Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Islamic invaders into Europe a definitely a demographic threat
Afghan couple who have nine children and receive £5,000 a month in benefits have asked for free IVF treatment after arriving in Austria (and the wife is 44)

And the #opentheborders and #refugeeswelcome idiots and fifth columnists want to bring millions more in! It's suicide!

...
...
Guys, that stuff pertains to whether it's ethical for European countries' government leaders to let the refugees into their countries, not to whether it's ethical for the refugees to keep making babies while they're still trying to get let in somewhere. Take it to the "Europe submits voluntarily" thread.

Sort of but not really and I know that you and your friend Angra want to change the thread by splitting it or moving it so you can "win," but it's always been part of the op.

The op title doesn't say "Should a refugee mom have children?" Instead it reads "Why are 'refugees' still having children?"

Just like I told Angra, the reason that Derec put quotes around "refugees" is because he was talking about Islamists as well as [other] refugees. He explained that on page#2.

His implied thesis was since it is unethical and impractical for the mother to have a 5th child, the likely real reason she had the child was to spread Islamism further into Europe. A sub-topic is media coverage and how "The Left" is tricked by the emotionalism to help the babies into introducing more risk of terrorism and totalitarianism from Islam.

Discussing the ethics, the practicality, policy regarding refugees, and challenges to Derec's assumptions and conclusions are all fair game.

Good try, though.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We even had a spin off thread about Terror Babies.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why do you think the op is unrelated to the discussion you ought to have?

Why did you stop beating your wife?
What, you didn't?
Your reply is unrelated to the discussion we were having. I have no moral obligation to have any discussions here, so there is no discussion I ought to have.

Moreover, why would you think Derec would want to put sufficient energy into this tangent, i.e. that his op was not quite this point?

Why do you think pigs fly?
What, you don't?
Well, I don't have the belief Derec would want to discuss that. Your reply is unrelated to the matter you and I were discussing, because you challenged one of my points in a reply to Crazy Eddie.

That is to say, the "everything you need to know" is that he's not going to want to go on for 20 pages about such tangent and he has even broken his silence recently to chime in about Islamists.

But that's not what you were talking about when you said "everything you need to know". We were talking about moral intuitions - a discussion between us that you started.

Millions of people have been displaced from Syria due to the war. If you believe Derec thinks most of them are economic migrants as opposed to refugees, then you'll have to demonstrate this.

More misrepresentation, etc.
I already shown that your claim that he believes most of them are terrorists or Islamists is unjustified, and in fact, he apparently believes most of those who travel to Europe are economic migrants (based on what he said on this thread, of course; I'm not following him around other threads, so I can't rule out somewhere he denied what he said here, but if so, please post the relevant links). I never suggested he believes most of the displaced people are economic migrants. I was talking about those traveling to Europe.

Third, of course she is "possibly" an Islamists, if by "possibly" you mean metaphysical possibility, or a non-zero probability. But unless you're - once again - improperly suggesting that he considers that probable, the inclusion of that "possibly" in your reply is out of place, beyond the already out-of-placeness of the reply itself, which is unrelated to my reply.

No, it's not out of place at all.

It sure is, as it is unrelated to what we were discussing, and further unrelated to anything Derec said.

What is that you think you "need" to know?

You used the word "need" and now yo scare quote it as if it were my doing?
In context, I thought you were talking about Derec moral intuitions. I didn't know you had completely changed the subject and replied to me talking about something else.
You said that "Indeed. Even Derec does not agree with Angra's zombie apocalypse conclusion.". Well, we were talking about that. It is useless to talk if you change the subject in every post, grossly misrepresenting my reply and making it about something that it wasn't.

While I admit that your non-moral "fact" were so messed up that most people (such as Derec) would disagree with them, as I stated above, it's actually the "standard" that he'd disagree with, not because it's the worst thing since ever, but instead because he has implicitly agreed that there are other things to consider and place value upon than "substantial risk" to "an unhappy life."

What are you even talking about?
Regardless, I didn't affirm any falsity, moral or non-moral. But again, we were talking about Glenn and Maggie. I also thikn there are other things to consider, but after considering them, in that case they behaved immorally. Derec has apparently chosen not to discuss the matter with me, so that's it. We don't know if I would convince him.

Thank you angelo. I think your view has sufficiently enough in common with Derec's view on the matter, that perhaps Angra will wake up to the meaning of the op--to include the intention of the word "refugees."

No, angelo is not Derec. You attack Derec on the "grounds" of... group thinking. You should not. I already explained why you're wrong about Derec, on the basis of what he (not angelo) said, but even without that explanation (which you didn't even accept, but you should have), you should not do that.

