Moral Cowards!

[Berzerker]

why is it racism?

 

[Cutlass]

So by moral cowards I assume you are referring to anti-immigrant conservatives and fascists?

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not sure, I kinda got lost...

 

[Ryika]

So by moral cowards I assume you are referring to anti-immigrant conservatives and fascists?

No, I'm referring to people who take the choice that think is the moral one (and correctly so in the example given), but are not capable of actually discussing the consequences that come with this choice.

As you might remember, I am of the opinion that there is in principle nothing wrong with being for very limited immigration, and I know you don't agree with that, but I think what we both agree upon is that, if this means not offering help to refugees, then that is morally reprehensible. But that is also not the topic of this thread, we already had one that tackled these issues not long ago, the dancing with wolves thread.

This thread is about having the courage to own up to ones moral decisions, a moral decision that we agree is the correct one. I find this knee-jerk reaction that some people have shown in the last few comments to be really uncalled for. No need to be triggered, we agree what is the right decision, but a person should make it and acknowledge the consequences, have the courage to say that it is the right, the moral choice, and own up to that choice as it stands as the superior option in light of the alternative, instead of hiding from the consequences like a coward.

 

[Cutlass]

No, I'm referring to people who take the choice that think is the moral one (and correctly so in the example given), but are not capable of actually discussing the consequences that come with this choice.

As you might remember, I am of the opinion that there is in principle nothing wrong with being for very limited immigration, and I know you don't agree with that, but I think what we both agree upon is that, if this means not offering help to refugees, then that is morally reprehensible. But that is also not the topic of this thread, we already had one that tackled these issues not long ago, the dancing with wolves thread.

Ah yes. The thread in which you pretended to be adult while doing all sorts of childish whining.

You don't want immigrants, fine. Your country will just decline into insignificance over time. You really want to be poor and vulnerable, that's your choice.

But at the least stop pretending that your position on the issue exists in any sense other than the fact that you irrationally hate other people for no other reason than that you are not mature enough to not irrationally hate other people.

 

[Ryika]

You don't want immigrants, fine. Your country will just decline into insignificance over time. You really want to be poor and vulnerable, that's your choice.

Not my choice, as I am for immigration, have always been for liberal immigration laws and will probably always be for liberal immigration laws.
And how could I not be? I have lived among and been friends with people who's parents were immigrants for all my life.

Which I have told you quite a few times actually, but I guess by now I should have understood that you do not understand the difference between having a set of beliefs, and being able to put oneself into the shoes of a person who has another set of ideas and see where they're coming from, because you've clearly shown yourself to lack that ability more than just a few times.

This is however still not the topic of the thread, please stop dragging it away from the discussion about moral cowardice.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm also strongly in favour of military intervention to stop genocide, ethnic cleansing and other acts of war. I think it is perfectly possible to do that competently, if that is actually what one sets out and plan to do.

Looking back over the past 50 years the sole military intervention I can think of that achieved that and produced a more stable outcome was Vietnam's in Cambodia. Every other conducted under that guise either did its own version of ethnic cleansing or produced lasting civil wars instead of what might have been short ones.

Valessa this isn't how statistics works.

Also, second this. And this thread is transparently a way for the author to hammer the point that immigrants cause crime while appearing to support the acceptance of refugees. Disingenuous to say the least.

I have no problem in saying that there are carry limits for refugees, though those depend on context. And that bringing about the situations where refugees are created inevitably leads down the line to mistreatment of those refugees. People in other countries indeed do not have any obligation to take them in, the vast majority will not feel any obligation after the first emotional impact is gone. If and when they accept refugees it will be because they have no better way to deal with the issue.

The real thing to fight are the actions being done now to create the kind of situation where people are turned into refugees. When they are already in the move it is too late, they will suffer. That is why I am so afraid as I look into what is being cooked for Africa and on the move in the Middle East. The Mediterranean will be turned into a killing ground (sea actually) if what is being forecast comes to pass. With the silent complicity of most europeans, me included probably because then the alternative of taking millions in will not be acceptable. This must be prevented before it happens!

 

[Cutlass]

Not my choice, as I am for immigration, have always been for liberal immigration laws and will probably always be for liberal immigration laws.
And how could I not be? I have lived among and been friends with people who's parents were immigrants for all my life.

Which I have told you quite a few times actually, but I guess by now I should have understood that you do not understand the difference between having a set of beliefs, and being able to put oneself into the shoes of a person who has another set of ideas and see where they're coming from, because you've clearly shown yourself to lack that ability more than just a few times.

