Refugees travelling to Europe

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Eowiel » Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:45 pm UTC

jseah wrote:^The economy is made of humans too. Too many times I see "the economy" or "the market" or even "the country" talked about as if it was some individual entity that could be manipulated without touching the people making it up.

Saying that net negative immigrants should be allowed based on human benefits (therefore at an economic cost) implies that you think other people in the economy should pay to support those immigrants. The existence or magnitude of the net negative can be debated, but the fundamental rule is ironclad, if it's not the immigrants paying for their care, then someone else is.


How much someone contributes to or detracts from the treasury is not an exact method to tell whether or not people are beneficial to the economy. You can contribute more to an economy than what you earn or pay in taxes. The salary you get is greatly affected by supply and demand and there is no one-on-one relationship between supply and demand and the added value to the economy you represent. Even someone on welfare can possibly have been contributing more to the economy than he did cost to the economy, it's possible that due to insufficient economical power, he or she wasn't able to cash in in the value he or she added.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

But you do agree that people can contribute more or less than they cost society, right? Do you also agree society should also only allow entry to people that are expected to add more to society than they cost?

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Eowiel » Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:18 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But you do agree that people can contribute more or less than they cost society, right? Do you also agree society should also only allow entry to people that are expected to add more to society than they cost?


Yes people can certainly cost more than they contribute, and no I don't think that this should be a hard rule to determine whether or not you're going to allow people in. It has to be a factor in determining how many people you allow entry, you can't keep allowing people in that cost more than they contribute, but I think we surely can allow a lot more people to enter than we are now before we"ll start to feel some serious economic repercussions. The threshold for what still is an acceptable impact is of course completely subjective.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:19 pm UTC

I think it should have two options

A) The immigrant is expected to benefit society more than ze will cost, e.g., healthy, skilled worker with no criminal background
B) The immigrant can prove ze has a support network and will not be a burden on the remainder of society, e.g., a productive family rescuing their grandfather

Otherwise, you are SOL.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:33 pm UTC

If they can't do better than they did at home, their problems will follow them. It doesn't do anyone any good to create what are effectively will end up as ghettos, full of immigrants that won't be able to prosper. And there isn't really much Europe can do. They are connected by a land bridge. Any more than the US can really stop Americans from the South. Spend money to provide what they need, where masses of displaced people already are. Close to the problem. Help Lebanon, Jordan and the other states that are looking at millions not thousands. What they need are jobs, education and stability.

moiraemachy
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby moiraemachy » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:52 pm UTC

While in the short term the immigrants will obviously be a cost, they might be a neutral or even a benefit in the long term since the European population is ageing fast. It is no coincidence Germany is more willing/prepared to accept immigration: their are experiencing a shortage of workers, and already have immigration policies in place for these reasons.

Anyway, expanding on Eowiel's point: Germany has a GDP per capita of 41,955 USD and a population of 81 million. Let's assume two scenarios:

1) Germany restricts immigration, its population is 75 million in 2030; it's GDP per capita grows to 50,000 USD;
2) Germany encourages immigration, it's population is 85 million in 2030, the GPD per capita is 48,000; the added 10 million are mostly low wage employees. Their average wage is 20,000 USD (pre-taxes, so that's their contribution to the GDP);

In scenario 2, the average German is poorer than scenario 1, but the average native Germans is richer (75⋅x + 10⋅20,000 = 48,000⋅85 , solve for x). So scenario 2 is actually a net gain for everyone.not quite

Scenario 2 could very well happen: the influx of low wage employees creates new economic opportunities, new businesses open, and now jobs that require higher qualification become more valuable. This is basically the same as getting German engineers/managers to China to open a factory that uses cheap Chinese workforce.