The fact that Derec believes that all of those Muslims going to Europe represent a threat of Islamization does not entail that he believes that most of those Muslims do it in order to make Europe Islamic. And the evidence I already gave you indicates (in this thread) that that is not so.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

...
...
Guys, that stuff pertains to whether it's ethical for European countries' government leaders to let the refugees into their countries, not to whether it's ethical for the refugees to keep making babies while they're still trying to get let in somewhere. Take it to the "Europe submits voluntarily" thread.

Sort of but not really and I know that you and your friend Angra want to change the thread by splitting it or moving it so you can "win," but it's always been part of the op.

The op title doesn't say "Should a refugee mom have children?" Instead it reads "Why are 'refugees' still having children?"

Just like I told Angra, the reason that Derec put quotes around "refugees" is because he was talking about Islamists as well as [other] refugees. He explained that on page#2.

His implied thesis was since it is unethical and impractical for the mother to have a 5th child, the likely real reason she had the child was to spread Islamism further into Europe. A sub-topic is media coverage and how "The Left" is tricked by the emotionalism to help the babies into introducing more risk of terrorism and totalitarianism from Islam.

Discussing the ethics, the practicality, policy regarding refugees, and challenges to Derec's assumptions and conclusions are all fair game.

Good try, though.

You're making that up. You attack your out-group Derec even by means of unjustified attributions of beliefs.

I already explained that your assertions about what he thinks are not justified on the basis of what he said on page #2 or anywhere in the thread, and yet you persist.

 

[laughing dog]

I already explained that your assertions about what he thinks are not justified on the basis of what he said on page #2 or anywhere in the thread, and yet you persist.

You persist in insisting others accept your unconvincing explanations.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I already explained that your assertions about what he thinks are not justified on the basis of what he said on page #2 or anywhere in the thread, and yet you persist.

You persist in insisting others accept your unconvincing explanations.

Indeed. According to Angra Mainyu and his/her friend Bomb#20, Derec has been derailing his own thread since page#2 by discussing Islamism because Angra will not accept that Derec had quotes around "refugees" to mean in large part, not refugees but Islamists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why did you stop beating your wife?
What, you didn't?
Your reply is unrelated to the discussion we were having. I have no moral obligation to have any discussions here, so there is no discussion I ought to have.

Moreover, why would you think Derec would want to put sufficient energy into this tangent, i.e. that his op was not quite this point?

Why do you think pigs fly?
What, you don't?
Well, I don't have the belief Derec would want to discuss that. Your reply is unrelated to the matter you and I were discussing, because you challenged one of my points in a reply to Crazy Eddie.

That is to say, the "everything you need to know" is that he's not going to want to go on for 20 pages about such tangent and he has even broken his silence recently to chime in about Islamists.

But that's not what you were talking about when you said "everything you need to know". We were talking about moral intuitions - a discussion between us that you started.

Millions of people have been displaced from Syria due to the war. If you believe Derec thinks most of them are economic migrants as opposed to refugees, then you'll have to demonstrate this.

More misrepresentation, etc.
I already shown that your claim that he believes most of them are terrorists or Islamists is unjustified, and in fact, he apparently believes most of those who travel to Europe are economic migrants (based on what he said on this thread, of course; I'm not following him around other threads, so I can't rule out somewhere he denied what he said here, but if so, please post the relevant links). I never suggested he believes most of the displaced people are economic migrants. I was talking about those traveling to Europe.

Third, of course she is "possibly" an Islamists, if by "possibly" you mean metaphysical possibility, or a non-zero probability. But unless you're - once again - improperly suggesting that he considers that probable, the inclusion of that "possibly" in your reply is out of place, beyond the already out-of-placeness of the reply itself, which is unrelated to my reply.

No, it's not out of place at all.

It sure is, as it is unrelated to what we were discussing, and further unrelated to anything Derec said.

What is that you think you "need" to know?

You used the word "need" and now yo scare quote it as if it were my doing?
In context, I thought you were talking about Derec moral intuitions. I didn't know you had completely changed the subject and replied to me talking about something else.
You said that "Indeed. Even Derec does not agree with Angra's zombie apocalypse conclusion.". Well, we were talking about that. It is useless to talk if you change the subject in every post, grossly misrepresenting my reply and making it about something that it wasn't.

While I admit that your non-moral "fact" were so messed up that most people (such as Derec) would disagree with them, as I stated above, it's actually the "standard" that he'd disagree with, not because it's the worst thing since ever, but instead because he has implicitly agreed that there are other things to consider and place value upon than "substantial risk" to "an unhappy life."

What are you even talking about?
Regardless, I didn't affirm any falsity, moral or non-moral. But again, we were talking about Glenn and Maggie. I also thikn there are other things to consider, but after considering them, in that case they behaved immorally. Derec has apparently chosen not to discuss the matter with me, so that's it. We don't know if I would convince him.

