Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Not at all. Within 150 years there won't be a single current Australian citizen left anywhere in Australia either.

Not even Tony Abbott's 'Turn back the boats' policy can prevent this disaster from coming to pass.

Within 150 years there wont be a single current non Australian citizen left anywhere in Australia also because they would have died by then.

Thank you captain Obvious.

So tell me again why I should give a shit about Europe or Australia or anywhere having people living in it after my death, who are ever so slightly less closely related to me than those who live there now? In light of the fact that:

a) I don't know, like or even agree with the lifestyle choices of most of the people who live there right now;
b) Most of the people who live there today are VERY distant relatives of mine indeed; and
c) I will be too dead to give a shit.

Or for that matter, why I should give a shit if the strangers with odd attitudes and beliefs who live there today are replaced by (or added to by) more strangers with odd attitudes and beliefs tomorrow?

Apart from irrational tribalism and xenophobia; and/or an irrational and cruel 'I've got mine, fuck off pauper' attitude, there is fuck all reason to oppose immigration.

 

[untermensche]

Irrational fear of the other.

No, a quite rational fear of a foreign culture that has shown itself incompatible with secular values and liberal democracy.

European values should not be a suicide pact! Europe needs to learn that quickly or perish.

European values?

Like Ghandi said, that would be a good idea.

But in this world the people that have done the most damage over the last 100 years are Europeans and Americans, Muslims aren't even close.

 

[bilby]

Not all of these "migrants" are actual refugees. And there should be a way to help people fleeing wars without giving away Europe's future.

WTF? You think 'Europe's future' is something that could be given away, even if someone wanted to?

What the fuck does 'giving away Europe's future' even mean?

Europe's future belongs only to whoever lives in Europe in the future. The people who live there today don't get to dictate how it will look; and nor should they. Read predictions of how the world in 2015 will look, as written in 1915; or even 1965, or 1985; or just watch 'Back to the Future'; do you think that the people who made that movie had the right to dictate to us today how we must live, based on their guesses about the problems we would face, and/or the new technologies and opportunities that they guessed would arise?

We don't let our forefathers dictate to us how our world should look; and nor can we dictate our terms to the future.

We are in no danger of giving away Europe's future; we never had it to give.

If you are worried that 'us' will lose out to 'them', then I have some bad news - none of 'us' will be around a century from now; and very few if any of 'them' will care. Or do you wake up each morning and try to decide what to do with your day based on how your grandfather would have liked you to behave?

 

[bilby]

I think we are heading for trouble in Europe one way or another anyway, by the means of demographics.

The far-right extremists seem to gathering their strength again. They seem to view governments as either ineffectual or collaborative with the Islamification process and thus will attempt to deal with the problem themselves. I seem to remember the police busting a terrorist attack aimed at Mosques and Islamic leaders a few months ago in Germany. One day they will succeed, and once that happens, I fear the result.

I wonder if the next Adolf Hitler has been born yet? This time his target might not be Jews.

This is not an argument for less immigration; it is an argument for less neo-fascism.

 

[TSwizzle]

Europe needs to learn that quickly or perish.

Sooner or later, probably sooner, Europe is going to have to make some uncomfortable decisions. The fragile EU will likely dissolve before that perhaps.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Within 150 years there wont be a single current non Australian citizen left anywhere in Australia also because they would have died by then.

Thank you captain Obvious.

So tell me again why I should give a shit about Europe or Australia or anywhere having people living in it after my death, who are ever so slightly less closely related to me than those who live there now? In light of the fact that:

a) I don't know, like or even agree with the lifestyle choices of most of the people who live there right now;
b) Most of the people who live there today are VERY distant relatives of mine indeed; and
c) I will be too dead to give a shit.

Or for that matter, why I should give a shit if the strangers with odd attitudes and beliefs who live there today are replaced by (or added to by) more strangers with odd attitudes and beliefs tomorrow?

Apart from irrational tribalism and xenophobia; and/or an irrational and cruel 'I've got mine, fuck off pauper' attitude, there is fuck all reason to oppose immigration.