The real question is: how to integrate immigrants into Germany so that scenario 2 becomes a reality? Firstly, you need to provide immigrants with their basic needs for a while, and this is costly. Secondly, you need to rethink your welfare network and policies for the poorer classes in order to accommodate a lot more people, and this might demand some very unpopular measures such as lowering the minimum wage and unemployment benefits (the most fierce opposition to immigration in Germany comes from the eastern side). And lastly, immigrants need to properly integrate into society. How to do this is a very hard discussion about multiculturalism.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:22 pm UTC

The problem is that in scenario 2 they all get benefits both in cash and kind totalling $35000 so they pull productive capital out of the overall economy. The Germans aren't going to become mean enough to have effectively dorms for a new immigrant class

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:23 pm UTC

Irony. Germany and to the lesser extent the rest of Europe are relatively welcoming to immigrants because of the Holocaust, which killed 11 million people, slight majority Jewish and the rest a mixture of Romani, gay, Slavic, and a so forth. Europe still despises the Romani, and the immigrants they are letting in are virulently homophobic and antisemitic.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:50 pm UTC

I think the British news the other night was better. It followed a "we must take more refugees" piece without pause with a piece on the NHS saving money on cancer drugs by only treating late stage cancer

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

Wait, wouldn't it make more sense to only treat early stage cancer when it's cheaper to treat and before it becomes more serious?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:29 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Wait, wouldn't it make more sense to only treat early stage cancer when it's cheaper to treat and before it becomes more serious?

No. A lot of cancer isn't dangerous, and treatment is worse than the disease for non malignant diseases. For example, say you test every woman over thirty for breast cancer. How many people did you save? How many people did you condemn to months of expensive and painful hospital care ? Cancer isn't straightforward, you need to watch the long term outcomes and see what gives the most quality of life/years.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby elasto » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:16 am UTC

Yup.

Despite how acutely attuned we have become to the 'c' word, some cancers progress so slowly you are expected to die of old age before the tumour gets you. But unfortunately it's not always possible to differentiate between the faster and slower growing variants up-front. Mass-testing either means treatment right away (expensive and painful) or the person has to live with months to years of worry and uncertainty before getting retested to see if it has worsened.

(House always hated full-body scans for this very reason - he'd say half a dozen serious issues would show up, probably none of which were relevant to the case. He may be a fictional character but that doesn't mean he's wrong!)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:48 am UTC

I require that my fictional characters and celebrities impersonate a medical professional for at least 5 years before they can give me medical advice.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Vahir » Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:41 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I think it should have two options

A) The immigrant is expected to benefit society more than ze will cost, e.g., healthy, skilled worker with no criminal background
B) The immigrant can prove ze has a support network and will not be a burden on the remainder of society, e.g., a productive family rescuing their grandfather

Otherwise, you are SOL.


Of course, there is a difference between refugees and immigrants.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:34 am UTC

For starters, refugees need to take refuge in the nearest safe country, which for Syrians does not include anyone in Western/Northern Europe.

Many Mid-Eastern countries are blaming Europe for the crisis for not putting a stop to Assad earlier. What a bunch of fucking whiners. Turkey refused to do a damn thing, in fact they have been worse than useless by taking the time to bomb the Kurds instead of Assad. Saudi Arabia has a higher GDP/Capita than the US or any other significant western country and a fancy military, yet has done what with it exactly? "Oh halp us, evul westerners, halp! We are too chickenshit to halp, so you spend your iron and gold and blood to save our asses!" And the moment the West does anything to help, every mullah issues a fatwa declaring the evil Westerners "Crusaders" that must be exterminated. Hell, what caused the Islamic world to flip its shit and the reason Osama decided to attack the US was the fact that evil Christians put troops in Saudi Arabia (but NOT the Hejaz) in order to liberate Kuwait, because how DARE Americans think they have a right to kill Muslim who are exterminating other Muslims.

The refugees want help? Organize them into a makeshift army and send them back. Better, fuck what Turkey says, get the Kurdish factions to unify and arm them to the teeth, let them have South Kurdistan (Iraq) and West Kurdistan (Syria), and if Iran keeps causing trouble like they've been doing in Iraq for the past decade, East Kurdistan (Iran) as well. Assuming the ones in Turkey can agree not to cause trouble of course. Get the Christian groups their own dog in this fight as well. In Iraq we've fucked over the Christians because we didn't want to be seen as "Crusaders", see if you can get the Kurds to ally with them as well.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby elasto » Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:35 am UTC

What you say is perfectly true but redundant: Almost all refugees do just go to a neighbouring country and stay there - and these policy changes (such as they are) are too small beans to change that fact; Only the bravest, strongest and most determined make it further afield - exactly the sort of hard-working and resourceful immigrants any right-thinking country should welcome with open arms.

