It's not only Africa, but the middle east as well that have been crossing over. Now, if white people don't want to save themselves in europe through birth rates, I can't really accuse anyone else of making the problem worse since I don't control what people will do with their bodies. On the same end I won't accuse people of doing something wrong if they want to improve their birth rates too.
Alright, let's say I entertain the idea for a second... why are you lumping Africa in with the middle east? The two are very different. Middle eastern migrants aren't even black, they're Asian. How would they eventually dominate solely the white people in society while still keeping Asian and black people around? Surely, going by this logic, there would eventually just be one? Otherwise, why would just white people be wiped out by this influx?
Entertaining aside, I really don't think this is going to happen. To my knowledge, white people are still giving birth at a pretty good rate, after all.
People have been making an effort to educate the migrants on how to approach people, the guides I've personally seen but I don't believe they are the only ones that exist have had to do with not sexuall harassing women here and seeking proper consent.
It's ironic that before all this, leftists in europe had long complained of a rape culture existing and the rights of women being violated. Through the careless and chaotic entry of migrants, they have managed to create their own culture of rape with men who give no care of heed to women there.
I'd be careful lumping all leftists together. I may be a left libertarian, but I definitely,
definitely don't see eye-to-eye with almost every single one of the left-wingers I remember from tumblr, for example.
That aside, women's rights really didn't start picking up until a few decades ago. Even now, rights between men and women are lopsided at best. You can make good arguments for things like double deviance and the chivalry thesis, for example. I believe women have a large quantity of areas of society still against them, but I don't believe they're blanket oppressed anymore. Definitely not in the way that they were. That's a great thing, and as someone who identifies as a liberal feminist and egalitarian I support anything that seeks to equalise people of all types within society.
Though, regarding your statement about migrants, does it not answer itself? Even though migrants are coming in that treat women badly (and make no mistake, I definitely recognise and agree that such migrants are coming in, though I would not necessarily agree that it's en masse), people are doing what they can to teach them the way things work in society. Hell, they get heavily looked down upon if they get caught doing anything bad like that in society due to our current viewpoint on domestic abuse and discrimination around gender, and rightly so. If you come here, you should make an effort to understand the way things work here.
What you perceive to be a "careless and chaotic" flow of migrants isn't creating a culture of rape in the UK at all. Though not completely contemporary, an issue such as this wouldn't have cropped up in a few years, so
here's the evidence that such a claim is incorrect. In the offender tables, it clearly shows that white people commit just under 4x the number of sexual offences that all other types of people commit combined. Considering that the UK was 6th on the list of migrant population according to
this source, your claim isn't as accurate as you would like to believe.
By the way, I'm aware the results of the UK aren't representative necessarily of the entire EU. I just would really rather not go down the list looking up evidence for every country in the EU, and the UK is considered a pretty popular migrant spot in the EU (though it doesn't get all that many permanent migrants, and
never has compared to other countries).
Migrants have no race, they are not refugees from Syria escaping war either, or are they Iraqi, nor are they from Libya.
I believe the best of the country of origin of each migrant stayed home while criminal elements have left, do you think that I would say this if it didn't to some extent find truth? I'll ask again if you want the statistics of individual countries of western europe, because those in eastern and central europe have themselves refused to partake in the insanity of the crisis currently unfolding here.
Migrants are of varying races. They are refugees from Syria escaping war, and they are anyone from a country moving to another country for any reason. I don't believe that you don't find truth in your belief, not at all! I just myself do not find truth in it, and find my own truth elsewhere, in a differing opinion. It's one of those postmodern things, we can debate until we're blue in the face but I doubt I will be able to persuade you to see my truth as
the truth, and I doubt you will be able to persuade me to see your truth as
the truth. You can pull up any statistics you would like, I'll challenge where appropriate since I highly doubt I won't find issues with what you may bring up, considering I'm on the opposite side of the argument and don't believe that those with "criminal elements" have left, much less that there is any quantifiable way to prove that the migrants that have decided to leave are more of the criminal variety. Even then, we could easily turn that into an argument of crime itself, and whether people can be more or less predisposed to commit crime. As a sociologist that has studied these topics at high education levels, I will gladly debate with you should you bring those evidence up into the argument.