Thank you angelo. I think your view has sufficiently enough in common with Derec's view on the matter, that perhaps Angra will wake up to the meaning of the op--to include the intention of the word "refugees."

No, angelo is not Derec. You attack Derec on the "grounds" of... group thinking. You should not. I already explained why you're wrong about Derec, on the basis of what he (not angelo) said, but even without that explanation (which you didn't even accept, but you should have), you should not do that.

The fact that Derec believes that all of those Muslims going to Europe represent a threat of Islamization does not entail that he believes that most of those Muslims do it in order to make Europe Islamic. And the evidence I already gave you indicates (in this thread) that that is not so.

Hooey not worth responding to, it was your friend B#20's post that is calling Derec a thread-derailer. I am merely taking Derec's posts into account to determine the most parsimonious explanation of his op.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Note though, that these people refuse to move to better, army-built shelters because they want to be close to the border they are trying to cross illegally.

Angra, what is Derec trying to tell you with this sentence from the op? What risks does it pose by these people crossing the border?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Note though, that these people refuse to move to better, army-built shelters because they want to be close to the border they are trying to cross illegally.

Angra, what is Derec trying to tell you with this sentence from the op? What risks does it pose by these people crossing the border?

According to Derec?
A number of risks, it seems, including an increased Islamization of Europe, which by no means implies that the reason most of them are trying to cross the border illegally is to make Europe Islamic.

I already said more than enough in a previous post

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Hooey not worth responding to, it was your friend B#20's post that is calling Derec a thread-derailer. I am merely taking Derec's posts into account to determine the most parsimonious explanation of his op.

That's not even a related reply, just an unjust attack either Bomb#20 or me or both.
Bomb#20 didn't say or suggested that Derec thought that most migrants wanted to go to Europe in order to make it Islamic.

You never stop misrepresenting what has been going on, do you? (not that you ever realize you're doing that, but it's still offensive).

You claimed:

And further the reason he put "refugees" in quotes was because in his view many of the people are NOT refugees but are there to spread Islamism further into Europe.

I replied:

Actually, it's probably because he thinks most of them aren't refugees but economic migrants.

I am right, and you are wrong, as I already explained.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First part of post not worth responding to.

I am right, and you are wrong, as I already explained.

From Angra's maturely worded link:

Again, let's look at the OP. You claim that the OP is partly pointing the finger at perceived Islamists. It is not. He points the finger in another post, much later, and for a different behavior (i.e., not for behaviors described in the OP).

I had already explained to you much, much earlier that Derec's op has no explicitly worded thesis. You'll have to be less vague for the rest of your point.

Here is you recently discussing a sentence in the op:

According to Derec?
A number of risks, it seems, including an increased Islamization of Europe, which by no means implies that the reason most of them are trying to cross the border illegally is to make Europe Islamic.

There is no explicit word "Islamization" in the op, but there it is written by you above.

ETA: I have no idea if most of them are Islamists and never claimed I knew. What I wrote is that other people such as Macedonian politicians made such claims. While it is entirely plausible maybe even likely that Derec agrees with that assessment, the word "most" is not necessary. It's just a word. Replace it with another word you've used before such as "substantial" if you like. So you can say "...a substantial number of them..." are Islamists. Btw, I never said that an increase in Islamization of Europe implies most of them are Islamists either so I've got no idea where that comes from.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Fruits of Islamization of Europe

Derec, this video has been removed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

From Angra's maturely worded link:

After your constant attacks based on misrepresentations of my words, attributions of beliefs I don't have and actions I didn't do, failure to accept debunking of your unjustified claims (repeatedly), etc., my replies are justified - and more strongly worded ones would be justified too.

I had already explained to you much, much earlier that Derec's op has no explicitly worded thesis.

You don't need to explain me what I know. I already explained why you're wrong.

There is no explicit word "Islamization" in the op, but there it is written by you above.

Which is also irrelevant.
Again, you claimed that the reason he put "refugees" in quotes was because in his view many of the people are NOT refugees but are there to spread Islamism further into Europe.. You further implied he probably believes that most of them are Islamists or terrorists (see this post of yours). I already explained that on the basis of what he said on this thread, the proper conclusion is that he almost certainly believes most of them are economic migrants.

ETA: I have no idea if most of them are Islamists and never claimed I knew.

I have no idea why you would say that, but I never suggested you claimed so, or anything of the sort.

Btw, I never said that an increase in Islamization of Europe implies most of them are Islamists either so I've got no idea where that comes from.

Given you have no basis on this thread for your claims about Derec, I'm ruling out potential alternatives. In particular, I'm saying that while Derec believes there is a risk of an increase in Islamization of Europe, you can't properly infer from that that he believes that most are Islamists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fruits of Islamization of Europe

Derec, this video has been removed.

