet his works remain highly influential. Marx is one of the fathers of sociology, and his observations remain highly valued among sociologists. Some things, for example the effect of alienation, are more or less undisputed, and remain observable in today's world. Edited January 15, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Barothmuk]

Marx' entire work is essentially a scientific justification of the claims he made earlier in his life, represented best in the manifesto.

And this is demonstrably false as shown by my previous point on the actual content of the Manifesto and Marx's reflections on it.

 

It's bizarre you are so pressed to present the later Marx as being nothing more than a desperate effort to justify the early Marx. As if its unthinkable he'd have the audacity to actually believe the things he wrote.

[Ben No.3]

 

Marx' entire work is essentially a scientific justification of the claims he made earlier in his life, represented best in the manifesto.

And this is demonstrably false as shown by my previous point on the actual content of the Manifesto and Marx's reflections on it.

 

It's bizarre you are so pressed to present the later Marx as being nothing more than a desperate effort to justify the early Marx. As if its unthinkable he'd have the audacity to actually believe the things he wrote.

He did believe what he wrote, and he sought to prove it in front of the scientific community, and he did so in form of the capital. Scrap "justify", replace it with "prove". In 1848, Marx wrote under great political pressure, which lead him to make hasty announcements from which it was difficult to escape. This lead him to base his entire work not of data but of these early ideas. This poses a few limitations, for example he totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increased productivity. He also advocated for a society without private property, without ever refining how it should be organised politically and economically. Now, those limitations aside, he still offers very valuable insight. But those limitations are there, and they should be recognised.

[Barothmuk]

In 1848, Marx wrote under great political pressure, which lead him to make hasty announcements from which it was difficult to escape.

Again, arrogance. The implication that the only way Marx could have come to his "initial" conclusions is due to political pressure and making "hasty announcements" rather than him being part of a political movement that, shock, exists outside the spectrum of liberalism.

 

He also advocated for a society without private property, without ever refining how it should be organised politically and economically.

Well that's not true.

 

The communists stated their goal: the abolition of private property, classes and the state. So Marx provided a means to do so: have the working class capture the state and seize the means of production so they are held in common. Which he of course expanded on and refined with the continued developments of the labour movement (e.g. his response to the failure of the Paris Commune).

 

If you're complaining that he didn't outline the exact minutiae of how a communist society would function you obviously haven't understood Marx. Not because he actually did but because to do so would be regarded as utopian.

 

It's all well and good to draft how your perfect society would function but without providing a concrete political plan on how you intend to achieve this its ultimately meaningless especially when your own facticity limits your perspective to the here and now.

 

Marx recognized this, i.e. rather than being a prophet outlining a perfect utopia he was instead a member of a larger political movement  - therefore the focus of his work was on analyzing how capitalism functions and what tactics the working class should use in response.

 

For what it is worth I have little interest in defending the finer points of Marxism on an internet forum. I just find your constant attempts to turn Marx into a liberal annoying.

[Ben No.3]

I think you completely misunderstand me. I'm not a liberal, I consider myself a socialist. I'm not "trying to turn Marx into a liberal". I'm arguing purely from a historical view here. Why he wrote it doesn't change what he wrote. It is irrelevant for the theory. It is interesting purely from a biographical standpoint.

 

And obviously outlining a communist society outside of abolishing private property would be utopian, but interesting nether the less and, in retrospective, perhaps also quite useful.