Syrian fakefugee injures 31 in Essen

[Bomb#20]

Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Nobody told me this. It's a direct inference from the principle that you ought to be nice to other people, a principle which I hold to be axiomatic.

Does that include being nice to Germans?

Germany is spending fifty billion euros a year on so-called refugees. Supposing for the sake of discussion that half of those are legitimate refugees and half are economic migrants, does pretending economic migrants are legitimate refugees in order to coerce people into paying twenty-five billion euros they never signed up for count as being nice to them?

Of course, Germany doesn't have to be nice. But she ought to be. We have all seen what the workd looks like when she isn't, and few of us want to see that again.

Hmm, yes, there's no middle ground between allowing yourself to be exploited and invading all your neighbors. Or were you explaining why your axiom comes with an "except Germans" secret protocol?

And this is a fairly limited amount of nice. Germany can easily afford it.

Any reason in particular to think a poor Syrian pretending to be a legitimate refugee "deserves help" more than an even poorer Burmese who told the Germans no lies and who'd leap at a chance to move to Germany? If Germany treated foreigners according to what they deserve, it would not be "a fairly limited amount of nice".

 

[laughing dog]

Through the democratic process, the German people collectively volunteered to charitably come to the aid of legitimate refugees

Well, kinda.

A tiny number of civil servants long ago were involved in a gabfest with other nations' civil services,...so they came up with this plan .... So the elected representatives, without consulting the electorate, signed. Forever comitting the country to the deal.

So yes, but actually, no.

Democracy plays very little part in politics in most countries; ...

So "volunteered" is rather a strong word. "Failed to violently object to some obscure negotiations far away" is more accurate.

I.e., the German people collectively volunteered to delegate that sort of decision to those particular elected representatives. That's what "Through the democratic process" means, in every country that doesn't make social choices by sending slaves through the marketplace carrying wet-paint ropes to herd the citizens into the public assembly amphitheater.

Still, regardless of who made the decision, or how representative they were of the German people, the motivation for deciding to help refugees was that the decision makers prefered to be seen as kind rather than callous; And the motivation for excluding economic migrants from the kind vs callous consideration was that economic migration was not at the time an important nor an urgent issue.

No doubt. And since that decision had jack squat to do with which migrants were how deserving, and since the current German taxpayers are bearing the cost of their long-ago-predecessors' representatives' preference not because they give a damn whether Konrad Adenauer is seen as kind but because that's the deal they woke up to find their country forever committed to, and not some alternative-history deal to take in all deserving migrants, your "Apparently, if someone might shoot or jail you, you deserve help, but if someone plans to starve you or drive you into grinding poverty, tough luck." slur, against the people who distinguish between economic migrants and legitimate refugees, was a misrepresentation of them.

Not any less or more of a misrepresentation of your interpretation of the views of the German population at large.

 

[bilby]

Does that include being nice to Germans?

Yes. As Tom Lehrer observed:

Once all the Germans were warlike, and mean
But that couldn't happen again,
We taught them a lesson, in nineteen eighteen,
And they've hardly bothered us since then...

 

[Bomb#20]

I had to read that a couple times...

Am I reading this right? When you put it the other way, it sounds pettier that we appreciate.

Sorry, I can't parse that.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, your application of Kantian ethics to Germany appears to conflict with bilby’s application of the categorical imperative, along with the democratic volunteering paradigm make muddle your claims in what’s left of my mind. But, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.

bilby does not appear to have made any application of the categorical imperative. If he actually was, my application of it appears to conflict with bilby's because he applied it incorrectly.

Not any less or more of a misrepresentation of your interpretation of the views of the German population at large.

I lost you. What "interpretation of the views of the German population at large" are you talking about?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Nobody told me this. It's a direct inference from the principle that you ought to be nice to other people, a principle which I hold to be axiomatic.

Does that include being nice to Germans?

Just the lower-cased ones.

