Why are "refugees" still having children?

[whichphilosophy]

Some might say that it's more rational to have children in a relatively safe refugee camp than in the middle of a warzone and with ISIS nearby.

Then they should have gone to that refugee camp rather than illegally camping out on some poor farmer's land just because the encampment is close to the border and they want to cross it illegally.

This is expected. Our borders have been thrown open and very little is done to distinguish between economic migrants, refugees and even possible terrorists. Frequently the authorities in France and Italy for instance may act but this is quite common. Refugees of course should be our priority once their application is approved. No documentation is one issue amongst those coming over, but a refusal to provide a birthdate and finger prints should be a reason in rejecting entry.

 

[Will Wiley]

Derec...I assume, as most rational people would, that they do it to upset you.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Some might say that it's more rational to have children in a relatively safe refugee camp than in the middle of a warzone and with ISIS nearby.

Then they should have gone to that refugee camp rather than illegally camping out on some poor farmer's land just because the encampment is close to the border and they want to cross it illegally.

That land hasn't been farmed in years.

 

[credoconsolans]

Really.

I think you proved my observation.

Nah.

Not 'refugees'. Refugees who decide irresponsibly to have children. So you treat those with contempt. As you would to any irresponsible adult whose actions were selfish and self-serving and inconsiderate.

What does that mean in actual practice - you sneer at them when they receive their ration of food?

What, you mean these people won't sacrifice part of the food they're getting for the children they had while fleeing a war? They'll demand more food?

No, that doesn't sound selfish at all, does it? Expecting other people to feed the children they chose to have?

Sneering is the most I can do, isn't it? Having to give up your hard earned tax money to help people get out of a situation they partially caused by their own idiocy and selfishness isn't any one's idea of a good time.

Perhaps they should try harder not to be stupid. It doesn't take much effort. Really.

It clearly takes more effort than you think.

I didn't think so, but you may be right.

By treating refugees who have children irresponsibly with the contempt such selfish stupidity deserves. Maybe they'll learn a lesson. Or probably not as so many bleeding hearts will feel sorry for their idiocies.

So sneering at them and being snotty to them by people like you is going to teach them the lesson that they are selfish and stupid? If they really are that selfish and stupid, it is much more likely they will learn an unintended but nonetheless valuable lesson about people like you.

Yes, people like me don't like to give up our hard-earned money to people who - while in extremely bad situations - make their situations worse by being selfish and bringing a helpless child into the dangerous situation.

I can't think of anything more selfish.

You apparently think it's not selfish at all to endanger a child and then demand a host pay for the medical care and food for this child you brought into the danger. Wow, that says a lot about YOU.

 

[Bomb#20]

Anne Frank was born during the worst depression in history in a time when people were crazy. One could predict the outcome of her life with some accuracy. Tragic. However, her parents were right that she should be born. And the world is better off for her being alive.

Her parents should have known better.

I am ashamed to admit that I exist. I have ancestors who procreated during the Great Depression. I should not even be here.

I'm sure every right winger posting here had ancestors who were wealthy during the Great Depression, and thus they deserve to exist.

As you're almost certainly already aware, nobody in this thread claimed the baby born to the migrants doesn't deserve to exist. The criticism is all for the parents, none for the baby.

There is no shame in existing even though you shouldn't even be here, because, as you know, there is no shame in being a different person from a wrongdoer. None of us should even be here. Every person on the planet has a rape in his pedigree and none of those rapes should have happened. So if you were to consistently apply the "logic" you are displaying here, you would be ridiculing people who condemn rape. You would be insinuating that those opposed to rape are claiming people conceived in rapes and their descendants don't "deserve to exist". You would be calling anyone who doesn't want to legalize rape a hypocrite for opposing rape even though he has rapist ancestors. I expect the reason you don't apply your "logic" consistently is because you know damn well that it isn't logical. I don't believe you really think what you wrote is a good argument -- that's something you rarely appear to care about. You just think it's good rhetoric against your outgroup. Am I right?

None of this is news; it's all just par for the course, the debating style TFT is accustomed to from you. So sorry to be belaboring the obvious; it really isn't my intention to be trashing you. You are what you are. The problem is that apparently some of your readers don't understand all this, and have mistaken a standard Underseer sneer for a legitimate argument.

 

[laughing dog]

What, you mean these people won't sacrifice part of the food they're getting for the children they had while fleeing a war? They'll demand more food?

What makes you think they are not sacrificing part of their food for their children? Projection?

No, that doesn't sound selfish at all, does it? Expecting other people to feed the children they chose to have?