One policy announcement that I do think makes sense is that the UK is going to spend part of its overseas aid budget on local housing costs for any refugees it brings in. (Although the number is pretty paltry: Germany has accepted in a single weekend as much as the UK has committed to over five years...)

The big mistake Labour made during the 2000s was not when it opened the floodgates to foreign workers but when it didn't reinvest the big increase in tax take into new local infrastructure such as new social housing. If the natives had seen directly the financial benefits immigrant workers brought when they arrived they'd have seen it as a win-win instead of thinking of it as some kind of zero-sum game...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:11 am UTC

elasto wrote:Only the bravest, strongest and most determined make it further afield - exactly the sort of hard-working and resourceful immigrants any right-thinking country should welcome with open arms.


Then they'd be in category A as I mentioned earlier. Just screen for disease and radicalism.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby elasto » Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:16 pm UTC

Just to back up my point, according to the chart in this article, in the 50 months leading up to June this year, Turkey has taken in 2m Syrian refugees, Lebanon 1.1m, Jordan 630k and Iraq about 200k. Moreover, the Gulf States are described as having made 'generous' financial contributions to displaced Syrian nationals (as has the US).

In contrast, Germany was the leading European recipient at 100k while the UK took in a paltry 7k (though it has been pretty generous in allocating portions of its overseas aid budget to the camps).

So I don't think it's fair to accuse Syria's neighbours of failing to do their part.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:For starters, refugees need to take refuge in the nearest safe country, which for Syrians does not include anyone in Western/Northern Europe.

Many Mid-Eastern countries are blaming Europe for the crisis for not putting a stop to Assad earlier. What a bunch of fucking whiners.


It is always easy to blame others for not fixing a thing, I think. The US also gets blamed frequently for not fixing problems, but...the reality is that all countries have to weigh the costs of foreign involvement. Even well intentioned efforts to fix things can go awry, and still be quite expensive.

Sure, cheers for those who DO get involved and do fix things, but it's a high bar, and not really a reasonable expectation for everything that goes wrong.

Refugees are just going to happen. Not only now, but again, in the future. Folks like to act like war is outmoded, but...that's a wee bit premature. Not only does *this* refugee issue need to be addressed, but a longer term strategy should be devised. "just keep them out" is going to be difficult/costly. Allowing them in and giving them benefits is going to have, at minimum, significant short term costs. Entitlement societies and immigration have an inherent tension for this reason.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:06 pm UTC

I just wish it wasn't the same people advocating for both so that a rational discussion could be had...

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Derek » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:10 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I thought studies show that immigration is mostly a net benefit for countries, or is that a US thing ?

Europe has a lot more welfare policies and a more progressive tax structure, so it wouldn't surprise me if immigrants are a greater drain on European economies than American economies.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 6:56 pm UTC

Derek wrote:
sardia wrote:I thought studies show that immigration is mostly a net benefit for countries, or is that a US thing ?

Europe has a lot more welfare policies and a more progressive tax structure, so it wouldn't surprise me if immigrants are a greater drain on European economies than American economies.


Yeah, the studies have mostly been with regard to the US.

And it really depends on situation. Immigration can be a massive boost, and tends to be when, as in the US, they draw relatively lightly on support programs, while paying taxes. Reverse those, and you get different results.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Vahir » Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:32 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The refugees want help? Organize them into a makeshift army and send them back.


Send them back and what? Fight ISIS? Fight Assad? If you give a bunch of scared, angry refugees guns and ship them back, the result will just be more chaos and more rampant murder. Not to mention that it'd be a thinly veiled invasion, which I'm sure Russia and China will love.