Germany is spending fifty billion euros a year on so-called refugees.

Anyone want to remind me when Syria became nice? Wasn't there a very bloody civil war recently? I raise the civil war because ya mention Burma, currently going by Myanmar because the military junta running it likes it better. Polled well among the despots.

Also, how many from the nation formerly known as Burma are applying in Germany?

Of course, Germany doesn't have to be nice. But she ought to be. We have all seen what the workd looks like when she isn't, and few of us want to see that again.

Hmm, yes, there's no middle ground between allowing yourself to be exploited and invading all your neighbors. Or were you explaining why your axiom comes with an "except Germans" secret protocol?

And this is a fairly limited amount of nice. Germany can easily afford it.

Any reason in particular to think a poor Syrian pretending to be a legitimate refugee "deserves help" more than an even poorer Burmese who told the Germans no lies and who'd leap at a chance to move to Germany? If Germany treated foreigners according to what they deserve, it would not be "a fairly limited amount of nice".

'round these parts, you ain't refugee 'nough boy.

So now, the right-wing is flat out anti-immigrant... especially the immigrants!

 

[laughing dog]

No, your application of Kantian ethics to Germany appears to conflict with bilby’s application of the categorical imperative, along with the democratic volunteering paradigm make muddle your claims in what’s left of my mind. But, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.

bilby does not appear to have made any application of the categorical imperative. If he actually was, my application of it appears to conflict with bilby's because he applied it incorrectly.

I think his application of "Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.." is correct.

Not any less or more of a misrepresentation of your interpretation of the views of the German population at large.

I lost you. What "interpretation of the views of the German population at large" are you talking about?

"since the current German taxpayers are bearing the cost of their long-ago-predecessors' representatives' preference not because they give a damn whether Konrad Adenauer is seen as kind but because that's the deal they woke up to find their country forever committed to, and not some alternative-history deal to take in all deserving migrants"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A lot of these people are "known to the police" but don't get deported.

In what way are "these people know to the police" that indicates they should be deported?

"Known to the police" normally means someone that the police have had multiple encounters with in the past. Not a law-abiding person.

I do support helping refugees--but only so long as they behave. Any substantial incidents should cause deportation even if that means sending them into a miserable place.

 

[bilby]

Any substantial incidents should cause deportation even if that means sending them into a miserable place.

Yeah, it's perfectly moral* to punish citizens with a small fine, or even a short custodial sentence, while non-citizens who commit the exact same offence are instead handed over to a regime that will torture and/or kill them.

That's totally proportionate, reasonable, and ethical*, on the self-evident basis that non-citizens are not really people, but are just non-player characters, whose existence serves no purpose other than our entertainment.

And anyway, it's not our fault* if someone is tortured by foreigners, even if we handed them over to those foreigners, knowing that that would be the result.

*Probably.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, your application of Kantian ethics to Germany appears to conflict with bilby’s application of the categorical imperative, along with the democratic volunteering paradigm make muddle your claims in what’s left of my mind. But, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.

bilby does not appear to have made any application of the categorical imperative. If he actually was, my application of it appears to conflict with bilby's because he applied it incorrectly.

I think his application of "Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.." is correct.

I'm familiar with it, thank you. Which maxim do you think he is applying it correctly to? The maxim he mentioned, "the principle that you ought to be nice to other people, a principle which I hold to be axiomatic", is evidently not one he wishes all rational people to follow as if it were a universal law. His "direct inference" from it was "how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve". That policy isn't nice to Germans. That's why I said bilby does not appear to have made any application of the categorical imperative. (Which is of course perfectly fine. bilby like most people appears to have a non-Kantian approach to morality, and Kant was not necessarily correct in thinking he'd proven his approach was the correct one.)

Not any less or more of a misrepresentation of your interpretation of the views of the German population at large.

I lost you. What "interpretation of the views of the German population at large" are you talking about?

