Should refugees be women and children only?

[Keith&Co.]

oh look, Keith's projecting again!

Not at all. It's an observation made by a rather famous flight surgeon trained as a psychologist. Its in his lecture, 'Sex and the Naval Aviator.' In his observations there were certain traits common to fighter pilots. THey all drank heavily. They all wore really big wrist watches. They all had tiny dicks.

No wonder you love all these refugee types,

And i'm the one who's projecting?

You're saying the choice is to support a war you don't believe in or be considered a pussy.

If that was a good thing, recruiters could taunt people into uniform. But then we'd have an army made up of people who were sensitive to taunts.
And the enemy could just 'dare' the front line infantry into charging their machine gun nests. I doubt that's a good thing.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Your fighter pilot points are easily explained, just a macho culture of high energy, drinking just a way to let off steam - and wrist watches, big deal, most sub-cultrures/work groups have some kind of unofficial 'uniform' , like how sports players go for mega tattoos etc

basically people should support their country, if there's a civil war they should stick around to try and help out, even if it's just repairing a car or something, not just run off to Auntie Angela like some kind of coward

 

[Terrell]

Why should they be expected or required to if they don't think it's worth supporting or defending?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your fighter pilot points are easily explained,

Why would it need explaining? it's an observation.
And if we're going to shame people into required positions in the military, such people are subject to that sort of manipulation.

basically people should support their country,

So...wait.
If YOUR COUNTRY decides to allow massive immigration, you should support that?
You should be willing to fight for your country's decision to invite refugees, to import blacks and rapists, if that's what YOUR COUNTRY chooses to do? Fight, or otherwise support the effort, that is. Maybe you wouldn't fight, but you'd patriotically volunteer to teach refugees how women in your country should be treated, no matter their dress, as long as YOUR COUNTRY decides that's the right thing to do?

I think maybe you haven't thought this shit all the way through.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Profiling / discrimination is good for society, when it produces more benefit than harm.

It sounds like a sweatshop owner's dream.

Well then it's probably a good idea. Sweatshops are good for the economy. Lower cost of production = lower prices = good for consumers = good for all of us.

The fact is they are all HUMAN BEINGS IN TROUBLE.

But the fact also is that we can't take in every human being who is in trouble. And among these there are some who pose a risk. And 99% of these are males.

So, since we can't take them all anyway -- and we have to select some and exclude others -- we might as well take the less risky ones. For any given group that is accepted, if 1/3 are males over 10 years old, that's more risky than if we take only females and boys under 10.

Either way we've offered the same amount of benefit to humans in trouble. But by discriminating against the more risky ones, we accomplish this same benefit at lower risk or cost.

The refugee situation should not reflect a shopping for cheap labor opportunity for sweat shop owners.

Why not? If we can gain the added benefit of more cheap labor for our economy, for the benefit of poor people who benefit the most from the products of cheap labor, what's wrong with that? Overall there's a net gain for society.

How is it that left-wing ideological moralistic preaching always seems to find more and more creative ways to condemn whatever is practical and beneficial to consumers?

Granted, if you only allow females and children, you will allow a lower percentage of males, so overall, probably they'll cause fewer problems. However, male children will in nearly all cases become adult males.

This is about the only argument against the proposal that is based on something practical instead of emotionalistic moralistic preaching (against "discrimination" and capitalist pigs etc.).

One answer is to make sure the age limit is low. Not 18 e.g. Maybe 10 or so. And there would be nothing wrong with taking additional steps to monitor those boys growing older. There are many steps that could be taken. Very discriminatory, for good reason. It's all about statistics, probabilities, risk factor, etc.

Just as we draw "arbitrary lines" in so many areas. How about the voting age of 18? the "retirement age"? only ONE spouse, not two? "women's" basketball? Gender discrimination can be one of many examples of legitimate profiling and line-drawing done to produce an overall net benefit to society.

Doing what's practical is all that matters. Enough with the moralistic babble about what's "fair" and who is "offended" or whose feelings are hurt.

Eventually it will become practical to implant a monitoring transceiver device onto every male, at age 5 or so, to monitor them and deter them from dangerous behavior and thus prevent future tendencies toward crime and terrorism.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This is about the only argument against the proposal that is based on something practical instead of emotionalistic moralistic preaching (against "discrimination" and capitalist pigs etc.)

