Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

That 5% has apparently made all the difference.

Either that, or luck.

Either that or someone's also working smarter in addition to working harder.

I repeat my question: How did Jayjay earn the privilege he now defends?

And I'll repeat my answer, I guess:

He didn't. But his ancestors did - each generation, little by little.

Just like today's parents work hard to provide for their children a brighter better future, yesterday's parents did the same.

The fruits of my labors do not belong to the world as a whole to divvy up how it pleases, especially to those who sat capably but idly by while I labored.

"'Not I', said the dog"...​

Do you want to deal with that instead of posting some irrelevant bullshit about who invented bread?

I've dealt with it. I've shown that the argument sucks. You are the one refusing to deal with that.

You are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy.

Either admit that Syrians should be getting royalties from everyone in the world eating bread today, or admit that yours is a shitty argument.

Is it possible to have an intelligent and rational discussion of the core philosophical issues, without resort to idiotic tripe about bread? Contemporary descendents of the middle east should no more getting royalties for bread, than Chinese for rice, or Europeans for double-entry accounting, calculus, and the periodic table of elements. These were all learned and shared knowledge, including that of bread making by those who (sometimes violently) pushed into Europe as farmers many thousands of years ago.

But your statement raises many questions. You wrote:

"(you)...are the one who insists that your ancestors, or even just the ancestors of people living near you, having done something gives you a moral and legal right to enjoy privileges other people don't enjoy."

1. It this a question of "rights to enjoy privileges", or the right to benefit from what was intentionally earned and gifted to you? People generally work(ed) hard for their family, their posterity, and their fellow community. They create voluntary associations and political orders within a nation-state to protect and preserve the fruits of those efforts.

2. So I am wondering: "what is the moral right that denies a person's enjoyment of those earned/gifted benefits as long as someone else in the world does not have them"? Or: "where is the right to deny a people a nation-state within a defined territory to facilitate those goals"?

3. But is it only 'a privilege' to keep the fruit of your labor, and then to use it to help your children and posterity? By what moral schema ?

So you think that you are the recipient of "gifts" from your ancestors. Look around you. TMhe clothes you wear, the gas you burn, the electronics you are usuing, the coffee you drink much of the food you eat, most of your housewares...all taken from foreign lands and brought here for you to consume as some kind of ancestral gift. That is pure bullshit!

Well let us look a little closer, shall we?

Cloths: My tee shirt and jeans were not a gift. I paid Russell and Levi for them with my earnings and savings. They manufactured them here (Levi) or in El Salvador (Russell). I also bought my clark shoes from a retailer, who bought them from a UK manufacturer. Purchasing them from others is not a "taking", its a voluntary transaction.

The Gas I burn: Paid for it. American natural gas, and gasoline purchased from domestic and international suppliers.

Electronics: Yep, I bought that to. Coffee: Yep bought that to. Housewares: Ditto (love my Le Cuisinart Dutch Oven).

No one "gifted" those to me (can't say about you). But what I was gifted by my parents (and their generation) is health, basic education, entertainment, and exposure to art and culture. I was also "gifted" language and values. And from prior generations I was gifted an economic and political system whose purpose is to secure my right to liberty.

As your sloganized view of what is known as "international trade" is so archaic, I wonder if you have also heard the classic explanation of how a pencil is made?

The work you happen to put into something is no measure of its rightness, nor should it necessarily imply a continuing ownership of what you create.

The work I put into something is not a measure a measure of wrongness, is it? Nor does it imply that the collective owns what I created, does it?. So far, your platitudes is the language of slavery, not free men (and women).

Perhaps what you create is a fucking polluting mess....that should only be eliminated from the planet. So you want to perch yourself on it and crow like a rooster about how wonderful you and it is. Your argument rings hollow in my eyes.

There are a number of measures of quality of the work one produces that should be applied...does it pollute...was it really just taken from somebody else by force...or by chicanery? There is a lot we need to know before we can decide that anybody has the right to kick back and "enjoy" the fruits of a nation that for most of a century devolved a lot of its wealth from the labor of slaves.

You mean you have to prove that I stole my creations and its material fruits? Funny, I don't recall that I did so.

In the cost of all those things you've got to include infrastructure. Ie built up over generations. The educational system. As well as the level of corruption in the society you live in. It's a substantial part of the final cost.The income you have is down to just your position in the market. Sure you'very got to work hard to be in a position exploit lucky breaks. But it's still mostly just luck.

None of those are within your control. Individual people have almost no control at all over their lives. If you think you do you're delusional.

 

[Jayjay]

Israel's sporadic bombings in Syria are irrelevant to the conflict, and it's not present in Iran or Iraq in any way at all.

EDITED TO ADD: Besides, Iran is hardly one of the worst trouble spots in the world. It's not even in top-20.