In other words, the Islamists griped and it got zapped. Very common for things the Islamists don't like.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

While it is entirely plausible maybe even likely that Derec agrees with that assessment, the word "most" is not necessary. It's just a word. Replace it with another word you've used before such as "substantial" if you like. So you can say "...a substantial number of them..." are Islamists.

Okay, though you had implied it was most of them.

After re-reading the thread (after all, I don't remember every post in detail), I realize I had to correct part of my assessment.
There are posts (not among those you quoted) that taken in isolation would support your assessment. But in context, it's not justified (though I have to say, Derec appears rather confused).
This is how it went:

Apparently a mother gave birth in the Idomeni camp and the article focuses on how terrible the conditions are. Well it really is terrible, but the couple are responsible for having brought a baby into this situation. The civil war has been raging for at least 5 years now, and continuing to bring more children into this situation is very irresponsible.

And this woman already has four other children, the youngest of them only one year old, thus also conceived well into the civil war.

That looks like blaming her for allegedly being irresponsible, not for being a successful enemy combatant.

Well most people know how to put on a fucking condom. Also people should be able to exert some self control and maybe not have unprotected sex during the middle of a civil war when they already have 4 children. Is a little personal responsibility too much to ask for?

Again, that's blame for allegedly being irresponsible, not for choosing to wage war on the evil side and doing so successfully.

Why is the word "refugees" in scare quotes?

Because only some of those on the Idomeni camping trip are actual refugees.

If Derec was right about why he did that (he might have forgotten), it wasn't because he believes many or most of them migrate in order to spread Islam. It was because only some are refugees, regardless of what the others are.

Apparently for some it's about having as many children as possible.

Because you are giving excuses for this couple's irresponsible behavior.

And again, there was no suggestion of Islamism, and in fact, everything went in the other direction.

If German and other European "activists" wanted to help those people, maybe handing out condoms and teaching them how to use them would be better than trying to help them cross the border illegally.

Which would make no sense if those people are enemy combatants who are deploying their effective weapon against the West.

And also, if Europe takes in millions more of these people (in addition to millions it already took in) after a generation there will be 5x as many of them. And it's not like Europe doesn't already have huge problems with Islamists. Not only terrorism but also demands that Europe change their ways of life to appease all these Muslims (like no pork, dressing more modestly etc.)

But concern about the effect (people do tend to carry their values when they migrate) does not suggest attribution of intent to spread Islamism.

They are being condemned because they do things (have more children) than only serve to make them more poor and miserable.

But that's very clearly very different from condemning them for choosing to fight for an evil cause and doing things that do serve them advance their evil cause (i.e., have more children, especially in the West, in the context of that particular accusation).

Those babies growing up and some of them becoming terrorists is a real concern, especially after Paris and Brussels.

But that again does not suggest attribution of intent.

No, I think those that excuse the irresponsible behavior "they can't help themselves" are the ones who see them as subhuman. Those that see them as fully human expect them to not engage in unprotected sex when consequences of a pregnancy are bad, like in this case.

Well, that's false of course. I see them as fully human, but I don't expect them not to engage in unprotected sex when consequences of a pregnancy are bad. I expect many, perhaps most of them to keep having unprotected sex, and also keep trying to have children.
But regardless, the blame is for allegedly irresponsible behavior, not for successfully deploying their weapons in their evil war against the West.

Actually I'm just not accepting your presupposition that their behavior was irresponsible.

How is it not irresponsible?

Yet there is post#43.

They could use condoms. Those people also have access to medical care, and thus access to other contraceptives. Of course, having as many children as possible is the weapon in the demographic war against the West.

That was not in line with anything he said before. Now they're using a weapon (and successfully, given Derec's views on how the war is going)?

But the high birthrate is not something that only appeared with the Syrian civil war. Muslims tend to have 5+ children as a matter of their culture - they never adopted to the modern world with much lower mortality. I don't think the West should constantly bail them out when their own countries get predictably overcrowded as a result of such high birth rate.

But wasn't it their weapon in the war against the West?
Now it's part of their culture, even when they're not in the West, or going to the West, etc.?

That's nonsense. Human beings can make choices. Many people make the choice to delay having children or avoid them altogether.
These migrants are making the poor choice to have all these children and then want the EU to take them all in "because the children are suffering". But EU is not responsible for them breeding like rabbits in the middle of a fucking civil war!

That doesn't sound like "those migrants are making the strategically effective devious choice to have all those children increasing their chances in the war against the West".

As I already pointed out, on post #137, he said:

I think refugees should be protected. That doesn't mean that they all should be allowed to immigrate into EU regardless of their numbers, EU's immigration needs or the migrants' willingness to respect and adopt the host countries laws and values (unlike those Muslim boys who refused to shake their teacher's hand).
In the end, countries in Syria's region should take on bulk of the refugees. But most of them want to go to Germany because Germany is more prosperous. At that point, when they leave a safe country and go elsewhere, they are no longer really refugees.