Actually, the rest of my arguments aren't like that, either - though they do take into consideration mojorising's own moral claims, of course.
But they're not so much arguments against the proposal as tests of mojorising's rationale in support of it.

One answer is to make sure the age limit is low. Not 18 e.g. Maybe 10 or so. And there would be nothing wrong with taking additional steps to monitor those boys growing older. There are many steps that could be taken. Very discriminatory, for good reason. It's all about statistics, probabilities, risk factor, etc.

First, they will grow regardless of age limit, and they will be raised by females from their countries (and culture) of origin, plus in an environment in which they will interact with older males from the same culture, both online, and in meatspace (there are plenty of males from those cultures already there).

Second, how would you propose taking those additional steps? (and how much does that cost?).
For example, how do you react when they and their mothers, sisters, etc., and a zillion leftists take to the streets to protest for being suspects on the basis of being males and/or male refugees?

Just as we draw "arbitrary lines" in so many areas. How about the voting age of 18? the "retirement age"? only ONE spouse, not two? "women's" basketball? Gender discrimination can be one of many examples of legitimate profiling and line-drawing done to produce an overall net benefit to society.

I would object to some of those if I were inclined to, but I'm not so interested in that. I was again testing mojorising's rationale more than anything else.
I don't know whether gender discrimination is legitimate because I don't know what the basis of gender is.
Quite frankly, at this point I find gender to be pretty confusing; asking the people who defend claim about gender that I find difficult to grasp has not helped me understand them, but only revealed confusion on their part so far, often alongside a tendency for character assassination, vilification, etc.

I think in some cases discriminating between males and females is legitimate, in the sense of "males" and "females" regularly used by zoologists when they talk about non-human animals.

Doing what's practical is all that matters. Enough with the moralistic babble about what's "fair" and who is "offended" or whose feelings are hurt.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
If you're trying to do what's practical, you still need some goal - i.e., practical towards achieving some goal -, and the question of which means are morally acceptable is a valid one.

Eventually it will become practical to implant a monitoring transceiver device onto every male, at age 5 or so, to monitor them and deter them from dangerous behavior and thus prevent future tendencies toward crime and terrorism.

Why do you think so?
For example, it's not practical if there is so much opposition that anyone who tries is defeated, by force perhaps.
So, how do you think this will be implemented, and by whom?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you are a man then you are a man. Choice is irrelevant.

Men are evolved as warriors and they should stay and do the warring where it is required.

Men are also more sexually predatory by nature and don't make such civilised or pleasant house-guests as women - witness the NYE nonsense in Cologne.

Islam does not mix well with secular western society and it is primarily adult males who bring the problems.

A women and children only policy would kill several birds with one stone.

Or, are you just trying to up your chances of finding a new girlfriend?

 

[mojorising]

I would then ask:

1. Do adults (males or females) not deserve protection?
if not, why not?

I think women and children deserve protection more than men.

Women and Children should be at the front of the queue. It seems from the UNHCR figures that they are at the back of the queue or have even been left behind in Syria by an army of males.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

49% males 19% females 31% children (most of these children are 16/17 year old males)

Does nobody else find these UNHCR figures alarming/strange?

I found the following article on the gender disparity.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/europe-refugees-migrant-crisis-men-213500

I don't know the 'Politico' website but it was linked from an Australian ABC news article here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/dalsanto-germanys-compassion-moment-is-over/7103576

It seems like this could be a long term problem for Europe.

The Politico article:-

The recent surge of migration into Europe has been unprecedented in scope, with an estimated 1 million migrants from the Middle East and North Africa this past year alone, making for a massive humanitarian crisis, as well as a political and moral dilemma for European governments. But one crucial dimension of this crisis has gone little-noticed: sex or, more technically, sex ratios.

According to official counts, a disproportionate number of these migrants are young, unmarried, unaccompanied males. In fact, the sex ratios among migrants are so one-sided—we’re talking worse than those in China, in some cases—that they could radically change the gender balance in European countries in certain age cohorts.

As many governments, including in the United States, debate how many migrants to accept onto their shores, they would be wise to take gender balance into consideration. That might sound sexist on the surface, but years of research has shown that male-dominated societies are less stable, because they are more susceptible to higher levels of violence, insurgence and mistreatment of women. In Germany, scores of women recently reported being attacked on New Year’s Eve by men whom the authorities describe as of “North African or Arabic” descent. While it is not yet known whether the alleged perpetrators were migrants, the attacks may finally be alerting policymakers to the risks of a male-dominated migration wave. Why would European societies, many of which rank highest on global measures of gender equality and stability and peace, jeopardize those hard-won and enviable rankings?