Apart from the fact they're chasing a nuclear device to wipe out Israel, and the fact that they sponsor Hezbolah and other terror groups throughout the middle East no, no trouble at all!!

None of that trouble is actually in Iran.

 

[Bomb#20]

The main reason so called moderate Moslems are lumped together is because you never see them marching and protesting, setting fire to public property, like for example in the Danish cartons saga at Muslim atrocities. In vain we wait for a protest from their main body when another death/s occur by their extremist hands.

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights? Would you be trying to get yourself noticed by the Muslim hotheads? Would you want to be perceived as a traitor and an apostate? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[bilby]

When reality is unjust, immoral, or unpleasant, it is our duty to call for change.

I'm glad you feel that way. The reality of out-of-control immigration into Europe is unjust, immoral, and unpleasant. That's why we're calling for change. So does that mean you'll be switching to the sane side of the debate?

Having read the contributions to this thread so far, I am rapidly coming to the opinion that both sides of the debate are amply supplied with insane contributions. It seems that there is no 'sane side'; just a side that is frequently insane, and a side that is totally insane.

Promoting neofascism is totally insane.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is on the rise. Being anti immigration does not automatically equate with racism.

How do you define "racism"? "He's not racist at all, he's just trying to kill people because they're different, leave him alone!"

I think angelo is simply against immigration regardless of his views and I cant see how this equates to trying to kill.

 

[dystopian]

How do you define "racism"? "He's not racist at all, he's just trying to kill people because they're different, leave him alone!"

I think angelo is simply against immigration regardless of his views and I cant see how this equates to trying to kill.

Maybe not actively trying to kill... but he definitely seems to be cheering the idea of others doing so on:

You are condoning terrorism.

It would be a change for the muzzies to get some of their own medicine back!

 

[angelo]

How do you define "racism"? "He's not racist at all, he's just trying to kill people because they're different, leave him alone!"

I think angelo is simply against immigration regardless of his views and I cant see how this equates to trying to kill.

Anti immigration? I think not. Anti moslem ? Yes!

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm glad you feel that way. The reality of out-of-control immigration into Europe is unjust, immoral, and unpleasant. That's why we're calling for change. So does that mean you'll be switching to the sane side of the debate?

Having read the contributions to this thread so far, I am rapidly coming to the opinion that both sides of the debate are amply supplied with insane contributions. It seems that there is no 'sane side'; just a side that is frequently insane, and a side that is totally insane.

Fair point.

Promoting neofascism is totally insane.

Bingo. How anybody manages to convince himself that Europe can import millions of people drawn more or less randomly from a bunch of intensely neofascist cultures without thereby massively promoting neofascism is beyond me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the trouble spots of the world. Almost all involve Muslims--but they involve various other groups also. Why should we not conclude that the problems stem from the factor in common?

The worst trouble spots in the world involve the US and Israel.

They are the common factor.

The Middle East is the most violent area. Look at all the areas with lethal terrorism (I'm not counting the vandalism & arson type things, only the stuff meant to kill), though. With Moscow pretty much out of the terrorism game you'll find either drugs or Islam involved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The worst trouble spots in the world involve the US and Israel.

They are the common factor.

That's a ridiculous argument. First, Israel is not involved in most of the trouble spots, which disqualifies "US and Israel" as common denominator. If you meant "US or Israel", then you would be technically right (as US is involved in most trouble spots) but that would be just as reasonable as saying that the United Nations is involved in the worst trouble spots of the world.

He moved the goalposts by saying "worst". Since the worst trouble spot is the Middle East his moved goalpost is correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The main reason so called moderate Moslems are lumped together is because you never see them marching and protesting, setting fire to public property, like for example in the Danish cartons saga at Muslim atrocities. In vain we wait for a protest from their main body when another death/s occur by their extremist hands.

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights? Would you be trying to get yourself noticed by the Muslim hotheads? Would you want to be perceived as a traitor and an apostate? I sure as hell wouldn't.

The flip side of this is you'll be perceived as siding with those hotheads. All the hotheads need is for the average people not to resist them--and by that standard the Muslims are pretty much conquered.

 

[TSwizzle]

The main reason so called moderate Moslems are lumped together is because you never see them marching and protesting, setting fire to public property, like for example in the Danish cartons saga at Muslim atrocities. In vain we wait for a protest from their main body when another death/s occur by their extremist hands.

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think angelo is simply against immigration regardless of his views and I cant see how this equates to trying to kill.

Anti immigration? I think not. Anti moslem ? Yes!

I think you need to read this:

The revival of group hatreds in this country has dismayed and even frightened me ever since it began in the late 1960s.