Actually, if the children were born before they left, apparently you would have no problem feeding those children.

In any event, your solution seems to be to deprive someone of some of the necessary nutrients for survival. In the case of children and older adults, that can have serious long run consequences. In the case of other adults, depending on their fitness, it may have health consequences.

Sneering is the most I can do, isn't it? Having to give up your hard earned tax money to help people get out of a situation they partially caused by their own idiocy and selfishness isn't any one's idea of a good time.

You are not giving up anything (except the display of basic human decency)- this is in Europe.

I didn't think so, but you may be right.

Your posts are clear evidence.

Yes, people like me don't like to give up our hard-earned money to people who - while in extremely bad situations - make their situations worse by being selfish and bringing a helpless child into the dangerous situation.

I can't think of anything more selfish.

That is obvious.

You apparently think it's not selfish at all to endanger a child and then demand a host pay for the medical care and food for this child you brought into the danger. Wow, that says a lot about YOU.

My point is that is irrelevant as to whether it is selfish or not - the refugees (adults and children) are there and they need to be dealt with in a manner that is humane and consistent with European values and law. From what I can tell, your point is to engage in selfish and pointless moralizing.

 

[credoconsolans]

What makes you think they are not sacrificing part of their food for their children? Projection?

They are now because they have to. Do you think that will still be the case when they get to their host countries?

No, that doesn't sound selfish at all, does it? Expecting other people to feed the children they chose to have?

Actually, if the children were born before they left, apparently you would have no problem feeding those children.

Nope. They couldn't plan for war spilling over into their areas. But AFTER they became refugees? Yeah, several brain cells short of a six pack, right?

In any event, your solution seems to be to deprive someone of some of the necessary nutrients for survival.

Did I say that?

In the case of children and older adults, that can have serious long run consequences.

Did I say to withhold food from anyone? Parents should automatically want to sacrifice their needs for their children, right?

Sneering is the most I can do, isn't it? Having to give up your hard earned tax money to help people get out of a situation they partially caused by their own idiocy and selfishness isn't any one's idea of a good time.

You are not giving up anything (except the display of basic human decency)- this is in Europe.

We're getting refugees here, too.

I didn't think so, but you may be right.

Your posts are clear evidence.

Of other people being brainless? Yup.

You apparently think it's not selfish at all to endanger a child and then demand a host pay for the medical care and food for this child you brought into the danger. Wow, that says a lot about YOU.

My point is that is irrelevant as to whether it is selfish or not - the refugees (adults and children) are there and they need to be dealt with in a manner that is humane and consistent with European values and law. From what I can tell, your point is to engage in selfish and pointless moralizing.

No, my point is to try to culturally and publicly shame idiots. You don't have a right to be ignorant when other people have to foot the bill for your idiocies. Be as stupid as you want, but expect to pay for your mistakes, not expect others to do so.

 

[laughing dog]

They are now because they have to. Do you think that will still be the case when they get to their host countries?

If they don't have enough food.

Nope. They couldn't plan for war spilling over into their areas. But AFTER they became refugees? Yeah, several brain cells short of a six pack, right?

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Did I say to withhold food from anyone? Parents should automatically want to sacrifice their needs for their children, right?

Depriving someone of nutrients is not restricted to withholding food. If you are asking or expecting parents to sacrifice their needs for their children (i.e reduce their intake of food to give to the children) then you are expecting them to be deprived of some of the nutrients they need. Anyone who isn't stupid or silly can see that.

We're getting refugees here, too.

Are they having babies in transit?

Of other people being brainless? Yup.

Your posts are only clear evidence of your activity.

No, my point is to try to culturally and publicly shame idiots. You don't have a right to be ignorant when other people have to foot the bill for your idiocies. Be as stupid as you want, but expect to pay for your mistakes, not expect others to do so.

Thank you for confirming your point is to engage in selfish and pointless moralizing. But you should be grateful that the rest of the US helps subsidize Texas (one of the states which receives more federal money than it remits in taxes).

 

[credoconsolans]

If they don't have enough food.

Refugees seldom do. All the more reason to have babies, right?!?!

Nope. They couldn't plan for war spilling over into their areas. But AFTER they became refugees? Yeah, several brain cells short of a six pack, right?

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Personal attacks, eh? Shows you're losing the argument.

Did I say to withhold food from anyone? Parents should automatically want to sacrifice their needs for their children, right?