It makes good sense that so many young men are leaving countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: Their demographic is often at greater risk of being coerced into joining fighting groups, or being killed rather than captured by such groups. But the result is that 66.26 percent of adult migrants registered through Italy and Greece over the past year were male, according to the International Organization of Migration.

That imbalance might not sound radical, but it is, especially when you look more closely at who those males are. It’s true that many male migrants hope that, if granted asylum, they will be joined in Europe by their wives and children, who would help balance out national sex ratios. But importantly, more than 20 percent of migrants are minors below the age of 18, and the IOM estimates that more than half of those minors traveling to Europe are traveling as unaccompanied minors—90 percent of whom are males. This heavily male subset is all but guaranteed asylum because of their status as unaccompanied minors, but they get no special dispensation to bring spouses, especially since the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled that European Union countries are not required to recognize the legality of child marriages among migrants.

To see how these overall figures affect specific countries—and why there is reason for concern—consider the case of Sweden, which has been especially transparent about its migration statistics and whose ratios mirror the broader trend in Europe in many respects.

According to Swedish government statistics, as of the end of November,71 percent of all applicants for asylum to Sweden in 2015 were male. More than 21 percent of all migrants to Sweden were classified as unaccompanied minors, representing more than half of all minor migrants to the country. For accompanied minors, the sex ratio was about 1.16 boys for every one girl. But for unaccompanied minors, the ratio was 11.3 boys for every one girl. In other words, the Swedish case confirms IOM’s statistic that more than 90 percent of unaccompanied minors are male. Indeed, on average, approximately 90 unaccompanied boys entered Sweden every single day in 2015, compared with eight unaccompanied girls.

Those numbers are a recipe for striking imbalances within Sweden. Consider that more than half of these unaccompanied minors entering Sweden are 16 or 17 years old, or at least claim to be. (There are no medical checks of age for Swedish asylum-seekers, and applicants who say they’re under 18 receive special consideration in the asylum process.) In this age group more than three-quarters are unaccompanied, meaning they are overwhelmingly male. According to calculations based on the Swedish government’s figures, a total of 18,615 males aged 16 and 17 entered Sweden over the course of the past year, compared with 2,555 females of the same age.Sure enough, when those figures are added to the existing counts of 16- and 17-year-old boys and girls in Sweden—103,299 and 96,524, respectively, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database—you end up with a total of 121,914 males in Sweden aged 16 or 17 and 99,079 females of the same age. The resulting ratio is astonishing: These calculations suggest that as of the end of 2015, there were 123 16- and 17-year-old boys in Sweden for every 100 girls of that age.

If that trend continues into 2016 or even beyond, each successive late adolescent cohort of 16- and 17-year-olds will be similarly abnormal, and over time the abnormality will become an established fact of the broader young adult population in Sweden. (Hans Rosling, the Swedish data visualizer who created the GapMinder Foundation, has similar estimates regarding the alteration of Swedish sex ratios.) In China, long the most gender-imbalanced country in the world, the male-to-female ratio of approximately 117 boys for every 100 girls in this age group now comes up short of Sweden’s gender gap. China’s sex ratios are still more abnormal across other age groups; the imbalances there extend all the way down to birth sex ratios due to the country’s severe birth restrictions, while Sweden’s abnormalities do not. But young adult sex ratios are arguably the most crucial of all for social stability.

Canada is the one country so far that seems to think this is cause for concern. Faced with similarly skewed sex ratios among asylum-seekers, the new liberal administration of Justin Trudeau announced in late November that, starting in 2016, it would accept only women, accompanied children and families from Syria. Specifically excluded would be unaccompanied minor males and single adult males (unless they are members of the LGBTQ community); those excluded will primarily be older teen and young adult men.

Fear of terrorism could well be part of Canada’s calculus, especially in the wake of attacks perpetrated by migrants in Europe and the United States; in the overwhelming majority of cases, terror attacks are carried out by unattached young adult men. Most of these men are unmarried, and virtually none have children. Indeed, the Islamic State reportedly discourages its male fighters from having children so that they are more willing to engage in suicide attacks, and widows of suicide bombers are quickly forced to remarry, while remaining on birth control.