While two motivations are possible (i.e., going where there is more prosperity and spreading Islamism, or at least Islam), his wording indicates that he meant they were doing it for more prosperity and not in order to spread their religion (even if that may well be a side effect of the migration).

I would have to say I give up trying to figure out why Derec used scare quotes. Maybe his claim about why he did it is correct, but who knows?
After re-reading the entire thread, I think there is insufficient information to tell.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I think sometimes motives make actions immoral regardless of probability of harm

You have made no attempt to justify the "sometimes" in any way shape or form, which is what makes the question relevant. If the low probability of harm doesn't make THIS action morally justifiable, why would it apply to a DIFFERENT action that is perfectly justifiable otherwise?

But we both know the answer to that: it doesn't. You just prefer to THINK it does, and now you've developed a third degree butthurt because nobody else agrees with you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, though you had implied it was most of them.

After re-reading the thread (after all, I don't remember every post in detail), I realize I had to correct part of my assessment.
There are posts (not among those you quoted) that taken in isolation would support your assessment. But in context, it's not justified (though I have to say, Derec appears rather confused).
This is how it went:

Apparently a mother gave birth in the Idomeni camp and the article focuses on how terrible the conditions are. Well it really is terrible, but the couple are responsible for having brought a baby into this situation. The civil war has been raging for at least 5 years now, and continuing to bring more children into this situation is very irresponsible.

And this woman already has four other children, the youngest of them only one year old, thus also conceived well into the civil war.

That looks like blaming her for allegedly being irresponsible, not for being a successful enemy combatant.

Well most people know how to put on a fucking condom. Also people should be able to exert some self control and maybe not have unprotected sex during the middle of a civil war when they already have 4 children. Is a little personal responsibility too much to ask for?

Again, that's blame for allegedly being irresponsible, not for choosing to wage war on the evil side and doing so successfully.

Why is the word "refugees" in scare quotes?

Because only some of those on the Idomeni camping trip are actual refugees.

If Derec was right about why he did that (he might have forgotten), it wasn't because he believes many or most of them migrate in order to spread Islam. It was because only some are refugees, regardless of what the others are.

Apparently for some it's about having as many children as possible.

Because you are giving excuses for this couple's irresponsible behavior.

And again, there was no suggestion of Islamism, and in fact, everything went in the other direction.

If German and other European "activists" wanted to help those people, maybe handing out condoms and teaching them how to use them would be better than trying to help them cross the border illegally.

Which would make no sense if those people are enemy combatants who are deploying their effective weapon against the West.

And also, if Europe takes in millions more of these people (in addition to millions it already took in) after a generation there will be 5x as many of them. And it's not like Europe doesn't already have huge problems with Islamists. Not only terrorism but also demands that Europe change their ways of life to appease all these Muslims (like no pork, dressing more modestly etc.)

But concern about the effect (people do tend to carry their values when they migrate) does not suggest attribution of intent to spread Islamism.

They are being condemned because they do things (have more children) than only serve to make them more poor and miserable.

But that's very clearly very different from condemning them for choosing to fight for an evil cause and doing things that do serve them advance their evil cause (i.e., have more children, especially in the West, in the context of that particular accusation).

Those babies growing up and some of them becoming terrorists is a real concern, especially after Paris and Brussels.

But that again does not suggest attribution of intent.

No, I think those that excuse the irresponsible behavior "they can't help themselves" are the ones who see them as subhuman. Those that see them as fully human expect them to not engage in unprotected sex when consequences of a pregnancy are bad, like in this case.

Well, that's false of course. I see them as fully human, but I don't expect them not to engage in unprotected sex when consequences of a pregnancy are bad. I expect many, perhaps most of them to keep having unprotected sex, and also keep trying to have children.
But regardless, the blame is for allegedly irresponsible behavior, not for successfully deploying their weapons in their evil war against the West.

Actually I'm just not accepting your presupposition that their behavior was irresponsible.

How is it not irresponsible?

Yet there is post#43.

They could use condoms. Those people also have access to medical care, and thus access to other contraceptives. Of course, having as many children as possible is the weapon in the demographic war against the West.

That was not in line with anything he said before. Now they're using a weapon (and successfully, given Derec's views on how the war is going)?

But the high birthrate is not something that only appeared with the Syrian civil war. Muslims tend to have 5+ children as a matter of their culture - they never adopted to the modern world with much lower mortality. I don't think the West should constantly bail them out when their own countries get predictably overcrowded as a result of such high birth rate.

But wasn't it their weapon in the war against the West?
Now it's part of their culture, even when they're not in the West, or going to the West, etc.?