"since the current German taxpayers are bearing the cost of their long-ago-predecessors' representatives' preference not because they give a damn whether Konrad Adenauer is seen as kind but because that's the deal they woke up to find their country forever committed to, and not some alternative-history deal to take in all deserving migrants"

That's not an interpretation of the views of the German population at large of any sort, misrepresenting or otherwise. It's a statement of cause-and-effect. I made no claim one way or the other as to whether Germans want Konrad Adenauer to be seen as kind; I was simply agreeing with bilby, when he wrote:

A tiny number of civil servants long ago were involved in a gabfest with other nations' civil services ... Forever committing the country to the deal. ...

Democracy plays very little part in politics in most countries; And even in those where democracy is strong domestically, it is typically weak internationally - and international agreements, once made, tend to be reviewed rarely or never.​

That is the actual historical cause of German taxpayers currently bearing the cost. "The views of the German population at large" don't enter into it.

 

[laughing dog]

No, your application of Kantian ethics to Germany appears to conflict with bilby’s application of the categorical imperative, along with the democratic volunteering paradigm make muddle your claims in what’s left of my mind. But, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.

bilby does not appear to have made any application of the categorical imperative. If he actually was, my application of it appears to conflict with bilby's because he applied it incorrectly.

I think his application of "Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.." is correct.

I'm familiar with it, thank you. Which maxim do you think he is applying it correctly to? The maxim he mentioned, "the principle that you ought to be nice to other people, a principle which I hold to be axiomatic", is evidently not one he wishes all rational people to follow as if it were a universal law. His "direct inference" from it was "how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve". That policy isn't nice to Germans.

That's why I said bilby does not appear to have made any application of the categorical imperative. (Which is of course perfectly fine. bilby like most people appears to have a non-Kantian approach to morality, and Kant was not necessarily correct in thinking he'd proven his approach was the correct one.)

Not any less or more of a misrepresentation of your interpretation of the views of the German population at large.

I lost you. What "interpretation of the views of the German population at large" are you talking about?

"since the current German taxpayers are bearing the cost of their long-ago-predecessors' representatives' preference not because they give a damn whether Konrad Adenauer is seen as kind but because that's the deal they woke up to find their country forever committed to, and not some alternative-history deal to take in all deserving migrants"

That's not an interpretation of the views of the German population at large of any sort, misrepresenting or otherwise. It's a statement of cause-and-effect. I made no claim one way or the other as to whether Germans want Konrad Adenauer to be seen as kind; I was simply agreeing with bilby, when he wrote:

A tiny number of civil servants long ago were involved in a gabfest with other nations' civil services ... Forever committing the country to the deal. ...​

​

Democracy plays very little part in politics in most countries; And even in those where democracy is strong domestically, it is typically weak internationally - and international agreements, once made, tend to be reviewed rarely or never.​

That is the actual historical cause of German taxpayers currently bearing the cost. "The views of the German population at large" don't enter into it.

Earlier I said it doesn't matter, and I should have left it at that. While I can waste my time, I shouldn't be wasting yours on attempts to discuss tangential matters to no avail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any substantial incidents should cause deportation even if that means sending them into a miserable place.

Yeah, it's perfectly moral* to punish citizens with a small fine, or even a short custodial sentence, while non-citizens who commit the exact same offence are instead handed over to a regime that will torture and/or kill them.

That's totally proportionate, reasonable, and ethical*, on the self-evident basis that non-citizens are not really people, but are just non-player characters, whose existence serves no purpose other than our entertainment.

And anyway, it's not our fault* if someone is tortured by foreigners, even if we handed them over to those foreigners, knowing that that would be the result.

*Probably.

I'm not talking about fine-level things, but custodial-level things. Bite the hand that helps you and there should be no expectation of any further help.

 

[bilby]

I'm not talking about fine-level things, but custodial-level things.

That's why I mentioned custodial sentences.

Bite the hand that helps you and there should be no expectation of any further help.