But fear of terrorism might not be the only reason to be leery of highly abnormal sex ratios among the young adult population. As my co-author Andrea Den Boer and I argued in our book, societies with extremely skewed sex ratios are more unstable even without jihadi ideologues in their midst. Numerous empirical studies have shown that sex ratios correlate significantly with violence and property crime—the higher the sex ratio, the worse the crime rate. Our research also found a link between sex ratios and the emergence of both violent criminal gangs and anti-government movements. It makes sense: When young adult males fail to make the transition to starting a household—particularly those young males who are already at risk for sociopathic behavior due to marginalization, a common concern among immigrants—their grievances are aggravated.

There are also clearly negative effects for women in male-dominated populations. Crimes such as rape and sexual harassment become more common in highly masculinized societies, and women’s ability to move about freely and without fear within societyis curtailed. In addition, demand for prostitution soars; that would create a deeply ironic outcome for Sweden, which invented the path-breaking Swedish abolitionist approach to prostitution.

Europe is famously progressive on women’s rights, and some European governments have even created voluntary classes for migrants to understand how the treatment of women may be profoundly different in their new homes. But even with such efforts there is the potential for real regress when the young adult sex ratio is so high. And what is often invisible in the debates over migration is that the women left behind by this largely male exodus are usually left in dire situations: In displaced persons camps in Syria or refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and surrounding countries, female-headed households live in fear and penury, prey to exploitation and abuse. Sweden’s foreign minister, Margot Wallström rightly emphasizes her country’s “feminist foreign policy”—but can Sweden really consider its migration policy to be feminist?

While the humanitarian needs of the refugees streaming into Europe must be foremost in our minds at this time, policymakers in Sweden and other countries should also think of the long-term consequences of an unprecedented alteration in the young adult sex ratios of their societies. The Canadian approach should be carefully studied, and perhaps adapted by other countries. After all, if the sex ratios of the migrants’ countries of origins are balanced, is it not odd to accept predominantly male migrants for asylum?

As anthropologist Barbara Miller has persuasively argued, a normal sex ratio is a “public good” and therefore deserves state protection. For Sweden—or any other European country—to wind up with the worst young adult sex ratios in the world would be a tragedy for European men and women alike.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think women and children deserve protection more than men.

Your distinction earlier had been that women don't make trouble, and children are children so they deserve protection. But if males also deserve protection to some extent, why would the argument not apply to them?
Instead, you said "They should have been kept in Syria to fight for their country." But I'll leave the previous one aside and focus on the new one. Then my question would be:

Why do females and children deserve more protection?

Women and Children should be at the front of the queue.

That's better than a ban on males, and all other things equal, based on need, it would make sense in those cases in which you have no further info to assess who needs more protection.
But I don't see how you'll connect that to desert.

Alternatively, you could propose that in the case of females because females overall are much less violent than males (but children grow). But again, I don't see how you would be able to defend that on the basis of desert (other than taking averages again, but that's problematic), or how you're going I'm not sure how you're going to sell that idea to the public (or more precisely, which mainstream politicians will risk trying to sell that idea publicly).

It seems from the UNHCR figures that they are at the back of the queue or have even been left behind in Syria by an army of males.

Not so much an army as whoever managed to get out of that place faster. Males have been more successful at that, apparently.

49% males 19% females 31% children (most of these children are 16/17 year old males)

Does nobody else find these UNHCR figures alarming/strange?

All other things equal, I think when people are trying to run from a hellish mostly lawless place to a much better place through a tough and dangerous journey, healthy adult males will likely be the most successful at that.
So, I wouldn't find them strange.
However, I do find the very high proportion of children strange. From your link:

Children make up one in four of refugees and migrants crossing the Mediterranean since January 2015. Many travel without their parents or caretakers. (UNHCR)

That sounds really high. How do they manage?
I suspect this is probably because they count every person under 18 as a child, and many of those children are actually juvenile males, aged 14-17.

The Politico article:-

The article gives another reason why you would expect a greater proportion of healthy young males:

It makes good sense that so many young men are leaving countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria: Their demographic is often at greater risk of being coerced into joining fighting groups, or being killed rather than captured by such groups.

That's probably true, though it includes adolescent males. Females are of course a lot more likely to be enslaved and raped, so they too have a strong motivation to make a run for it. But males are probably overall better at undertaking such perilous journeys.