When I was in high school and college, in the late 1940's - early 1950's we all remembered Hitler very well. Teachers taught us that Hitler was terrible, not because he hated the wrong group, but because hating any group is illogical, unscientific and leads ultimately to violence. Groups are grammatical fictions; only individuals exist, and each individual is different. Sometime while I was busy and didn't notice, Political Correctness took over Academia and they stopped teaching that. They started teaching that Hitler was terrible because he hated the wrong group, but it's okay to hate other groups.

Logic has nothing to do with it; logic itself is now suspect (just as it was in Nazi Germany.)

This rebellion against rationality originally intended to make Radical Feminism and its doctrine of male fungibility respectable, and it succeeded, at least in the major media, but it also made fungible group hatred respectable in general. Now the anti-Semites and all the other hate mongers are crawling out from under their rocks, and Academia does not have the ammunition to argue against them. Academia cannot argue the rational principle that hatred of any group does not make sense; they dumped that when they dumped logic (as a "male" perversion.)

The argument between Left and Right now consists only of debating which are the correct groups to hate.

- Robert Anton Wilson​

It's sensible to be anti-Islam but that's no reason to be anti-Moslem*.

Show

(* And yes, it's okay to spell it "Moslem". Systems of transliteration from foreign alphabets are not a natural phenomenon to be discovered; they're invented conventions. "Muslim" is an attempt to anglicize Arab pronunciation; "Moslem" is an attempt to anglicize Iranian pronunciation. To go along with the fiction that it's wrong to write "Moslem" is to go along with the fiction that Iranians are less truly Islamic than Arabs; it's submission to Arab anti-Iranian bigotry.)

 

[skepticalbip]

The main reason so called moderate Moslems are lumped together is because you never see them marching and protesting, setting fire to public property, like for example in the Danish cartons saga at Muslim atrocities. In vain we wait for a protest from their main body when another death/s occur by their extremist hands.

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights? Would you be trying to get yourself noticed by the Muslim hotheads? Would you want to be perceived as a traitor and an apostate? I sure as hell wouldn't.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burk??

The good Muslims are letting their religion and the world down.

 

[arkirk]

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights? Would you be trying to get yourself noticed by the Muslim hotheads? Would you want to be perceived as a traitor and an apostate? I sure as hell wouldn't.

The flip side of this is you'll be perceived as siding with those hotheads. All the hotheads need is for the average people not to resist them--and by that standard the Muslims are pretty much conquered.

My my! Aren't we really concerned about all these hotheads! You talking about Netanyahu? You talking about our president who sends drones after people he doesn't know? Are you talking about Curtis Lemay? McArthur, Petraeus, etc. Hotheads are made not born. Hotheads are allowed to fester in societies that do not have a means of limiting their destructive power.

 

[Jokodo]

How do you define "racism"? "He's not racist at all, he's just trying to kill people because they're different, leave him alone!"

But being anti immigration does not automatically equate with trying to kill people. You knew that, didn't you?

Watch for the thread history. Whichphilosophy's post was in reply to a post about attacks on refugee shelters.

 

[Bomb#20]

The flip side of this is you'll be perceived as siding with those hotheads. All the hotheads need is for the average people not to resist them--and by that standard the Muslims are pretty much conquered.

Yes; and the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. But that doesn't mean good men have an obligation to stand up to the evil and get themselves hurt or killed for nothing when they're too weak to win. There's a reason conquered people act like conquered people.

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

True; but the point is it isn't fair to blame the minority who are in favor of them for keeping a low profile. Anybody who hasn't gone on a suicide mission has no business sending someone else on one.

 

[Jokodo]

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights? Would you be trying to get yourself noticed by the Muslim hotheads? Would you want to be perceived as a traitor and an apostate? I sure as hell wouldn't.

The flip side of this is you'll be perceived as siding with those hotheads. All the hotheads need is for the average people not to resist them--and by that standard the Muslims are pretty much conquered.

Bullshit.

 

[untermensche]

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights? Would you be trying to get yourself noticed by the Muslim hotheads? Would you want to be perceived as a traitor and an apostate? I sure as hell wouldn't.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burk??

The good Muslims are letting their religion and the world down.

Total nonsense.

What about the good Americans that prevented the Invasion of Iraq?

The direct cause of many of our current problems.

 

[Bomb#20]

But being anti immigration does not automatically equate with trying to kill people. You knew that, didn't you?

Watch for the thread history. Whichphilosophy's post was in reply to a post about attacks on refugee shelters.

Yes. And that post was in reply to a post in which you said Germany had 212 attacks on refugee centers and no Islamist attacks in the first six months of 2015. Of course the great majority of those 212 attacks were not intended to kill anyone; and of course there were an awful lot of Islamist attacks in that period. Whoever you were quoting arrived at their 212-to-0 figure, obviously, by a double standard -- most likely by counting something like a broken window as an attack on a refugee center while only counting something like a train bombing as an Islamist attack. So for you to then turn around and equate attacks on refugee shelters with trying to kill people is an equivocation fallacy.