That's nonsense. Human beings can make choices. Many people make the choice to delay having children or avoid them altogether.
These migrants are making the poor choice to have all these children and then want the EU to take them all in "because the children are suffering". But EU is not responsible for them breeding like rabbits in the middle of a fucking civil war!

That doesn't sound like "those migrants are making the strategically effective devious choice to have all those children increasing their chances in the war against the West".

As I already pointed out, on post #137, he said:

I think refugees should be protected. That doesn't mean that they all should be allowed to immigrate into EU regardless of their numbers, EU's immigration needs or the migrants' willingness to respect and adopt the host countries laws and values (unlike those Muslim boys who refused to shake their teacher's hand).
In the end, countries in Syria's region should take on bulk of the refugees. But most of them want to go to Germany because Germany is more prosperous. At that point, when they leave a safe country and go elsewhere, they are no longer really refugees.

While two motivations are possible (i.e., going where there is more prosperity and spreading Islamism, or at least Islam), his wording indicates that he meant they were doing it for more prosperity and not in order to spread their religion (even if that may well be a side effect of the migration).

I would have to say I give up trying to figure out why Derec used scare quotes. Maybe his claim about why he did it is correct, but who knows?
After re-reading the entire thread, I think there is insufficient information to tell.

A few points...

(1) I did not imply that most were Islamists. I wrote that sources more compatible with Derec's anti-Islam views said most were terrorists/Islamists. In other words, Derec could be getting that statistic (false or true) from such sources with a substantial probability. In conjunction (collectively, ie. not by itself) with his "refugees" in quotes and other statements about Islamists, I wrote that it was his likely take. So we have A AND B AND C AND D AND E AND ... ==> P(Derec thinks most are Islamists) > 0.5 by those original reasons of A, B, C, etc I stated. The thing about probability when used in this sense of information leading to an estimate of a past event is that the true probability is either 0 or 1 since it is a past event. We use information we have available to try to get at a likely value or an extremely likely value to try to get past it. For example, if I flip a fair coin and hide it and then ask someone what's the probability it is heads, they'll say 50%, but if someone asks me I'll say 0% or 100% depending on what value I observed, heads or tails. The reason for this aside is that the things I mentioned in support of my conclusion are well-known to me having such information being around Derec very frequently in the PD forum for a decade or whatever it's been. So I know, for example, how much he may rely upon such anti-Islam sources as well as the significance of me bringing them up. You, on the other hand, may not be aware of all Derec's political views and so may weight this information differently or not have recognized even why I brought that into the discussion. Now, of course, Derec remains the person who flipped the coin (wrote the thread op) and so his assessment of why he wrote the op is the real answer (unless he is insane, confused, extremely forgetful, etc). All that said I don't think anything hinges upon whether we are discussing "most" or "a significant number" or even "some." Even if most are merely Muslims, there is still a common view among many sharing Derec's ideological bent and its opposite that ordinary Muslims can radicalize to Islamists. So the risk of Islamization being spread is still an issue for those of us who have certain Western/liberal values.

(2) I don't think that a lot of economic migrants are at the camp. I believe that Derec would share this view. The vast majority of the camp are Syrians. Millions of people have fled Syria which has a civil war. If most are Syrian then they left due to the war it would seem which while it is possible they are economic migrants, it's also likely they'd be taking refuge from violence, war, and such risks associated with it. It is strange to think that Syrians would leave Syria during a civil war strictly for economic reasons.

(3) Derec's op shows skepticism which ought to make someone pause and ask what is he skeptical about. The first instance is the word "refugees" in quotes in the op title. The second is the first word in the op: "Apparently." The third is the back-and-forth juxtaposing of "Nivea is nice shit!" with an article about the camp being hell; he was playing with the idea we should take the article seriously. The fourth is the suggestion that there is a nefarious reason for the family to want to cross the border or least that is how it seems: a mere illegality for sake of survival doesn't seem cause for judgment by Derec to me. That is, if it's not really for survival because they can get that in the army barracks, then why would "refugees" (in quotes) want to cross the border illegally?

(4) None of (1), (2), or (3) really matter.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Derec, this video has been removed.

In other words, the Islamists griped and it got zapped. Very common for things the Islamists don't like.

Normally when I see this it is due to copyright infringement.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

(1) I did not imply that most were Islamists.

Of course you didn't imply most were Islamists.
You implied Derec believed so (or very probably believed so, if you prefer more accuracy), when you said "In other words, his quote is more compatible with most of the people in the camp being Islamists because according to him only some are actual refugees."
The use of the expression "more compatible" is a probabilistic assessment saying indicated he probably believed so; that goes to 'very probable' in the context of the rest of your posts.