Depriving someone of nutrients is not restricted to withholding food. If you are asking or expecting parents to sacrifice their needs for their children (i.e reduce their intake of food to give to the children) then you are expecting them to be deprived of some of the nutrients they need. Anyone who isn't stupid or silly can see that.

And why is that? Oh, because they had a baby they couldn't feed.

We're getting refugees here, too.

Are they having babies in transit?

Some are, I'm sure. You can't cure stupid.

Of other people being brainless? Yup.

Your posts are only clear evidence of your activity.

More personal insults.

No, my point is to try to culturally and publicly shame idiots. You don't have a right to be ignorant when other people have to foot the bill for your idiocies. Be as stupid as you want, but expect to pay for your mistakes, not expect others to do so.

Thank you for confirming your point is to engage in selfish and pointless moralizing. But you should be grateful that the rest of the US helps subsidize Texas (one of the states which receives more federal money than it remits in taxes).

Probably due to all the military bases. But yep. Too bad our Texas government is conservative. We've been trying to vote them out, but after they gerrymandered the districts, it's difficult to.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... Am I right? ...

No, it's about values and risk assessments: those we may have and compute and those we may apply logically inconsistently to different groups of people.

 

[laughing dog]

Personal attacks, eh? Shows you're losing the argument.

Keep fooling yourself.

And why is that? Oh, because they had a baby they couldn't feed.

So you are in favor of depriving them of some nutrients.

We're getting refugees here, too.

Are they having babies in transit?

Some are, I'm sure.

You are complaining about something that may not even be occurring. Wow.

You can't cure stupid.

Ah, the voice of experience.

More personal insults.

Stating a logical observation - Your posts are only clear evidence of your activity - is not an insult.

Probably due to all the military bases. But yep. Too bad our Texas government is conservative. We've been trying to vote them out, but after they gerrymandered the districts, it's difficult to.

The state of Texas has been on the public dole for many years - even when Democrats were in power. It is clear that Texans expect the rest of the citizenry in the US to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their stupidity and silliness.

 

[RavenSky]

Derec is apparently pissed off that the family in the OP had Nivea bath-wash. Credoconsolans seems to be begrudging the family extra food for the new-born baby...

but isn't a newborn usually breast-fed?

 

[laughing dog]

Derec is apparently pissed off that the family in the OP had Nivea bath-wash. Credoconsolans seems to be begrudging the family extra food for the new-born baby...

but isn't a newborn usually breast-fed?

Yes, but someone else could be taking that sustenance

[YOUTUBE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=46EbjMkeghE[/YOUTUBE]

Lyrics by Loudon Wainwright:
http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/...is_a_tit_man-lyrics-219109.html#ixzz45NLEmk9F

Rufus is a tit man
Suckin' on his mamma's gland
Suckin' on the nipple
It's a sweeter than the ripple wine.
Yes its sweeter than the wine.
You can tell by the way the boy burps
that it's gotta taste fine.

Marco Polo craved the spice and silk
And Rufus craves the mamma's milk
No moo-cow no billy-goat
Is gonna get the baby's vote.
Come on mamma,
Come on and open up your shirt
Yeah you've got the goods mamma
Give the little boy a squirt.

For my lungs and my liver
I do definitely fear.
I like to suck on cigarettes
And drink the wine and beer.
The doctor says I'm oral
Blblblbllla-a-a-a-a-.
And I believe it's true.
Ah son you look so satisfied
I envy you.

So put Rufus on the left one
And put me right on the right
And like Romulus and Remus
We'll suck all night.
Come on mamma
Come on and lactate awhile.
Yeah look down on us mamma
And flash us a Madonna smile.
(http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/loudon_wainwright/rufus_is_a_tit_man-lyrics-219109.html)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, people like me don't like to give up our hard-earned money to people who - while in extremely bad situations - make their situations worse by being selfish and bringing a helpless child into the dangerous situation.

I can't think of anything more selfish.

You apparently think it's not selfish at all to endanger a child and then demand a host pay for the medical care and food for this child you brought into the danger. Wow, that says a lot about YOU.

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

 

[credoconsolans]

Keep fooling yourself.

Sorry, I'm not fooling myself. Logic says you're the one who's lost the argument.

And why is that? Oh, because they had a baby they couldn't feed.

So you are in favor of depriving them of some nutrients.

You still haven't pointed out where I said to do this.

We're getting refugees here, too.

Are they having babies in transit?

Some are, I'm sure.

You are complaining about something that may not even be occurring. Wow.

It's already happened. I don't have to worry that it "might".

You can't cure stupid.

Ah, the voice of experience.