There's a BIG difference between the morality of 'not helping' someone, vs 'sending someone to be tortured' - or killed.

That you like to pretend that the latter isn't happening, or isn't your fault, doesn't actually help the poor bugger who has electrodes strapped to his genitals, or is forced to watch his wife and daughters being raped, or is put upagainst a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette.

Personally, I think it should take an extraordinary level of criminality for it to be moral to not help anyone avoid such things.

Indeed, it should be as unthinkable not to help someone avoid those things, as it would be to sentence a citizen to those things for his crimes - and IIRC, your constitution has things to say about "cruel and unusual punishment".

I do not accept that any offence is sufficiently serious as to warrant such punishment, nor do I accept your handwashing when faced with the fact that those punishments are a consequence of your inaction.

A moral person shall not harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.

 

[Bomb#20]

Who the bejesus told you that how Germany treats foreigners ought to be determined by what they deserve?!?

Nobody told me this. It's a direct inference from the principle that you ought to be nice to other people, a principle which I hold to be axiomatic.

Does that include being nice to Germans?

Just the lower-cased ones.

Huh?

Germany is spending fifty billion euros a year on so-called refugees.

Anyone want to remind me when Syria became nice? Wasn't there a very bloody civil war recently?

We're discussing bilby's objection to distinguishing between "legitimate refugees" and "economic migrants". To analyze his objection, for the sake of discussion we need to presume there are some of each; i.e., not every Syrian migrant can expect to be shot or jailed if he doesn't come to Germany. If you think Syria is so awful that's a counterfactual presumption, well, keep in mind Syria and Germany don't share a border. The Syrians in Germany mainly came through Turkey. They probably didn't all have a reasonable expectation of being shot or jailed if they'd stayed in Turkey. A person who's a legitimate refugee when he first escapes from a bloody civil war zone can become an economic migrant when he subsequently goes host nation shopping.

I raise the civil war because ya mention Burma, currently going by Myanmar because the military junta running it likes it better. Polled well among the despots.

Curious, isn't it? "Burma" and "Myanmar" are the same word, just transliterated into Latin characters in ways that reflect variations in pronunciation among Burmese people. "Myanmar" comes from a more posh speech style. Aung San Suu Kyi says both versions of the name are perfectly acceptable, but the military junta has her locked up so maybe her opinion doesn't count.

(But technically, I didn't mention Burma; I mentioned the Burmese. That's the standard English word for people from Myanmar. I've read that the Burmese generally don't like being called Myanmarese. I probably wouldn't much like being called a The United States of American.)

Also, how many from the nation formerly known as Burma are applying in Germany?

Not a lot -- that's why I picked it. There are no doubt lots of Burmese who'd be happy to emigrate to Germany to get massively improved economic prospects, but don't because they haven't been offered residence and it's so far away it would be hard for them to get there and crash the border like a Syrian. The point is, what the bejesus does this practical obstacle have to do with whether they deserve to be offered residence? Everybody in the world who isn't personally dragging down his society deserves to get to live in a community where the people's civil and economic rights are protected and the economy isn't ruined by government mismanagement. So if Germany ought to offer residence to Syrian economic migrants and 45,000 euros a year, or whatever it pays legitimate refugees in social benefits, as long as they paid smugglers to get them out of Turkey into Greece and then hitched rides to Germany, because they deserve to live in a place that "became nice" like Germany did, then, by the same token, Germany ought to make the same offer to impoverished Burmese, along with plane tickets. That is the logical implication of bilby's contention that Germany ought to treat foreigners according to what they deserve: that paying for rescuing all the innocent people in the world from all the world's injustice is the moral responsibility of the German taxpayers.

Of course, Germany doesn't have to be nice. But she ought to be. We have all seen what the workd looks like when she isn't, and few of us want to see that again.

Hmm, yes, there's no middle ground between allowing yourself to be exploited and invading all your neighbors. Or were you explaining why your axiom comes with an "except Germans" secret protocol?