He was living happily and safely in Turkey until his dad tried to move further into europe. Frankly I would be pretty happy to have escaped but would have found myself a very angry spirit if my father took me on his boat to greece just to make his way deeper into europe due to the welfare benefits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europ ... BE20150911
On that end, if people were truly escaping such dangers in the middle east and africa they would have stopped in the middle east or have wanted to find themselves in eastern europe. Hungary was doing their best to give them water and other needs while they complained about their own conditions. Of not having enough money, of trashing the food they were given and saying it was meant for women, or for dogs.
I mean, these people aren't on vacation, they shouldn't act like they are if they're supposedly refugees. Now you see a word like "Migrant" or "Economic Migrant" makes more sense because it appropriately calls these entitled people what they are.
The article only mentions how the father capsized the boat, not that he was living happily and safely in Turkey. I provided evidence that he was fleeing his home country as his hometown had been attacked, I want to see something that says he was living happily in Turkey as I can't find anything that supports that claim. Also, I don't see any evidence that they were being entitled like that either, throwing away the resources they were provided by Turkey.
The story I have seen so far is that their hometown was attacked; as a result they fled and got on a boat, where the father proceeded to drive the boat poorly and capsized it, killing his children. I will gladly admit that you were correct if you can back up the claims you have made, but I have yet to see such a thing. Until I see evidence to the contrary, they are refugees fleeing conflict and this just seems like a way to attempt to paint them into a corner where they will be looked upon poorly for their hastily-made decisions.
ISIS's policy is "We're going to invade and attack." And they've carried through with that threat at least once. Also, it was "No muslims are allowed until we can sort this problem out."
No one wants to blame the muslims, the muslims who support Trump sure aren't. What do you consider their opinions on actually supporting him anyways, or the rest of the minority support he has over the other GOP candidates? We know full well what his policies are, and have let the accusations of racism towards him bounce off him and us because we know full well he is far from it so much as he is simply appropriately cautious.
Regardless of ethnicity, everyone who supports Trump simply has an alternate viewpoint to the one I hold; it is no more or less valid than my own, and I respect their decision to support him even though I personally wouldn't (and even though I can't personally understand why they do, as someone with the political beliefs I hold). It doesn't mean I can't debate with them, as I'm doing right here, though. Not once did I call Trump racist (I don't actively follow American politics that closely, as a member of the UK - this entire debate was started on what I
did know about him and how I disagreed with it) personally, but I still can't personally agree with his policy to keep out Muslims. ISIS are a massive problem, definitely. I just don't think any suffering minorities trying to come through the border should be indirectly affected and in a way punished because of a country's paranoia of a group like ISIS. It's cruel to people that legitimately have never had anything to do with ISIS in their life who are just trying to enter the country to escape conflict, regroup and meet with their family, cases such as these. Their worlds are in constant turmoil already considering having to be uprooted at all. I understand that ISIS is a threat, but the international affairs sections of the governments of countries like the US are usually very efficient, and usually protect the country against threats that the public doesn't even get to hear about.
On top of that, do you really believe just putting a blanket block on Muslims for a while would deal with the issue of ISIS attackers coming through? They would find other, more covert ways to get their agents into the US. Paranoia would not be stopped by blanket blocking Muslims, it would only serve to intensify the issue.
Neither of those two cause it, I've been accusing the open door policy people have had. These people seeking to migrate only to find themselves taking advantage of welfare programs that even Islamic Imam's have told them to abuse.
Do you know what most countries have to handle immigrants? We screen them before letting them in, otherwise they kick them out. We have no obligation to do so any other way, not for anyones sake and human society isn't at a stage yet where we can just so safely trust each other without asking the same questions other people in other country find themselves asking.
I'll leave this open to respond to when such a study has come forward, that is assuming western europe or the EU hasn't punished any such studies or people attempting to conduct them.
But how does an open door policy directly increase levels of crime? Even if you pull up the statistics in the countries, I have nothing but your word that the reasons for higher levels of crime in these countries is linked to their placement in the EU in such a way, or any "open door policies". It's entirely plausible, provided the statistics do show a crime increase, that the reason these countries are in the EU in the first place and aren't resisting it is at least partially because of high crime levels, because they may be looking to the better off countries in the EU for some aid regarding the issue. Providing statistics without meaningful studies to back them up makes those statistics meaningless in the case of a debate such as this as they are entirely open to interpretation.
I know about immigrant systems, and I don't have anything wrong with there being a screening process for immigrants. But if you truly do have proof that such open door policies increase the crime in said countries, feel free to present it. I will gladly eat my words if you do.
Floor's open, what could be done to improve response times?