I thought you'd like that one.
If you have too many in the country, where do you put them and who is going to pay for them. Of course if Florida will accept them, I'm sure Europe will be glad to bus them over.
Because the expansion of our civilisations (hence also our species) perhaps as part of evolution were perpetuated by those who give a shit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No, a quite rational fear of a foreign culture that has shown itself incompatible with secular values and liberal democracy.

European values should not be a suicide pact! Europe needs to learn that quickly or perish.

European values?

Like Ghandi said, that would be a good idea.

But in this world the people that have done the most damage over the last 100 years are Europeans and Americans, Muslims aren't even close.

It's more about numbers and not religion.

Question: How many people can you squeeze into Britain
Answer: Another million.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, a quite rational fear of a foreign culture that has shown itself incompatible with secular values and liberal democracy.

European values should not be a suicide pact! Europe needs to learn that quickly or perish.

European values?

Like Ghandi said, that would be a good idea.

But in this world the people that have done the most damage over the last 100 years are Europeans and Americans, Muslims aren't even close.

Totally agree. The thought that women and gays should have rights is an admonition.

 

[bilby]

Thank you captain Obvious.

So tell me again why I should give a shit about Europe or Australia or anywhere having people living in it after my death, who are ever so slightly less closely related to me than those who live there now? In light of the fact that:

a) I don't know, like or even agree with the lifestyle choices of most of the people who live there right now;
b) Most of the people who live there today are VERY distant relatives of mine indeed; and
c) I will be too dead to give a shit.

Or for that matter, why I should give a shit if the strangers with odd attitudes and beliefs who live there today are replaced by (or added to by) more strangers with odd attitudes and beliefs tomorrow?

Apart from irrational tribalism and xenophobia; and/or an irrational and cruel 'I've got mine, fuck off pauper' attitude, there is fuck all reason to oppose immigration.

Because the expansion of our civilisations (hence also our species) perhaps as part of evolution were perpetuated by those who give a shit.

Evolution in Homo Sapiens has not measurably occurred since the foundation of the first civilisations. Your evolution argument is nonsense.

As to the rest, it amounts to 'this is how we've always done it'.

Well, fuck that. It hasn't worked well for centuries, and it's time to do something else.

I understand that you think you don't like immigrants; but in fact, you will find if you are honest with yourself, that you just don't like people (with perhaps a few dozen exceptions).

I don't like people either; but I am an equal opportunity misanthropist. I do not reserve any special dislike for people solely on the basis of their ancestry or place of origin.

 

[bilby]

European values?

Like Ghandi said, that would be a good idea.

But in this world the people that have done the most damage over the last 100 years are Europeans and Americans, Muslims aren't even close.

It's more about numbers and not religion.

Question: How many people can you squeeze into Britain
Answer: Another million.

Actual answer - all of them.

In fact, you could comfortably fit them all on the Isle of Wight.

Sheer physical space is not a constraint with human population counted in the mere tens of billions; we would hit other constraints long before that becomes an issue.

Your rationalisation of your underlying xenophobia is not based in reality.

 

[Axulus]

Just to be clear about the so-called "threat" of Islamization in Europe.

The European Union population is about 4% Muslim.

By 2030, it is projected to increase to ~6%.

Now, the main worry of those who call this a threat is that this group will be able to influence the policies of governments to be more illiberal, non-secular, etc.

Questions for those who support this view:

What percent of European Union Muslims are politically active and participate in elections? How does this compare to the rest of the population?

What percent of those European Union Muslims who are politically active and participate in elections generally hold conservative, illiberal, non-secular political views?

How likely is it that this percentage answer to the question above is able to change the direction of the country in 2030?

Furthermore, what are the chances that the percentage of politically active Muslims holding illiberal, non-secular political views will decline by 2030? Can't European Union governments implement policies to help achieve this goal of shaping the views of European Union Muslims to be generally more supportive of liberal secular values?

 

[dystopian]

It's more about numbers and not religion.