And this is a fairly limited amount of nice. Germany can easily afford it.

Any reason in particular to think a poor Syrian pretending to be a legitimate refugee "deserves help" more than an even poorer Burmese who told the Germans no lies and who'd leap at a chance to move to Germany? If Germany treated foreigners according to what they deserve, it would not be "a fairly limited amount of nice".

'round these parts, you ain't refugee 'nough boy.

If I take your meaning, you appear to be arguing that not volunteering to pay 45,000 euros a year to everybody in the world who's been screwed over by his own government, and not volunteering to incentivize line-cutting by paying 45,000 euros a year to anybody in the world who wants to come enough to cut in line ahead of all the would-be immigrants who are willing to follow legal procedures and tell the truth in their residence applications, is pretty much the same thing as imposing oppressive Jim Crow laws on your own country's native citizens who aren't even costing you $45,000 a year. Do I have that right?

If that's what you're arguing, then

(1) show your work, and

(2) how many poor third-worlders have you sent $45,000 to?

So now, the right-wing is flat out anti-immigrant... especially the immigrants!

Whom are you referring to? Is somebody in this thread a right-winger? Is somebody in this thread anti-immigrant?

Do you think forcing the people in Germany to pay 45,000 euros to everyone in the world who comes and asks for it is in the best interests of the immigrants who have already been offered residence?

 

[Rhea]

Once you understand that bilby's observations were morality-based not legalese, you see your response is moot.

My response was morality-based; I take it you didn't recognize the reference to Kantian ethics. If you're interested, see Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

See, this right here is why I come to this site.
(No snark, serious)
You got a debate about morals and ethics? Let’s dig right in, shall we?


So come on, go further…

 

[Bomb#20]

Once you understand that bilby's observations were morality-based not legalese, you see your response is moot.

My response was morality-based; I take it you didn't recognize the reference to Kantian ethics. If you're interested, see Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

See, this right here is why I come to this site.
(No snark, serious)
You got a debate about morals and ethics? Let’s dig right in, shall we?


So come on, go further…

It's looking like nobody on the "Derec is a bad, bad man for using the word 'fakefugee'." side of the morals and ethics debate is going any further. Oh well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not talking about fine-level things, but custodial-level things.

That's why I mentioned custodial sentences.

Bite the hand that helps you and there should be no expectation of any further help.

There's a BIG difference between the morality of 'not helping' someone, vs 'sending someone to be tortured' - or killed.

That you like to pretend that the latter isn't happening, or isn't your fault, doesn't actually help the poor bugger who has electrodes strapped to his genitals, or is forced to watch his wife and daughters being raped, or is put upagainst a wall with a blindfold and a cigarette.

Personally, I think it should take an extraordinary level of criminality for it to be moral to not help anyone avoid such things.

Indeed, it should be as unthinkable not to help someone avoid those things, as it would be to sentence a citizen to those things for his crimes - and IIRC, your constitution has things to say about "cruel and unusual punishment".

I do not accept that any offence is sufficiently serious as to warrant such punishment, nor do I accept your handwashing when faced with the fact that those punishments are a consequence of your inaction.

A moral person shall not harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.

Refugee status is extending a helping hand. Why should countries be obligated to help those who turn on the country? You didn't address that point at all, just made it about what might happen to them if they're sent back. Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be sent back!

 

[bilby]

Refugee status is extending a helping hand. Why should countries be obligated to help those who turn on the country?

They shouldn't.

You didn't address that point at all

Because it's not a point of contention. The point of contention is proportionality of consequences. If a person "turns on his country", then that country is justified in taking proportionate action against him, regardless of whether or not he is an immigrant; And the punishment should be equal for equal crimes, for all offenders regardless of their history.

just made it about what might happen to them if they're sent back.

Yes, because that's the whole fucking point.

Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be sent back!