I wrote that sources more compatible with Derec's anti-Islam views said most were terrorists/Islamists. In other words, Derec could be getting that statistic (false or true) from such sources with a substantial probability. In conjunction (collectively, ie. not by itself) with his "refugees" in quotes and other statements about Islamists, I wrote that it was his likely take. So we have A AND B AND C AND D AND E AND ... ==> P(Derec thinks most are Islamists) > 0.5 by those original reasons of A, B, C, etc I stated.

And I rejected your probabilistic assessment, as I stated, and for the reasons I stated.
Now, after incorporating new evidence from a post you hadn't factored into your assessment and I didn't remember, either, and the rest of his posts, I have the impression that Derec's beliefs are probably unstable, and sometimes he believes most of them are Islamists, sometimes he believes they're mostly economic migrants, and goes back and forth. But who knows? His posts seem to go in different directions.

The thing about probability when used in this sense of information leading to an estimate of a past event is that the true probability is either 0 or 1 since it is a past event.

I don't agree with the semantic and/or metaphysical assumptions that there is a "true probability", in the sense in which people use the words, and if there are, in that sense it might be that the true probability of future events is also either 0 or 1 if the world happens to be deterministic, which might or might not be the case for all we know.

We use information we have available to try to get at a likely value or an extremely likely value to try to get past it. For example, if I flip a fair coin and hide it and then ask someone what's the probability it is heads, they'll say 50%, but if someone asks me I'll say 0% or 100% depending on what value I observed, heads or tails.

If we're doing philosophy (and we are; call it what you will), I would say that your 0 or 1 (or 0% and 100%) are excellent approximations, but strictly speaking, the proper assessment is "almost 0" or "almost 1". There is an astronomically slim chance that your memory is faulty.

The reason for this aside is that the things I mentioned in support of my conclusion are well-known to me having such information being around Derec very frequently in the PD forum for a decade or whatever it's been. So I know, for example, how much he may rely upon such anti-Islam sources as well as the significance of me bringing them up. You, on the other hand, may not be aware of all Derec's political views and so may weight this information differently or not have recognized even why I brought that into the discussion.

That's all true, and we don't need to debate our philosophical disagreement about probability to agree on that.
However, you didn't mention other posts when you made your case in your reply to me, and I'm afraid I don't consider you a generally reliable source when it comes to ascertaining what your opponents (at least, those who don't share your left-wing views) believe or don't believe (I make that assessment because of some of my previous interactions with you, and because I've read a lot of your exchanges with Bomb#20).

Now, of course, Derec remains the person who flipped the coin (wrote the thread op) and so his assessment of why he wrote the op is the real answer (unless he is insane, confused, extremely forgetful, etc).

First, my experience in online debates suggests people very often do not remember the specifics of why they wrote one thing or another, even a short time after they write it.
Second, the problems with his posts in the thread make him an unreliable source.

That said, assuming that you're correct and his assessment of why he wrote the scare quotes is the real answer, then he wrote it because he believes only some of them (in context, a minority) are refugees, and that's it - i.e., not for any other reason, like what he believes the other people at the camp are, whether it's economic migrants or enemy combatant migrants, or a combination or something else.

All that said I don't think anything hinges upon whether we are discussing "most" or "a significant number" or even "some." Even if most are merely Muslims, there is still a common view among many sharing Derec's ideological bent and its opposite that ordinary Muslims can radicalize to Islamists. So the risk of Islamization being spread is still an issue for those of us who have certain Western/liberal values.

What hinges on this is what you attribute to your opponents, in terms of intent, claims, beliefs, etc.
For example, while I do think ordinary Muslims can and sometimes do radicalize to Islamists (e.g., many members of IS or Al-Qaeda were once ordinary Muslims), I don't think there is a remote chance that most migrants, or anything but a minuscule portion of them, are migrating in order to wage war against the West, or that one of the motivations they have for unprotected sex (except in a very small percentage) is to make Europe more Islamic (i.e., more Muslim), or more Islamist.

(2) I don't think that a lot of economic migrants are at the camp. I believe that Derec would share this view. The vast majority of the camp are Syrians. Millions of people have fled Syria which has a civil war. If most are Syrian then they left due to the war it would seem which while it is possible they are economic migrants, it's also likely they'd be taking refuge from violence, war, and such risks associated with it. It is strange to think that Syrians would leave Syria during a civil war strictly for economic reasons.

But Derec does not believe that most of them are economic migrants because they left Syria during a war strictly or primarily for economic reasons.
Rather, he thinks that most people leave Syria because of the war, and they are refugees in neighboring countries.
However (always in Derec's view), some of those refugees later choose to migrate from a place that is already safe to Germany (or other rich parts of Europe, but mostly Germany), not because they are at risk due to the war (they no longer are), but because Germany is more prosperous. As a result, they are no longer refugees.
That is what Derec explained in post#137, and in the context of his exchanges with other posters, he seemed to include those at the camp.