This is however still not the topic of the thread, please stop dragging it away from the discussion about moral cowardice.

This is a discussion of moral cowardice. You keep outing yourself as a moral coward. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. You can't be bothered to understand where anyone else is coming from. All you see is 'they aren't my color, get rid of them!'

 

[warpus]

The moral outcome of an action is not only the positive aspect of it, but also the negative. That's why we put limits on immigrants here in Canada and are strict about which immigrants we let in. We want to help as much as we can, but there is only a limited amount of resources to spare, so we are forced to be selective. Otherwise we would be behaving in an immoral fashion to those who already call Canada their home (in the extreme example that we just opened our borders to anyone who wants to come here, for instance. We do not have the resources to deal with that without negatively affecting the existing Canadian population)

Mind you this is not at all commentary on the situation in Germany. That I do not know much about, but I would be surprised if it was possible to make a 100% moral action in such a complex situation.

I'm sure the German government has a sensible immigration/refugee plan in place that takes into account the needs of the refugees as well as the needs and rights of German citizens. If they don't, then they are morons and will be voted out in the next election. I'm also not surprised that there is higher crime associated with the poor and those low on the socio-economic ladder. Is a part of the problem perhaps that the German government didn't have a good plan and does not have the resources to properly administer and police these people?

Either way it's not a black/white situation.

 

[Ryika]

This is a discussion of moral cowardice. You keep outing yourself as a moral coward. I understand perfectly where you are coming from. You can't be bothered to understand where anyone else is coming from. All you see is 'they aren't my color, get rid of them!'

I actually very much understand where you're coming from. You think people have a right to unlimited freedom of movement and that borders are an unfair barrier to that. A position which I actually somewhat agree with, but it's a necessary evil for states to function - an argument which you will not accept, because you don't think states should be a thing either. That's where we disagree, I think states, and thus borders, are required for the system as it currently exists, and the system as it currently exists is the best we have right now, with no reasonably plausible alternative for now.

See, I understand where you're coming from. You on the other hand seem to think that I'm a raging racist who dislikes people of other skin colors, which is again ridiculous, and based on delusions that you seem to have built in your head because of ideological disagreements, and my willingness and ability to entertain opinions different from my own. For the same reason, you're actually unable to understand that this thread is not even an attack on your morals, it's me agreeing with you, but also pointing out that there is more responsibility in making the moral choice than just to go full-autopilot with whatever ones feelings dictate.

The moral outcome of an action is not only the positive aspect of it, but also the negative. That's why we put limits on immigrants here in Canada and are strict about which immigrants we let in. We want to help as much as we can, but there is only a limited amount of resources to spare, so we are forced to be selective. Otherwise we would be behaving in an immoral fashion to those who already call Canada their home (in the extreme example that we just opened our borders to anyone who wants to come here, for instance. We do not have the resources to deal with that without negatively affecting the existing Canadian population)

Not only to the people who already call it their home, but also the people who you're letting in. They do, after all, come to Canada for what it is, just bankrupting it with a theoretical "Everybody can come, even if it's for social benefits only!" would be against their interests as well as yours.

The situation is different for refugees of course, as that's often a matter of life and death.

 

[Cutlass]

I actually very much understand where you're coming from. You think people have a right to unlimited freedom of movement and that borders are an unfair barrier to that. A position which I actually agree with, but it's a necessary evil for states to function - an argument which you will not accept, because you don't think states should be a thing either. That's where we disagree, I think states, and thus borders, are required for the system as it currently exists, and the system as it currently exists is the best we have right now, with no reasonably plausible alternative for now.

See, I understand where you're coming from. You on the other hand seem to think that I'm a raging racist who dislikes people of other skin colors, which is again ridiculous, and based on delusions that you seem to have built in your head because of ideological disagreements, and my willingness and ability to entertain opinions different from my own. For the same reason, you're actually unable to understand that this thread is not even an attack on your morals, it's me agreeing with you, but also pointing out that there is more responsibility in making the moral choice than just to go full-autopilot with whatever ones feelings dictate.

Nope. You missed my point entirely.

I am for immigration. But I understand that there are practical limits to what is feasible. And I'm for refugees. But again understand that there are limits to what are feasible. Where we disagree is that I don't draw those limits based on ethnic stereotypes. Nearly all immigrants, and nearly all refugees, are going to be a net positive to the hosting nation over the long run. For a minority that won't be true. But you cannot determine which are in that minority by by classifying the groups, rather than the individuals. A nation may have a limit in the resources they have available for refugees at any point in time. But must also recognize that in the long run the taxpayer will get more than they pay for every refugee.