Question: How many people can you squeeze into Britain
Answer: Another million.

Actual answer - all of them.

In fact, you could comfortably fit them all on the Isle of Wight.

Sheer physical space is not a constraint with human population counted in the mere tens of billions; we would hit other constraints long before that becomes an issue.

Your rationalisation of your underlying xenophobia is not based in reality.

Careful, in another thread I used basic math to prove to him you could easily and quite comfortably fit almost a billion people in the UK, and rather than comprehend the point he decided to flip out over my plan to fit that many people in there. I don't think he's all that interested in reality.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actual answer - all of them.

In fact, you could comfortably fit them all on the Isle of Wight.

Sheer physical space is not a constraint with human population counted in the mere tens of billions; we would hit other constraints long before that becomes an issue.

Your rationalisation of your underlying xenophobia is not based in reality.

Careful, in another thread I used basic math to prove to him you could easily and quite comfortably fit almost a billion people in the UK, and rather than comprehend the point he decided to flip out over my plan to fit that many people in there. I don't think he's all that interested in reality.

You could fit 10,000 people into the Saraha desert and once they ran out of water and supplies most would be dead within a couple of weeks.
If you put one billion people in the UK the only abundant food source would be cannibalism. Where would be get the food resources and supplies of safe drinking water. So this would not be practical

 

[dystopian]

Careful, in another thread I used basic math to prove to him you could easily and quite comfortably fit almost a billion people in the UK, and rather than comprehend the point he decided to flip out over my plan to fit that many people in there. I don't think he's all that interested in reality.

You could fit 10,000 people into the Saraha desert and once they ran out of water and supplies most would be dead within a couple of weeks.
If you put one billion people in the UK the only abundant food source would be cannibalism. Where would be get the food resources and supplies of safe drinking water. So this would not be practical

See what I mean guys? It's like he just doesn't know how to do anything but understand the hypothetical example as a literal suggestion and can't actually see the point it illustrates.

 

[Axulus]

Careful, in another thread I used basic math to prove to him you could easily and quite comfortably fit almost a billion people in the UK, and rather than comprehend the point he decided to flip out over my plan to fit that many people in there. I don't think he's all that interested in reality.

You could fit 10,000 people into the Saraha desert and once they ran out of water and supplies most would be dead within a couple of weeks.
If you put one billion people in the UK the only abundant food source would be cannibalism. Where would be get the food resources and supplies of safe drinking water. So this would not be practical

It is possible to import much of this and also to produce more fresh water for a cost. It would be catastrophic to happen overnight but quite surviviable if it were to occur over a period of, say, 20-30 years and everyone knew it was coming.

Bangladesh is only about half the size of the UK yet has 2.5x the population.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's more about numbers and not religion.

Question: How many people can you squeeze into Britain
Answer: Another million.

Actual answer - all of them.

In fact, you could comfortably fit them all on the Isle of Wight.

Sheer physical space is not a constraint with human population counted in the mere tens of billions; we would hit other constraints long before that becomes an issue.

Your rationalisation of your underlying xenophobia is not based in reality.

We would hit constraints immediately. Do you think we should ask the people in the Isle of Wight? However, Do you understand the logistics involved in housing, supplying food and increased taxation on the local population.
There is an African saying. give a man a fish and feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
Instead of campaigning for changes , we have provided an easy short term solution to simply let the disadvantaged peoples jump ship thereby keeping the inept and corrupt systems of their previous country in place. Are they that poor if they can raise thousands of dollars to pay their snake heads?

You cannot redefine rational logic as xenophobia in the same way you cannot say black is white and white is black.

 

[bilby]

Actual answer - all of them.

In fact, you could comfortably fit them all on the Isle of Wight.

Sheer physical space is not a constraint with human population counted in the mere tens of billions; we would hit other constraints long before that becomes an issue.

Your rationalisation of your underlying xenophobia is not based in reality.