Hey, maybe try not punishing some people more harshly than others, for the same level of offense!

That it is politically easy and/or convenient to impose a penalty of death or torture (by proxy) does not render that penalty less cruel, or more morally acceptable.

Your approach is medieval - why not just have capital punishment for even petty crimes, and if anyone suggests that this is too severe, simply say "Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be hanged!"

That's exactly what you are doing here; I wonder if you have even realised it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Refugee status is extending a helping hand. Why should countries be obligated to help those who turn on the country?

They shouldn't.

You didn't address that point at all

Because it's not a point of contention. The point of contention is proportionality of consequences. If a person "turns on his country", then that country is justified in taking proportionate action against him, regardless of whether or not he is an immigrant; And the punishment should be equal for equal crimes, for all offenders regardless of their history.

just made it about what might happen to them if they're sent back.

Yes, because that's the whole fucking point.

Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be sent back!

Hey, maybe try not punishing some people more harshly than others, for the same level of offense!

That it is politically easy and/or convenient to impose a penalty of death or torture (by proxy) does not render that penalty less cruel, or more morally acceptable.

Your approach is medieval - why not just have capital punishment for even petty crimes, and if anyone suggests that this is too severe, simply say "Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be hanged!"

That's exactly what you are doing here; I wonder if you have even realised it.

The thing is I do not believe that being a refugee should give them a pass for committing wrongdoing. Typically any substantial wrongdoing gets you deported.

 

[bilby]

Refugee status is extending a helping hand. Why should countries be obligated to help those who turn on the country?

They shouldn't.

You didn't address that point at all

Because it's not a point of contention. The point of contention is proportionality of consequences. If a person "turns on his country", then that country is justified in taking proportionate action against him, regardless of whether or not he is an immigrant; And the punishment should be equal for equal crimes, for all offenders regardless of their history.

just made it about what might happen to them if they're sent back.

Yes, because that's the whole fucking point.

Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be sent back!

Hey, maybe try not punishing some people more harshly than others, for the same level of offense!

That it is politically easy and/or convenient to impose a penalty of death or torture (by proxy) does not render that penalty less cruel, or more morally acceptable.

Your approach is medieval - why not just have capital punishment for even petty crimes, and if anyone suggests that this is too severe, simply say "Hey, maybe try behaving yourself if you don't want to be hanged!"

That's exactly what you are doing here; I wonder if you have even realised it.

The thing is I do not believe that being a refugee should give them a pass for committing wrongdoing.

Nor do I.

Typically any substantial wrongdoing gets you deported.

Which is fine, if you are (like most resident non-citizens) not a refugee.

But a refugee by definition is at risk of death or torture if deported.

So deportation of refugees is cruel and unusual punishment, and is sentencing them to torture or death, which is a far more severe punishment than any other offender would get for the same crime.

It is therefore immoral.

It is NOT "giving them a pass for comitting wrongdoing" to sentence someone to the exact same punishment that any citizen would get for the same offence. And there is no moral justification for sending such a person to be tortured or killed, as well as, or instead of, punishing them in accordance with local laws.

How can you not grasp this? What is broken in your understanding, that lets you pretend, or believe, or hope, that such a deportation of a refugee would not be an unjust cruelty?

Do you not grasp that refugees are not the same as other resident non-citizens in terms of the consequences that repatriation will bring?

Do you think that killing or torturing someone isn't your fault, if you merely turned them over to someone else knowing that it eould happen, but didn't actively participate?

Do you think that non-citizens deserve harsher punishments for the same crimes, as compared with citizens?

Or do you just not think about any of this, and declare that as long as it happens out of your sight, it is OK to pretend it's not happening at all?

Are you merely unwilling to see that your equivocating between refugees (for whom repatriation is life threatening) and other resident non-citizens (for whom it is a mere inconvenience) is causing you to advocate for horiffic cruelty? Would understanding that cause harm to your self-image as a "good person"? Because it really should.