In any case, I don't think the desert-based argument works. I guess at most you could say that since males are more frequently violent offenders - including people responsible for the wars -, and those people arguably deserve less protection than the rest, overall males deserve less protection. But what about the males who aren't violent offenders?

An argument based on needs would be difficult too, especially if males are the demographic at greater risk.

So, it seems the only argument left is the one based on the risks for the society accepting those refugees.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think women and children deserve protection more than men.

Women and Children should be at the front of the queue. It seems from the UNHCR figures that they are at the back of the queue or have even been left behind in Syria by an army of males.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

49% males 19% females 31% children (most of these children are 16/17 year old males)

Does nobody else find these UNHCR figures alarming/strange?

I think it's worth pointing out that the White Star Line became the world's most famous practitioner of "Women and children first" primarily by means of having no competition. A study of sea disasters found that, listed from best to worst chance of surviving, the participants were:

1. Crew
2. Captain
3. Adult male passengers
4. Adult female passengers
5. Children

The Titanic, where women and children had by far the best chance of making it into the lifeboats, was an extreme outlier. The skewed sex-ratio among Syrian refugees is normal human behavior in a disaster. (And I'd be interested to know whether that "31% children" figure is based on the judgment of UNHCR observers or is based on migrants' self-reported age.)

 

[mojorising]

Why do females and children deserve more protection?

Because women and children are phsically weaker. Also women are especially vulnerable in a conflict in muslim 3rd world to sexual predation.

Man are more able to defend themselves. They have more of a reason/duty to stay and fight (I believe). They are the ones who cause cultural and social friction in the host countries. The small percentage of jihadists in the refugee population are almost always males.

There are many reasons why women and children deserve priority treatment.

But what about the males who aren't violent offenders?

There are always outliers in any group but policy needs to be adopted based on the general features. Men are more violent and cause more trouble in general.

healthy adult males will likely be the most successful at that.

The skewed sex-ratio among Syrian refugees is normal human behavior in a disaster.

It seems morally wrong that healthy young men run and abandon their females and children.

I think this behaviour should be discouraged.

As a compromise I could maybe say men will only admitted if they are accompanied by at least one woman or child. Then at least it does not cause so much problems for the west with all the lone males. It also forces the males to assist the females, which they should have done anyway.

It may also be worth assisting travel for females from these regions through sponsored transport measures. This would cost more but it would combat the problems with the male dominated population we now have.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because women and children are phsically weaker. Also women are especially vulnerable in a conflict in muslim 3rd world to sexual predation.

Man are more able to defend themselves.

But those are arguments in supports of a claim that adult females and children need more protection than adult males, not that they deserve more protection than adult males.

You need to connect the two.

But assuming for the sake of the argument that greater need -> more deserving, then the question would still be who is at a greater need.

For example, the Politico article claims that adult males are at greater risk of being recruited, etc.

They have more of a reason/duty to stay and fight (I believe).

But why?
If Joe is an adult male, and IS is killing adult males (or forcibly recruit them), and he has no chance of stopping them, why would he be acting immorally if he flees?

They are the ones who cause cultural and social friction in the host countries. The small percentage of jihadists in the refugee population are almost always males.

The small percentage of violent criminals in any society are almost always males, for that matter. But even then, there are plenty of males who aren't violent criminals, and who don't cause the social friction as you put it.

There are always outliers in any group but policy needs to be adopted based on the general features. Men are more violent and cause more trouble in general.

Males who aren't violent offenders aren't outliers.
It's true that adult males are more violent overall and cause more trouble overall than adult females. But young males nearly always grow up to be adult males (some die young, but nearly all don't).

It seems morally wrong that healthy young men run and abandon their females and children.

I think this behaviour should be discouraged.

But that leaves aside all of those adult males who:

1. Run but have no children or anyone else in charge.
2. Run with their families (though you address that in your modified proposal).

As a compromise I could maybe say men will only admitted if they are accompanied by at least one woman or child. Then at least it does not cause so much problems for the west with all the lone males. It also forces the males to assist the females, which they should have done anyway.

That compromise might resolve the case of males in point 2. above, but it seems very vulnerable to fraud (e.g., an adult male accompanied by a 17-years old one, and as Bomb#20 suggested in the case of the statistic, self-reports of age aren't so reliable).