Before I answer, I would like to say I asked one of my friends, Pastaa (who also lives in New York, not
too far from Triert (by the way, let me know if you'd prefer to just be called Goat or whatever, I'm not too bothered)) regarding police response times in NY and
she backed up his anecdote.
I don't have to provide a method of achieving this. My argument was that the point you brought forward was less of an argument for gun culture to exist in America, and more of an argument for better policing to exist in the places in America where it is subpar. An inability to provide a method on my part does not lend weight to my argument or your argument here, not even slightly.
That being said, the only thing I can properly think of right now is an evaluation of the police department and response times. If, as evident by what I've heard so far, the times really are that bad... the police perhaps need more funding, resources and recruits in order to combat the large number of population around New York. However, the funding has to come from somewhere and I can't really say I know where to take it from. This wouldn't affect external forces impacting the response time such as traffic (since NY is a city full of tourists and is extremely busy even for a city of its population as a result) though, so all in all the solution to such an issue is a very complex and difficult one to accomplish.
If we give up the guns, then people will want us to give up the knives too.
You know that full well as a citizen of the UK, don't you?
Now, take into consideration the reality of something we call prohibition, and the war on drugs. Making something illegal and criminalizing it will lead to a spike in crime. Given the gun culture in the USA from the start has existed under our second amendment to revolt against a government the citizens have found needing to be deposed of, while americans have themselves seen how gun repossesion and illegalizations have ended in other countries, I fully stand on the position that if you attempt to institute harsher gun control laws, you will have a much worse situation than you have now due to the factors I've listed.
I don't know that. I've never heard of a single person campaigning for the banning of knives in the UK, and though I'm sure people have done it (what
haven't people campaigned against at some point in time?), it has never caught wind in its sails to the point where it became a big thing, and rightly so. Knives are very,
very different to guns. Knives are used for a variety of things, mainly cutting food for meals and the slicing of things that makes certain things more beneficial to our everyday lives. Even though they can be used to stab people and to stab things, they are useful to us outside of wounding, maiming and killing things.
Can you say the same for guns? What is a gun good for, aside from shooting something to kill it? Shooting to scare things off? Other things can do that just as well as a gun can. The slippery slope of "if we ban guns, knives will be next and then what's next after that?" just does not hold up.
You know what, regarding your prohibition statement? I totally and completely concur with your point. If you try and take America's guns away, it probably will get much worse than it was. It's the same with alcohol - if it were introduced today, it would be banned and deemed illegal quickly because it messes with people's mental state. However, as a part of the culture, banning something like that
now would cause outrage!
Regarding guns, it's a difficult question to answer. I don't know how I would go about dealing with implementing some way to combat America's gun culture because it is a very difficult problem to tackle - but I do think that America and the entire world would be better off as a whole if guns weren't allowed.
The innocent migrants? Do you mean the ones raped in the centers by other migrats? The poor boy raped while people video taped his rape? The other children raped in these camps? The women raped in these camps? Or how about the ones raped at pools?
Yeah, suddenly screening and not taking them in by the bakers dozen looks like a good idea since we could have had a chance of having far LESS bad eggs.
These policies failed everyone involved and the only people riding high are the criminal elements within the migrants, now we're left with a problem that needs direct action against all of them because we let them all in while care went to the wind. Hopefully we can try again should another problem arise, and hopefully the worst that needs to happen the progressive deportation of the criminal elements.
Ahead of time I acknowledge I might have flopped on a position and I do apologize.
I don't have a problem with fair screening, but in regards to people committing crime, they're as bad as we are regarding crimes. Zero tolerance plans regarding people that come into the country and go and just start committing crimes like rape is one thing (that I can't say I'm opposed to), as well, but when it comes to things like robbery we need to have a clear look at the areas surrounding migrants and refugees in the countries they arrive in. I'm a pretty heavy believer in Merton's strain theory of crime, and considering migrants drafted into the country have issues with material and cultural deprivation as well as the attitudes they have to deal with from people around them
and the vilifying gaze of the media means that their social situation is by no means a simple and easy to define one. Especially if their habitus (Bourdieu's definition of habitus, not the medicinal psychological one) leads to them not being used to the way things work in the UK, programs should be set in place to try and aid migrants in getting used to aspects of British culture that may differ from their own outside of the obviously potential criminal aspects. It would make for a much fairer and more level playing field, though the field shall never be fair so long as discrimination and the general moral panic regarding migrants is a thing.
I realise I was very UK-centric in this argument. The UK is what I know the best, is all. Forgive me for that!