Still, given his other posts about the camp, perhaps he thought that while refugees that leave safe places and go to Europe are no longer refugees but economic migrants, those at the camp are actually enemy combatants. Who knows? At this point, I give up. And asking him appears pointless, as he seems to ignore my posts completely. Maybe he has me on ignore.

(3) Derec's op shows skepticism which ought to make someone pause and ask what is he skeptical about. The first instance is the word "refugees" in quotes in the op title. The second is the first word in the op: "Apparently." The third is the back-and-forth juxtaposing of "Nivea is nice shit!" with an article about the camp being hell. The fourth is the suggestion that there is a nefarious reason for the family to want to cross the border or least that is how it seems: a mere illegality for sake of survival doesn't seem cause for judgment to me. That is, if it's not really for survival because they can get that in the army barracks, then why would "refugees" (in quotes) want to cross the border illegally?

No, a mere illegality for the sake of survival isn't the cause.
Rather, at least in the first several posts, he thinks they're behaving illegally not for the sake of survival, but to improve their economic situation at the expense of innocent third parties by entering Europe, and they're making even worse by having children. Until later posts, his accusations seem akin to accusing them of personal irresponsibility and something nefarious as in theft-like (for entering a country illegally for economic reasons while not needed for survival, which Derec seems to consider an economic immorality), not as in terrorism-like (and Derec's condemnation of economic immorality by non-Westerners against Westerners is likely a lot stronger than yours, so even if that were not cause for judgment to you, it may very well seem like that to him).

(4) None of (1), (2), or (3) really matter.

What matters to a person depends on the person, but personally, I joined the thread to talk about one of Bomb#20's points. All of the talk about (1), (2) and/or (3) was in response to your posts, or the posts of other posters. That surely wasn't and wouldn't have been my choice of topic, but that's what came my way after I posted about what I was interested in.

 

[Bomb#20]

The intended outcome of that behavior -- e.g. reproduction under unstable circumstances -- was to create and maintain families. The plan worked.

You keep saying that sort of thing, over and over. I think at this point your readers all realize you think the end justifies the means. So can you explain WHY the end justifies the means?

To the extent that procreation can be considered morally acceptable AT ALL, then maximizing the odds of successful offspring can be accomplished either by heaping benefits on the individuals or by simply producing enough offspring to beat the odds.

Either one will accomplish that same goal... so now it's just a question of whether or not that goal makes any sense in the first place.

How does that follow? What's your reasoning? How do you get from the premise that "procreation can be considered morally acceptable AT ALL" to the conclusion that it makes no moral difference whether you do it by being an r-strategist or a K-strategist? Simply declaring your opinion that "it's just a question of X" doesn't give everybody else a reason to think all the other questions they have don't matter.

I, for one, am happy to have been born, so from my point of view the decisions of my ancestors was a net benefit to me. If they had not made those decisions I would not have been born, which is an outcome I would not have preferred. Your mileage may vary.

If your great²⁴ grandfather hadn't made the decision to rape your great²⁴ grandmother you would not have been born, which is an outcome you would not have preferred. His decision was a net benefit to you. Do you or do you not think that your satisfaction with the outcome to you personally of his decision is a good reason to believe raping people is moral?

Pretty much every bit of happiness in my life has happened because my wife and I met each other and hit it off. As I trace the chain of cause and effect, it seems a near certainty to me that we would never have met each other if Klaus Fuchs hadn't stolen the plans for the atomic bomb and given them to Stalin. Does that mean I'm supposed to think giving nuclear weapons to a murderous psychopath was a virtuous thing to do?

You're offering a false dilemma. This isn't about perfection. There's a huge range of conditions intermediate between perfection and immense risk of those children suffering deprivation or even death.

See my response to Angra. Moral responsibility is about choices, not probability and risk.

So does that mean you think choosing to drive while you're drunk is moral provided you don't intend to crash into anyone, and you have a good reason to want to be at the place you're trying to drive to?

The parents' moral obligation is satisfied by taking whatever actions are possible to promote their child's happiness and prevent that child's suffering. Not having the child AT ALL is a morally neutral position; a child who doesn't exist cannot experience pleasure OR suffering.

Why would that make it neutral? As you say, moral responsibility is about choices. Why would choosing to give someone no pleasure and no suffering not be a more moral choice than choosing to give him both when you know it's probably going to be a lot more suffering than pleasure?

The refugees can do a million different things to keep their children from suffering and a million other things to make them happy. They can also do a million things to make their lives miserable and a million things that will harm them. The question of morality is which of those things they choose to do after their children are born.

So is it your contention that a Huntington's couple who choose to have eight children, knowing that most likely six of them are going to have short miserable lives and horrible deaths, are doing the right thing by making two healthy kids to maintain the family, as long as they're nice to their six sick children while they all wait for nature to take its course?