Not to mention the ethical considerations of forcing a bunch of people into a warzone, people who just want to escape the killing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:38 pm UTC

Makeshift armies are by their nature, kind of terrible, too. Sure, if you have volunteers, maybe make a program to utilize them, but a great many refugees are not of appropriate age, health, etc for combat. That's...sort of inherent in the whole refugee thing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Makeshift armies are by their nature, kind of terrible, too. Sure, if you have volunteers, maybe make a program to utilize them, but a great many refugees are not of appropriate age, health, etc for combat. That's...sort of inherent in the whole refugee thing.


1) Too cowardly to defend their homes? Not really selling themselves as the perfect immigrant.
2) If they aren't the appropriate age/health/etc for a military, they aren't going to be of much benefit as an immigrant. As for combat, IIRC you are ex-military yourself, you of all people should know that the vast majority of jobs in the military are in support. Able to fix a truck? Awesome! Mechanics are far more valuable than bullet-sponges!
3) We don't have to send them all back. Maybe something like "women and children accepted, men go back to fight"

I'm biased though; friends growing up in my hometown have roots in that area. Grew up knowing Kurds. Need help defending your home? Alright, do the same for me and I'll help beat the shit out of the bastards with you. Unwilling to defend your home? Fuck you, I'm not busting my ass for a coward.

Given that only the Kurds have been worth a shit in both Syria and Iraq, I'm still confused why we haven't just handed them a bunch of tanks already. Oh right, Turks.

Vahir wrote: Not to mention that it'd be a thinly veiled invasion, which I'm sure Russia and China will love.

Not to mention the ethical considerations of forcing a bunch of people into a warzone, people who just want to escape the killing.


Russia is busy with Crimea and facing an economic crisis due to oil and an EU boycott. China is in the middle of its own meltdown right now and the last thing it needs is expensive military actions or even the threat of a US boycott.

As for ethics, ethical nihilist here. Moral arguments other than "is this the world you want to live in" won't work on me. As for that question, no, it's not the world I want to live in, but if the boot was on the other foot Syrians would not welcome me into their country (in fact, many would laugh with glee as my family was murdered).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Makeshift armies are by their nature, kind of terrible, too. Sure, if you have volunteers, maybe make a program to utilize them, but a great many refugees are not of appropriate age, health, etc for combat. That's...sort of inherent in the whole refugee thing.


1) Too cowardly to defend their homes? Not really selling themselves as the perfect immigrant.


Cowardly, meh. Sick, malnourished, injured, perhaps. Combat zones are not really healthy places to be, and travel also tends to be rough, especially when it's on foot/via improvised boats/etc. So, you're going to see higher rates of these things.

Plenty of age related stuff too. That 60 yr old might be alright as a cobbler or whatever his profession is, but probably is rubbish as an infantryman. Also, likely lacking the experience.

2) If they aren't the appropriate age/health/etc for a military, they aren't going to be of much benefit as an immigrant. As for combat, IIRC you are ex-military yourself, you of all people should know that the vast majority of jobs in the military are in support. Able to fix a truck? Awesome! Mechanics are far more valuable than bullet-sponges!


In a modern military, yes. In an ad-hoc militia, not so much. Building them a modern military taking the country back, while an interesting thing to consider, is not a short term or inexpensive proposition. Look at our efforts to build a military in Iraq. It was neither fast or cheap, but it wasn't enough to be terribly great, either.

It's not impossible, but it's not an option you're gonna take because it's cheaper.

3) We don't have to send them all back. Maybe something like "women and children accepted, men go back to fight"


I wouldn't mind supporting those who do want to go back and make a difference. Including militarily. But that is something entirely separate, above and beyond the dealing with the refugees issue. Mostly, you have to pay the costs of them being refugees anyways, put money into training and equipping them to be effective, and once they're at that stage...export them.

Economically, it's just going to be more costly.