We would hit constraints immediately. Do you think we should ask the people in the Isle of Wight? However, Do you understand the logistics involved in housing, supplying food and increased taxation on the local population.
There is an African saying. give a man a fish and feed him for one day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.
Instead of campaigning for changes , we have provided an easy short term solution to simply let the disadvantaged peoples jump ship thereby keeping the inept and corrupt systems of their previous country in place. Are they that poor if they can raise thousands of dollars to pay their snake heads?

You cannot redefine rational logic as xenophobia in the same way you cannot say black is white and white is black.

If you ever present any rational logic, then perhaps we will find out. I'm not holding my breath.

I always say: Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[dystopian]

IF WE PUT A BILLION PEOPLE INTO THE UK OVERNIGHT EVERYONE WOULD BE A CANNIBAL!

Therefore we can't take in a few thousand refugees, don't you see!? /whichphilosophylogic



For the record, in 2014, the UK received only 31,400 asylum applications. Only 41% of these were allowed to stay.

This has been your regular "no we don't actually have to turn to cannibalism god what's even wrong with you" fact check.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Those who want to donate can and those who do not don't have to.

You're shooting your argument in the foot. You claimed they can't *afford* it. Clearly they can; so now you're shifting the argument to how people should not be made to; which is a wonderfully sociopathic argument to make, really, given it's not like Italy would have any particular difficulty scrounging up the money.

Btw, I just noticed another of your claimed numbers that is wildly inaccurate. You claimed they're getting "just" 34.60 euros a day, plus lunch. My eyes glazed over reading that the first time, but now that I take a second look, that really is an absurd number. No, *of course* the refugees aren't getting 34 euros a day to spend. They could live a week off that even up here (and I'm guess Italy is cheaper). The refugees in Italy are *actually* getting only 3 euros a day to spend as they see fit. You probably confused the estimated total cost with the amount of money that's actually directly put into their hands. Which is either incredibly dishonest if intentional, or yet another example of your paranoia making you jump to conclusions. Now then, it's true that it is estimated to cost around 35 euros a day for the Italian government; that includes the cost of just about everything, from constructing the asylum centers, to training, personnel salaries, etc etc etc. So while it costs the government 35 euros a day, it is not a *loss* of 35 euros a day for the Italian economy, as most of that money goes directly to Italian companies and workers, and most of the money that goes to the asylum seekers is actually put back into the Italian economy as well via the things they buy.

Anyway, total cost for the government adds up to around 13,000 euros a year. Italy had 15,300 asylum applications in the first quarter of 2015. Let's assume for the sake of argument that all of them are taken in. Let's also assume, again for the sake of argument, the exact same number comes in every quarter. Total cost for the Italian government? A little over 1 billion euros. And that's assuming all of the refugees actually stay for the full duration of the year and avail themselves of everything the government does for them, which is a rather big if.

Still, sounds like a lot, doesn't it? A billion euros! Except, Italy has a GDP of 2,2 trillion euros; and a government budget of around 1,1 trillion euros. Suddenly, a billion euros more or less doesn't seem like a big deal, does it? And again, keep in mind that that billion is not actually a net loss of a billion euros, for either the Italian economy or the government (which will get a good percentage of that back in taxes anyway)

So, can we agree to stop pretending like they can't afford it?

The Italian debt is over 2 trillion dollars and has hardly moved since 2010

http://www.rt.com/business/240497-italy-debt-gdp-ratio/
Italy’s debt burden now at record high 132% of GDP

Italy Government Debt to GDP 1988-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Italy recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 132.10 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2014. Government Debt to GDP in Italy averaged 111.04 percent from 1988 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 132.10 percent in 2014 and a record low of 90.50 percent in 1988. Government Debt to GDP in Italy is reported by the Eurostat.

Like I said where's the money coming from? Maybe Italy can copy the Zimbabwe model and just start printing away.

 

[dystopian]

The Italian debt is over 2 trillion dollars and has hardly moved since 2010

Which has fuck all to do with the matter at hand; unless you're genuinely delusional enough to think that A) a country has to be debt free in order to be able to *afford* stuff or B) that a billion euros more or less is going to make a fucking difference.