It's a better alternative than putting them on the streets so they can terrorize middle class America.

Apes aren't exactly the supreme species, but they were here before humans so in essence we're all apes.

[/sarcasm]

Though we are all the same species and not one "race" is superior to the other, just because your evolutionary ancestors came from a location does not make you like your evolutionary ancestors. Though in case of races, it's a moot point because race is a social construct. The "racial differences" we see are only morphological differences that were quick adaptions to climate.

However, this doesn't change the fact that inner city blacks who live in poverty and adopt hip hop culture are total slime either. But it should be said that Westernized blacks who worked hard and earned a better life on their own merit deserve applause.

It's time for old people to fend for themselves?

Modern day Liberals believe in positive freedom, or the idea that government ought to guarantee various services that enable an individual to live at a minimal standard regardless of their decisions. Of course, what that minimal standard is is open to interpretation. Liberals tend to have a high bar, and that includes the right to an education and house ownership. Now personally, I think that's outrageous. I don't necessarily want mess ups to starve in the streets, but I am not hot on the idea of all these housing and education benefits afforded to the poor.

In general, however, I am committed to the classical definition of freedom, which is now considered negative freedom. Negative freedom is that government should guarantee choice and individualism, and the only services it provides are the services that guarantee you those freedoms from possible oppressors (such as a criminal). I have greater sympathy for a government that guarantees negative freedom. Such a government would be minimalist and have a weaker presence in our social and economic lives, although I am not willing to necessarily go to the extreme.

They don't assimilate in to our culture because those bloody libs shelter them. Their idea is that culture is so valuable, and every culture (except Western culture ofc) should be preserved.

> Red_Rooster wrote:

> well it is nonsensical to give someone a work visa when there isnt already a shortage of that particular type of worker. No country on earth gives people work visas for no reason... They may give people an asylum which is purely a moral decision not a cost-benefit decision. The goal is that by giving people asylums, you increase your image of benevolence around the world and it can be used to spread propoganda at home. And the people who were given asylums will eventually become part of the country through our public education system.>

Yeah, I'm mostly directing my criticism against permanent immigration for working class foreigners, and the means they are able to attain citizenship by work visa. I don't mind if they work for a while because of a scarcity of labor, but not citizenship. However, it does not bother me when professional and educated foreigners immigrate. And furthermore, I am also criticizing moral means of attaining citizenship, because first it's costly and second only idiots believe any one is benevolent.

Free VIP to whoever tells me where Syeknom (or whatever his name is) is.

I want him back!

Hail Bush!

PS: I mean the later Bush II who became inactive and let smarter people take over for him.

It's no more faith based than any other alternative.

> avogadro wrote:

> justinian, i want you to empirically prove that empirical standards are more valid then any other standards.>

That's impossible. I don't assert positivism, but I do assert a standard of dismissing any theory not empirically testable. The reason here is not that our conclusions from experience are more true than ones that aren't, because then we run in to the problem of under-determination and we raise the question of how we are supposed to test our experience to see if it matches with the way reality actually is. Rather, rigid fidelity with experience has optimum practical value. Secondly, experience is the only means that humans come to understand something. So something like ethics is meaningless beyond being a set of rules to follow.

Yeah ok.

They aren't ultimate authorities, but they are better places to start than Shakespeare. When you read psychology, you will encounter a lot of crap. Behaviorism is a good place to start for a rookie because it will train you how to discriminate between crap and informative.

And all normative ethics is purely a failure, although evolutionary psychology very adequately explains why we are "ethical."