But that aside, I don't see why all of those other males had an obligation to assist the females.

On the other hand, I agree that if you pick adult females only, or otherwise restrict males, the host country is very likely to have less trouble, so you could make an argument on that basis. But you're trying to make an argument based to a considerable extent on quite dubious claims of moral obligation and desert.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't see how it's going to do anything to restrict terrorist attacks when ISIS has demonstrated that they're willing to go above and beyond anything to cause as much damage as they can.

 

[mojorising]

But those are arguments in supports of a claim that adult females and children need more protection than adult males, not that they deserve more protection than adult males.

You need to connect the two.

Maybe you should show that you deserve to have something so self-evident explained to you in order to demonstrate that I need to explain it to you.

But assuming for the sake of the argument that greater need -> more deserving

Yes, I think in the interests of avoiding drifting into the realm of intellectual masturbation we could just assume that.

If Joe is an adult male, and IS is killing adult males (or forcibly recruit them), and he has no chance of stopping them, why would he be acting immorally if he flees?

If anybody is capable of standing up to IS it is the male Syrians who are not members of IS. Because males are evolved as warriors. Fleeing a combat zone while leaving women and children behind to be raped/slaughtered is immoral for any able-bodied male, even a civilian.

It's true that adult males are more violent overall and cause more trouble overall than adult females. But young males nearly always grow up to be adult males (some die young, but nearly all don't).

Well from a purely practical perspective that is true and I could specify only female children but I think that most people would sympathise with a young boys plight and reject the notion of gender preference among the very young.

That compromise might resolve the case of males in point 2. above, but it seems very vulnerable to fraud (e.g., an adult male accompanied by a 17-years old one, and as Bomb#20 suggested in the case of the statistic, self-reports of age aren't so reliable).

All policies are vulnerable to fraud. It is still worth making the policies and trying to enforce them to at least achieve a measure of their goals.

The arguments in favour of a policy of preference for women and children are that:-

1. Females and children are more vulnerable and therefore more deserving of protection
2. There is already a massive discrepancy in gender balance in the influx and that should be rectified
3. Males cause more social trouble for the refugee host country
4. Islamic terrorist threats come from the male side of the influx

You can counter any of these points individually for the sake of intellectual exercise but they each carry substantial weight in terms of common sense.

When combined together they provide a compelling argument which I think would persuade most reasonable minded folk that a policy of preference for females and children is the right thing to do at this stage.

At the very least are you willing to accept that a policy of only accepting males who are accompanied by at least one female or child is a sensible measure?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Maybe you should show that you deserve to have something so self-evident explained to you in order to demonstrate that I need to explain it to you.

1. It's not remotely self-evident. In fact, it appears to be false.
But purely for example, if Joe has a 3/5 chance of drowning if he's not rescued, and Bob has a 1/2 chance of drowning if he's not rescued, it doesn't follow that Joe is more deserving of being rescued than Bob, all other things equal. There appears to be no good reason to suspect so. Those chances (if the person deciding whom to rescue is making a proper assessment) may support the conclusion that it's overall better to rescue Joe, but not that he deserves to be rescued more than Bob.
2. You need to connect the two in order to properly derive the conclusion you want. If you don't care about doing so, or more likely simply don't realize that because it looks self-evident to you, then there's nothing I can say.
3. Of course, you could have tried an argument based on needs and getting a better overall outcome or something like that, instead of insisting on desert, but you chose otherwise, and insist on it.

Yes, I think in the interests of avoiding drifting into the realm of intellectual masturbation we could just assume that.

You win: You've offended me enough. I'm retiring from on-line fights. I'm getting old I guess, and it doesn't fell like it's worth the distress anymore. Goodbye.

 

[mojorising]

OK Angra, I will play.

The moral connection between a person's need and their deserving help is in the moral nature of humans to sympathise with and render assistance to those most in need of help. If we do not render help to those most in need over those who need the assistance less then we are not acting in a way to minimise the total amount of suffering incurred and so we are behaving immorally and denying our morally evolved human nature.

If there were 2 people drowning and one was a stronger swimmer than the other and you only had one life belt who would you throw it to? I would throw it to the person who is a weaker swimmer. You could argue that the weaker swimmer has less chance of surviving so you should throw to to the stronger swimmer but I would say that is intellectual masturbation since it flies in the face of moral common sense.