Plus, forcing is generally less effective than just sending volunteers. Volunteers are motivated. People forced to go, not so much. You don't want folks that'll just waste your expensive training, and sell off your expensive weaponry at the first opportunity, then attempt to go elsewhere. That's just a waste of resources. There's a reason modern militarys aren't terribly enthused about drafting anymore.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Vahir » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser, I may have misunderstood you and thereby built a strawman. But you seem to be saying that:
    A) People who don't want to kill others are cowards, and we're better off without them
    B) 18 million people are evil zealots who want to kill everyone in the west
If that is indeed the case, let me just say that I disagree with you wholeheartedly, and leave it at that for the sake of civil discussion.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:57 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:CorruptUser, I may have misunderstood you and thereby built a strawman. But you seem to be saying that:
    A) People who don't want to kill others are cowards, and we're better off without them
    B) 18 million people are evil who want to kill everyone in the west
If that is indeed the case, let me just say that I disagree with you wholeheartedly, and leave it at that for the sake of civil discussion.


A) There is nothing wrong with not wanting to kill. I can respect that; I don't want to kill people either. But never forget that the pacifist and the coward are two VERY different people.

B) Not 18 million of them, maybe not even most, but enough to matter. And not everyone in the west, just me; I'm Jewish, they hate me for existing (but that doesn't mean that none of them wouldn't love to kill you too.) In 1947 there were 15,000 Jews in Syria. Now there are practically none. Why do you think that is?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby morriswalters » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:35 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Too cowardly to defend their homes? Not really selling themselves as the perfect immigrant.
Civil war is never the province of most of the population. Life has to go on. Crops grown and business run. In the American Civil War the rebels lost. Most cities in the North were untouched by conflict and the civilian population was left more or less unmolested by the combatants in areas of fighting. That isn't Syria. Modern Western War was closer to the model of what is going on in Syria, and it was tempered somewhat.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:[snipped]
1) Too cowardly to defend their homes? Not really selling themselves as the perfect immigrant.
2) If they aren't the appropriate age/health/etc for a military, they aren't going to be of much benefit as an immigrant. As for combat, IIRC you are ex-military yourself, you of all people should know that the vast majority of jobs in the military are in support. Able to fix a truck? Awesome! Mechanics are far more valuable than bullet-sponges!
3) We don't have to send them all back. Maybe something like "women and children accepted, men go back to fight"
[snipped]

Let's see, as per number 2 on your list women, children, the elderly and the sick "aren't going to be of much benefit as an immigrant". That would leave us with the healthy military aged men. On the last point of your list, you propose to send all of those back to fight and die, and keep the ones who "aren't going to be of much benefit as an immigrant".

Which one is it? Let the able bodied young-ish men in your work force and good luck for everyone elese, or let the women and children in and send the men back to fight?

Personally, I disagree with both approaches, but I'm curious if you have any opinion other than "send them all back to war"

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby speising » Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:03 pm UTC

easy. send the women, children, and sick back as cannon fodder, and keep the able bodied young men. If they work hard, they may pay to get their (surviving) relatives out of conscription.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

You do realize that female labor is just as valuable in Western society as male labor, right? Sorry, point 2 was a bit mis-written. Gone are the days when you needed a strong back for chopping down trees, thick hands to wrestle your cattle into hamburgers, etc. As for children, you also realize that a person's value in society includes future value right?

Anyway, "which is it"? Let the women and children in and send the men back to fight.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Vahir » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

speising wrote:easy. send the women, children, and sick back as cannon fodder, and keep the able bodied young men. If they work hard, they may pay to get their (surviving) relatives out of conscription.


...With the internet, I can never tell if someone's being sarcastic or not.

CorruptUser wrote:Anyway, "which is it"? Let the women and children in and send the men back to fight.


Why send them back? Why shouldn't you or I be sent to fight in Syria instead? What makes us more deserving than those who had the misfortune of being born in what would become a warzone?
Last edited by Vahir on Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:23 pm UTC, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:21 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
speising wrote:easy. send the women, children, and sick back as cannon fodder, and keep the able bodied young men. If they work hard, they may pay to get their (surviving) relatives out of conscription.


...With the internet, I can never tell if someone's being sarcastic or not.


Quite sure that was sarcasm.

CorruptUser wrote:Anyway, "which is it"? Let the women and children in and send the men back to fight.


Why send them back? Why shouldn't you or I be sent to fight in Syria instead? What makes us more deserving than those who had the misfortune of being born in what would become a warzone?