More insults. I like how desperate you are that you can't even refute me anymore and have fallen to insults.

Keep it up. It's amusing.

Stupid is as stupid does. Like getting pregnant when you're a refugee with no real means of supporting said pregnancy, medical delivery or even food.

More personal insults.

Stating a logical observation - Your posts are only clear evidence of your activity - is not an insult.

You opinion is not 'clear evidence'.

Probably due to all the military bases. But yep. Too bad our Texas government is conservative. We've been trying to vote them out, but after they gerrymandered the districts, it's difficult to.

The state of Texas has been on the public dole for many years - even when Democrats were in power. It is clear that Texans expect the rest of the citizenry in the US to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their stupidity and silliness.

Military bases were still here when the Democrats were in charge. And you mean bad government planning.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, I'm not fooling myself. Logic says you're the one who's lost the argument.

Wrong. You are fooling yourself, especially if you think you are using logic.

You still haven't pointed out where I said to do this.

Wrong. I have pointed it out.

It's already happened. I don't have to worry that it "might".

I asked if it happened with the refugees moving into your area. You said probably. Which means you don't know. Are you changing your claim or simply making stuff up?

More insults. I like how desperate you are that you can't even refute me anymore and have fallen to insults.

You keep making claims about insults that are false. Why are so desperate to blow smoke?

You opinion is not 'clear evidence'.

It is clear evidence of my opinion. One's posts are only evidence about what one's professes to know or say, not about anyone else. That is basic reasoning.

Military bases were still here when the Democrats were in charge. And you mean bad government planning.

No, I wrote what I meant.

You are under the false impression I am trying to refute your "position". There is nothing to refute. Your opinion is your opinion, no matter how nasty, ignorant, selfish, and hypocritical it is.

 

[fromderinside]

Your opinion is your opinion, no matter how nasty, ignorant, selfish, and hypocritical it is.

... as are all posts on this thread sans credible reference base.

Nastiness is all the OP and attachments are about on this thread. Not much to respect in an opinion that makes assertions about privilege and abuse there of based on tribe from someone living in this secular nation where tribalism is not part of governance.

Another element is the reversal of factual basis for having babies. Humans have more when they have less rather than they become rational and curtail production when they are displaced.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

As you're almost certainly already aware, nobody in this thread claimed the baby born to the migrants doesn't deserve to exist. The criticism is all for the parents, none for the baby.

Given that human reproduction is a remarkably consistent behavior even in the worst of times, and given the very real possibility that these people were NOT refugees eight and a half months earlier, I'm not totally sure what "criticism" should be leveled at the parents except for their failure to (chose to?) obtain an abortion.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

 

[credoconsolans]

As you're almost certainly already aware, nobody in this thread claimed the baby born to the migrants doesn't deserve to exist. The criticism is all for the parents, none for the baby.

Given that human reproduction is a remarkably consistent behavior even in the worst of times, and given the very real possibility that these people were NOT refugees eight and a half months earlier, I'm not totally sure what "criticism" should be leveled at the parents except for their failure to (chose to?) obtain an abortion.

I, on the other hand, am reluctant to condemn a married man for having sex with his wife. There are a lot of things I will condemn a man for and call him irresponsible, but that just isn't one of them.

Except there are plenty of ways to have sex that don't include risking pregnancy. So no one is asking these people to give up simple pleasures. Just to use their heads. But some can't even do that.

 

[credoconsolans]

Wrong. You are fooling yourself, especially if you think you are using logic.

I am. Name-calling like you're doing is obviously not logical.

You still haven't pointed out where I said to do this.

Wrong. I have pointed it out.

No, you haven't.

It's already happened. I don't have to worry that it "might".

I asked if it happened with the refugees moving into your area. You said probably. Which means you don't know. Are you changing your claim or simply making stuff up?

I don't keep up with the medical histories of refugees. But as has been established, many people are stupid, so are you saying refugees are exempt from the stupid percentile?

More insults. I like how desperate you are that you can't even refute me anymore and have fallen to insults.

You keep making claims about insults that are false. Why are so desperate to blow smoke?

I'm not. It's you who started calling names to posters, not me.

You opinion is not 'clear evidence'.

It is clear evidence of my opinion.

I agree. Which should mean - what exactly to me?

Military bases were still here when the Democrats were in charge. And you mean bad government planning.

No, I wrote what I meant.

Then you're probably wrong.

You are under the false impression I am trying to refute your "position". There is nothing to refute. Your opinion is your opinion, no matter how nasty, ignorant, selfish, and hypocritical it is.

Or correct.