I find these arguments that involve deconstructing everything back to its moral first principles to be a little tedious when they get in the way of more complex meaningful political discussion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The moral connection between a person's need and their deserving help is in the moral nature of humans to sympathise with and render assistance to those most in need of help. If we do not render help to those most in need over those who need the assistance less then we are not acting in a way to minimise the total amount of suffering incurred and so we are behaving immorally and denying our morally evolved human nature.

1. The claim that attempting to minimizing the total amount of suffering incurred is a moral obligation always is at least controversial. Actually, I'd say it's false.
For example, if you donated half your money to charity in a smart (i.e., effective) way, probably you would reduce suffering (even after factoring in your own suffering from the decision), but you're not behaving immorally if you don't do that.
Also, for example, you might be able to reduce suffering more by giving less money to your children and more to children in greater need. But it's not the case that you have an obligation to do so. And so on.
2. In any case, the argument here would be an argument in support of the claim that rendering help to those at greater risk is a moral obligation, not that they deserve help more than the others. For example, let's say that Joe and Bob fell from a boat that sank, and they're separated. Joe is at a greater risk because he's Black, and Bob is White (and all other things equal, there is a greater risk of drowning). But it's not the case that Joe deserves to be rescued more than Bob does, even if other people have a moral obligation to try to rescue Joe first - though that's not clear to me, or rather, it seems to depend on other factors.
3. You can argue that helping people who are more at risk - all other things equal - is overall better - even if supererogatory -, because you're more likely to reduce more suffering, and I wouldn't object to that. But I don't think the desert claim is a good one - at least, it would require a lot more support.

If there were 2 people drowning and one was a stronger swimmer than the other and you only had one life belt who would you throw it to? I would throw it to the person who is a weaker swimmer. You could argue that the weaker swimmer has less chance of surviving so you should throw to to the stronger swimmer but I would say that is intellectual masturbation since it flies in the face of moral common sense.

Well, if one of them is my friend or family member and the other a stranger, I'll throw it to the former unless they simply aren't at risk, and don't need it.
Else, I would probably throw it to the weaker swimmer if I think the other one has a chance without the belt. If I think neither of them has a non-negligible chance without it, I'm not sure.
But let's say that I reckon both have a small chance without the belt, but the stronger swimmer naturally has a better chance. Then, I would very probably throw the life belt to the weaker swimmer, but without telling the other swimmer they deserve it less.

My objection was not to an argument based on need, but to the desert claim, which is at the very least controversial.

I find these arguments that involve deconstructing everything back to its moral first principles to be a little tedious when they get in the way of more complex meaningful political discussion.

Me too. But you were the one making desert claims.

If anybody is capable of standing up to IS it is the male Syrians who are not members of IS. Because males are evolved as warriors. Fleeing a combat zone while leaving women and children behind to be raped/slaughtered is immoral for any able-bodied male, even a civilian.

If anybody is capable of standing up to IS it is the Delta Force units, or Quds Force, Hezbollah, Russian Spetsnaz forces, or many others. But not the general Syrian male population.
The point is that human males didn't evolve as capable of confronting machine guns, tanks, armored vehicles, etc. Most men are not capable of standing UP to IS. They might have a better chance than females. Or not, that depends. If IS aims at killing the males and enslaving the females, the latter have a greater survival chance.

Well from a purely practical perspective that is true and I could specify only female children but I think that most people would sympathise with a young boys plight and reject the notion of gender preference among the very young.

If it's about chances of implementation, a ban on adult males will not be implemented. It will not be politically doable - at least for a very long time.
At most, a strategy that follows Canadian lines (i.e., priority for children, females or families - including males - and also for gay males and other particularly vulnerable groups) is far more likely to be publicly accepted.

All policies are vulnerable to fraud. It is still worth making the policies and trying to enforce them to at least achieve a measure of their goals.

That depends on how vulnerable they are. At some point, it's pointless - a waste of resources with very little payoff.

The arguments in favour of a policy of preference for women and children are

More likely to convince enough people to be implemented than the arguments for banning adult males.
Still, leaving aside family groups would be pretty difficult to.

1. Females and children are more vulnerable and therefore more deserving of protection

Improvement (removing controversial claims about desert).
1'. Females and children - and some males, like disable ones, gays, some groups targetted for extermination - are more vulnerable and therefore in greater need for protection.