An interesting topic for a discussion. Say you have a world with two islands, each with their own society. Society A builds a utopia. B builds a dystopia. Why should the children of B suffer while A prosper? Because the people of A built their society to be as good as it is, while the people of B ruined theirs. Right? Wrong? Doesn't mean a thing.

Every immigrant generation to the US had some level of suffering. My great-grandparents lived in the tenements. The tenements that were built by the ones who came before. That group had to sell themselves into temporary slavery (combined with rape if female) via indentured servitude. And they came over to work the farms of the people who had to go out into the woods and build a cabin. And those people came over only after the previous people had to go to war with the natives for the land to do so. But in each case, the people came only because the people before had built something to make it worth coming to.

The reason the refugees are trying to go to Europe is because the Europeans made Europe a place worth being in. You think Europe is a good place because of a wealth of natural resources? Sub-Saharan Africa has far more resources than Europe. But the refugees aren't fleeing to sub-Saharan Africa because the people there haven't made that part of the world worth being in.

So what gives the children of the people who created the "good" places to live more right to live there than the children of the people who made the "bad" places to live? No more than any right to inheritance really. But like I said, moral nihilist; right and wrong is whatever we say it is.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3998
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Dauric » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:41 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Anyway, "which is it"? Let the women and children in and send the men back to fight.


Why send them back? Why shouldn't you or I be sent to fight in Syria instead? What makes us more deserving than those who had the misfortune of being born in what would become a warzone?


Because that becomes an overt invasion, which trips all sorts of anger-triggers in the Middle East, and ultimately makes the situation more unstable.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby leady » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:57 pm UTC

If this were the guardian, someone would now post a huge polemic about how Europe is somehow only rich because it plundered the 3rd in the face of all evidence to contrary - and hence we owe the world or something :)

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The reason the refugees are trying to go to Europe is because the Europeans made Europe a place worth being in. You think Europe is a good place because of a wealth of natural resources? Sub-Saharan Africa has far more resources than Europe. But the refugees aren't fleeing to sub-Saharan Africa because the people there haven't made that part of the world worth being in.

No, they're fleeing in every direction and the migration pattern is clearly associated with which borders are the most permeable, and which are accessibly by land. To get to Africa they'd have to pass through Israel or cross the Red Sea, and as you may already know the Israeli border isn't exactly known for it's ease of passage. Natural resources, and social benefits are irrelevant to their route planning. Taking a look at the population distribution of Syria, and assuming they're fleeing to the closes border we should expect the most refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan which is exactly what's happening. Israel is the only country not taking in refugees, and is the only way to enter Africa by land. That's why no one is going to Africa. Most of the refugees aren't even traveling on to Europe which again, contradicts the idea that they're somehow favoring a "good place". It's about not wanting to be carpet bombed, that's it. There isn't some hidden agenda of upward mobility here.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

There are refugees fleeing to the nearest safe country, but we aren't talking about them. The ones continuing onward are the ones we are talking about. And none of them are continuing on to Georgia and Armenia.

Well, I could be wrong about that, but I haven't seen anything about Syrians fleeing to the Caucuses or Russia.

As for upward mobility agenda, actually, those are kind of the people we should be snatching up left and right :P.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:An interesting topic for a discussion. Say you have a world with two islands, each with their own society. Society A builds a utopia. B builds a dystopia. Why should the children of B suffer while A prosper? Because the people of A built their society to be as good as it is, while the people of B ruined theirs. Right? Wrong? Doesn't mean a thing.


Sure it does. Deserves, doesn't deserve...whatever. The fact of the matter is that the state of your society depends largely on the efforts of folks before you. I happened to be born in the US, rather than say, in some war-torn or famine ridden place. This is basically the world's most important lottery.

If you're born into a dystopia, you're going to suffer because it's a dystopia. That's what all those things mean, and why we shouldn't make those. This all seems rather basic.

If you want to talk about improving our culture, well, cheers. If you want to talk about improving their culture, we can do that too. I am fairly certain than mass refugee armies accomplishes neither.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Refugees travelling to Europe

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:39 pm UTC

CU, why not go to a thread that's actually about metaethics? That seems far more productive than requiring every thread about first-order ethics to first engage with your "nihilism."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests