Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
> [RPA] Arocalex wrote:
> Justinian, That won't work in any kind of practical sense. Because why would you then go work there when there are plenty of different countries.>
1. Limited opportunities in other countries
2. Third world population > Western population
3. Working in a Western country pays big dividends if you are a citizen of a third world country.
Moral arguments aren't typically persuasive against people with differing values or interests. They rely on a value system, and to refute a value system all you have to do is respond with a different one, which is what has happened here. Or all you have to do is to further en vague the arguments that are all ready vague, which has also happened here.
Practical arguments work, however. There is always a winner. Your options can be reduced to those that have the most desired results that can be foreseen, or you can identify groups or person with the most power and predict that the outcome will serve their interests or result in a conflict.
And while I think Bief is just trying to give a moral face to a practical argument, I am going to give a practical argument.
(PS: This argument doesn't necessary pertain to me, but it is a practical argument that would be popular imo.).
_____________________
Personally, I have reason to be inconvenienced by some groups that were allowed to immigrate for the long-term, especially ones that were allowed to enter without merit. These groups tend to live in poverty and leech off of the state, are more likely to be prone to criminal activity because of their poverty, and at other times they add competition for jobs. Furthermore, they concern me as a growing center of power. With such indiscriminate immigration, this impoverished group can gain power in our democratic system at my expense.
I understand the need for immigration or work visas in our country, but restrictions need to be instituted. In the case of immigration, I only want persons with merit and good behavior to take permanent residence in our country. In the case of persons of working class or impoverished origin here on a work visa, I want all such persons closely monitored and filed. We moreover only allow such persons to live and work in our country when our economy is performing well and there is a scarcity of labor. Should they ever misbehave, they will be immediately deported. Moreover, I want priority given to a citizen applying for a particular job over one working on a work visa, assuming the citizen is equally or similarly qualified for the job. In the event of a recession or depression where there becomes a scarcity of jobs, we will deport all appropriate persons working on a work-visa and suspend the program. In the case of an applying immigrant who is well-off, well educated and well-mannered, we may consider giving them citizenship and allow them to participate in our democratic government. Furthermore, persons in our country with a working visa who are classified as working class will not be considered for citizenship, under any circumstances.
Keep in mind this is all about self and group interest. No matter what moral arguments you shove down such a person's throat, they will say "it's not in my interest, and I will consider my best interest."
_____________________
Bief, I suggest you take this line of reasoning. It's more clear and it allows actual progress to be made in the argument. At best your opponents can try to do is try to reach a compromise, or at worst agree to disagree or flip out on morality lol.
Exploitation is a fact of life. Life is good when you're at the top of the hill.
I think these idealist goofs who provide moral arguments to justify Western reparations to the losers 200 years ago, even if it is in the form of encouraging immigration, are either envious or hyperempathic losers. By the latter, you know the type. Their sympathy is triggered too easily, and it extends beyond their in-group. In Elementary school they're the ones we make fun of, but as adults we consider them exemplary... wtf
An exemplary individual is one who is motivated by self-interest and exercises power on their own merit. They don't care about saving the third world, rather they want to better themselves and those who are in their web of interdependence.
A loser... A lazy liberal wheeny... wants to stall progress and redistribute resources to the weak, lazy, and pathetic. Haha, they want to redistribute resources to the losers like them.
I used to get constipated a lot and drink that nasty Metamucil stuff. The doctor later told me that the cause of my chronic constipation was eating those 10 bowels of ice cream every day.
> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
Are you really saying that Hitler's zombie corpse is a person? Or even Hitler, for that matter?>
Well it was 
Lay of Cloud. I like him now, sort of.
I just want to see how "save the world" Euros are, or if they are more concerned with those who share a common identity with them.
Cloud,
Don't need to take offense to it. It's just I share an identity with Westerners, and I'm trying to see if Euros do as well or if they really are overactive empaths who wants to save the world.
Zarf,
Lol. I meant countries not people.
Cloud,
My bad, I forgot to mention that I take Vitamin C, Omega 3, and Vitamin A vitamins hehe. I get plenty of protein in my peanut butter or ham and bread. I also get protein and calcium in milk, and iron in the cereal .
But yeah, without my vitamin tablets, I wouldn't get enough nutrients lol.
But omg $75-$150 worth of food? Whoa.
I could afford $50.00 a week if I cut down on some luxuries, but I have pride in being cheap lol.
Rate from 1-3 (1 being the most) concerned and empathic you are when something bad happens in one of the following areas.
Africa, The West in Europe (to the Russian and Turk border), or the West outside of Europe (The US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc).
For example (though I'm not a Euro), I care most about
1. The West outside of Europe
2. The West in Europe (though #1 and #2 are close)
3. Africa
Edit: You may exclude a country if you choose and rate it lower. For example, you can say something like:
1. The West in Europe, except Poland
2. The West outside of Europe
3. Poland
4. Africa
Hmm, you have a good point in that we're active a lot more and generally care more about our looks, while 30-40 year olds are working full time, have families, and are always on the move. They have less incentive and are more restricted in the time they have available.
But, sweets are expensive though. And while the price for healthy foods are rising, it's not hard to have a healthy diet. I mean, my weekly grocery bill is $25.00. I'm eating ramen, cereal, oatmeal, and ham/cheese sandwiches for the most part. Sure it's not ideal for getting muscular, but it keeps me thin and healthy.
Ok, so before today I thought that the talk about Americans being fat was flawed science used by Euros to bash Americans, but today I had a reality check. Normally my contact with other people is limited to college, in an upper middle class neighborhood, or in public at around 12:00 am. Now today, omg, I have never seen so many fat people in my life.
The fatties were normally around 30 - 40 years old, and they bought foods that were chips, soda, pizza, cakes and various kinds of sweets. I was like, "wtf buys that much crap?" I mean, I like sweets, I occasionally eat a entire cheese cake at once, but I never eat like that on a consistent basis.
Now, the odd thing is that the college students I see are typically not overweight. They are usually athletic, thin, or maybe a little meaty. But they aren't round, 250 lbs, and twice the size of a shopping cart.
I began to wonder if the reason younger people were typically less overweight than the 30 year old people was because of a faster metabolism. But the thing is that younger people don't buy so much junk. The junk, based on their shopping cart, is consumed in moderation.
Is the younger US generation eating better? Or is it just University students? Or just my University? lol.
Well the fact is is that Obama would have never ascended to the presidency without the support of white elites, and obviously his actions suggest he's motivated by power and therefore loyal to those elites.
It's also smaller and weighs less than the gray squirrel, which gives the gray squirrel a competitive advantage. It's why it's displacing the red squirrel in some regions of Europe. There's also other advantages that gray squirrels have, for example they can digest food more efficiently etc.
It's natural selection in action!
Die red squirrel die!
WFS,
Lol you're on crack. Spain did not invest its imperial resources in its economy, and economic knowledge at that time was rather primitive. Hell, David Hume criticized Spain for causing inflation at the time, and proposed alternative economic measures.
Einstein and Kemp are both nuts to some degree. Einstein, for example, is committed to the importance of religion in public life, and well Kemp is arrogant, abrasive, and does not care that some ideas (like rights) aren't empirically testable. In the case of Kemp, there's a mixture of admirable, reasonable, and crazy nut. He's an enigmatic one haha.
But in this case they are both right
Watch this documentary. It's very accurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
Theo,
His political manifesto does not seem like hate-mongering to me, and it does not seem consistent with the quotes of him. I don't know, maybe you Canadians consider Uni-culturalism and limited immigration racist and hatred, but I don't. I consider it pragmatism.
> V.Kemp wrote:
> They have the money to have real tax attorneys and avoid the new taxes. They, with their political power purchased with their financial power, literally, define the loopholes. While the rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, there are still a significant number who pay less taxes than many average joes making <$50,000/yr.
Some of them, in bed with politicians and institutions which further their own financial goals, do well to keep those persons/institutions in power and grow that power. This buys them protection.
Some of them feel really self-righteous in supporting a more all-powerful government that is more able to take care of everyone. They have the millions/billions to spare not to feel the impact of minor tax changes.>
So it's kind of a deal where they are able to eliminate competition in the market?
And that's why Ford delivers poor service? lol.
And that's why they love the death tax, because it impairs the lower rich from challenging the super rich?
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> "And when poor, working class Muslims are decreasing the efficiency of the market and leeching off welfare, it's understandable for someone to be upset"
Why mention the word 'muslim' though? It is a valid political view to be upset with poor, working class people leeching of welfare. What is the relevance that some are muslim? Why differentiate?>
Because it has to do with your values of diversity. There is no practical reason to have relaxed immigration laws to advance the values of diversity, which it seems to me is the only reason they were invited. And any suggestion of increased selectivity based on merit seems to be a sensitive issue. Look at Denmark, which has been criticized after it instituted immigration reforms.
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> He might not be a small fry right wing nut, but that doesn't stop him being a right wing nut. Just because he has support doesn't mean that he is right or that he should be allowed to spread hate messages. Thinking back to your 1930s comparison, are there any examples from history of people spreading hugely damaging hate messages who gained a lot of support? Did that make those people right?
I have to highlight again that I don't know this guy or exactly the kind of thing he says, I am working on the hypothesis that he is along the same lines as the BNP (British National Party). If he is then good, I am glad he is not allowed. If he is actually a reasonable guy then you may have a point>
See that's exactly the problem. "Rights." You imply they exist beyond custom and are absolute, which is nothing more than religious nonsense. Rights are customs that serve a practical purpose in advancing mutual interests.
He does not have a right to do what he does, but he doesn't need one. He only needs the power to do it. And when poor, working class Muslims are decreasing the efficiency of the market and leeching off welfare, it's understandable for someone to be upset. Yes I don't condone preaching a message of extermination or repatriation, but in the former case it's understandable and the issue should not be neglected and dismissed as "hate."
Maybe the right in Europe has not been very clear or is nutty. But I have not heard of anyone in Europe being taken seriously who promoted merit-based immigration restrictions, and the removal of immigration requirements based on diversity and asylum. You guys honestly seem very sensitive about your diversity and asylum values, and any talk about increased selectivity based on merit is dismissed as right wing nuts. For example, when Denmark increased its immigration restrictions, Europe branded it racist. WTF?
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> Who exactly is being appeased here? >
I'm talking about in general
Though in general Westerners have become too soft and too willing to accommodate..
<People teaching and spreading hatred are not welcome, whatever their creed. This guy should not be welcome just like Abu hamza isn't.>
But apparently the politician in question is not a "I hate muslim scum!" right wing nut.
And there's nothing wrong with spreading messages of hate, as long as the solution proposed isn't something radical and crazy.
With my present knowledge of economics, I have a rough time understanding how the economic elite would have a preference for socialism, but it seems they do.
Why is that? If they don't, how is it that people powerful enough to institute socialist reforms are able to get the power to do so?
By socialist reforms I mean increasing regulations on the economy and "welfare state" institutions.
Nothing new.
The West has been overrun by appeasing wussies and normative idealists.
"The Wealth of Nations," by Adam Smith.
Detroit is a ghost town? Sweet! Let Detroit die already.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.