2. There is already a massive discrepancy in gender balance in the influx and that should be rectified

I'm not sure gender is the word (confusing), but that would likely cause opposition too. Moreover, it wouldn't work in countries that haven't yet received many refugees.

3. Males cause more social trouble for the refugee host country

3'. Males are overall more likely to cause social trouble for the refugee host country.

4. Islamic terrorist threats come from the male side of the influx

4'. Nearly all terrorist threats come from males. While terrorist organizations could adapt and use females instead, their resources to do that appears so far more limited.

But I'm not sure this one (i.e., the terrorist argument) is worth the effort. Arguably, they'll just get enough females for their attacks.

At the very least are you willing to accept that a policy of only accepting males who are accompanied by at least one female or child is a sensible measure?

That seems too extreme, because it doesn't leave room for considering individual cases. But prioritizing some cases like that (all other things equal) makes sense, if you have a limited amount of resources so you can't help them all (or you have good reason to think they're not refugees, but that's another matter), and you don't have enough info about their specific situation.
Also, it makes sense from the perspective of point 3'.

 

[mojorising]

3. You can argue that helping people who are more at risk - all other things equal - is overall better - even if supererogatory -, because you're more likely to reduce more suffering, and I wouldn't object to that. But I don't think the desert claim is a good one - at least, it would require a lot more support.

You are tying yourself in knots over some pedantic linguistic quibble about the definition of 'deserves'.

Most people would give help to person A if they need help more than person B.

Many people would equally say that their increased need means that person A 'deserves' help more than person B. It is just common usage of the word deserves. I am sorry that it causes your mental dictionary to overheat.

If anybody is capable of standing up to IS it is the Delta Force units, or Quds Force, Hezbollah, Russian Spetsnaz forces, or many others. But not the general Syrian male population.

Some of these organisations are just rag tag amateurs militia made up of untrained civilians. The Syrian males who are fit should think about joining them instead of throwing women and children behind them in their haste to run away.

If it's about chances of implementation, a ban on adult males will not be implemented. It will not be politically doable - at least for a very long time.
At most, a strategy that follows Canadian lines (i.e., priority for children, females or families - including males - and also for gay males and other particularly vulnerable groups) is far more likely to be publicly accepted.

I also think that stopping all males will be politically indigestible even if it is justifiable from a practical point of view given the current gender disparity in the refugee population.

A Canadian style compromise is the more realistic option. Take in families and women and children first. Single men go at the end of the queue and with any luck the space runs out before we get to them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are tying yourself in knots over some pedantic linguistic quibble about the definition of 'deserves'.

It's not some semantic pedantic linguistic quibble, and I'm not tying myself in knots.
If you take a look at how your earlier posts, you said:

Men are evolved as warriors and they should stay and do the warring where it is required.

They should have been kept in Syria to fight for their country. The women do not cause problems and the children are children so deserve protection.

If you make an argument coached in moral language of desert and obligation, it's reasonable to reply addressing your actual argument.

If anybody is capable of standing up to IS it is the Delta Force units, or Quds Force, Hezbollah, Russian Spetsnaz forces, or many others. But not the general Syrian male population.

Some of these organisations are just rag tag amateurs militia made up of untrained civilians. The Syrian males who are fit should think about joining them instead of throwing women and children behind them in their haste to run away.

What organizations are you talking about?
Hezbollah of course has people not properly trained for combat. But they have well-trained, battle-tested units that can fight against IS. The other organizations I mentioned are obviously not civilians, nor open for civilian males.

But the "instead" is a false dichotomy. Syrian males can run away without throwing anyone anywhere. Again, contend they have an obligation to put his life on the line. But I don't see any good reason to believe so. By the way, in most cases (or nearly all...if not all), their opportunities to join any organization with any remote chance of not losing (usually quickly) are opportunities to join the bad guys and fight the evil fight. That tends to happen when all of the major players are bad guys fighting other bad guys and committing horrible crimes in the process.

 

[mojorising]

Women and children are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves than men so they deserve our protection more than men. Simple common use of the English language regardless of your pretentious objections.

The invitation to refugees was badly organised by Merkel. It should have stipulated that any males wanting admission to the west should bring at least one woman or child with them.

It is sad and shameful I would say that these men run away from the situation leaving women and children behind to suffer the horrors of the conflict.

Given the disparity in the gender of admissions so far I would say there is a good case for saying no more males at all until the numbers start to balance out.