 

[inthesomeday]

To restate the point, Valessa, this is not how statistics works. There is literally no foundation on which the idea that accepting refugees leads to an increase in crime can be built. Higher crime rates among refugees in Germany is at best a highly distorted conservative talking point, and at worst a completely fabricated fascist deception.

And even if there was real evidence of this, to say that it is then somehow a proven and inevitable result of accepting refugees is, in fact, unscientific, and has no basis in real statistical analysis.

 

[Ryika]

I am for immigration. But I understand that there are practical limits to what is feasible. And I'm for refugees. But again understand that there are limits to what are feasible.

See, then we don't even disagree.

Where we disagree is that I don't draw those limits based on ethnic stereotypes. Nearly all immigrants, and nearly all refugees, are going to be a net positive to the hosting nation over the long run. For a minority that won't be true. But you cannot determine which are in that minority by by classifying the groups, rather than the individuals. A nation may have a limit in the resources they have available for refugees at any point in time. But must also recognize that in the long run the taxpayer will get more than they pay for every refugee.

Like I said, we don't even disagree on this.

You are again mistaking my willingness to entertain viewpoints and priorities that are different from mine instead of just condemning them as evil as me agreeing with those positions, and ignoring the fact that I have consistently stated that I am for taking refugees, and for immigration. I've argued against overly restrictive limits on immigration more than once, but I also acknowledge that people who have different interests in mind will view these things differently. States with a strong sense of nationality - such as most of Eastern Europe - will inevitably be more opposed to immigration, and it's their right to do that. I disagree with it, but it's not on my to decide how they run their countries.

So I urge you again, stop the war path, and read what I actually say. You're being blinded by rage about things that I neither said nor stand for.

To restate the point, Valessa, this is not how statistics works. There is literally no foundation on which the idea that accepting refugees leads to an increase in crime can be built. Higher crime rates among refugees in Germany is at best a highly distorted conservative talking point, and at worst a completely fabricated fascist deception.

And even if there was real evidence of this, to say that it is then somehow a proven and inevitable result of accepting refugees is, in fact, unscientific, and has no basis in real statistical analysis.

I have linked to the report from the official government agency in the OP, this report comes directly from the crime statistics and has been acknowledged by pretty much all political parties (aside from the AfD who did not like it at all) as being of good quality and a fair representation. It is not a fabricated hitpiece against refugees, it is a report that is based on statistics that show that refugees are overrepresented. For which the main reason is not that they're refugees, but that most of them are young men, and young men are a demographic that commits more crimes than other demographics, that's not a condemnation of refugees, that's simply cause and effect.

So yeah, that's exactly how statistics work and the only reason you're disputing the accuracy of a report that you know nothing about, that was done by an agency that you know nothing about in a country that you know nothing about is that your ideology. This is not the USA, this is Germany where the police, while certainly not perfect, is actually doing their job.

You are demonstrating exactly the moral cowardice that I was talking about in the OP, instead of acknowledging the facts and arguing for why your position is still the morally superior one, you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA".

 

[Berzerker]

This thread is about having the courage to own up to ones moral decisions, a moral decision that we agree is the correct one. I find this knee-jerk reaction that some people have shown in the last few comments to be really uncalled for. No need to be triggered, we agree what is the right decision, but a person should make it and acknowledge the consequences, have the courage to say that it is the right, the moral choice, and own up to that choice as it stands as the superior option in light of the alternative, instead of hiding from the consequences like a coward.

Thats hard to do... How do you tell a rape victim it was moral to let her rapist into the country? The refugees were dying, lives were saved. More good than harm was done. Hopefully that'll help her with the pain, but who wants to deliver that message to her?

 

[warpus]

young men are a demographic that commits more crimes than other demographics

Do you have a citation for that?

Btw, aren't there a LOT young German men in Germany already? Surely these young male refugees are just a drop in the bucket.

 

[Berzerker]

you need a source to show young men commit more crime?

I always thought that was a given, I'll be fascinated by a link showing they dont

 

[warpus]

you need a source to show young men commit more crime?

I always thought that was a given, I'll be fascinated by a link showing they dont

Yep, I want to see what the statistical significance of this is and what sort of ages we're talking about.

If young men are the problem, why not go after young German men? There are a lot more of those in Germany than young refugees. Surely in the scenario of young men being the main problem here, you can forget about the refugees altogether and focus on the young male German population.

 

[inthesomeday]

I have linked to the report from the official government agency in the OP,

Which I can't read, as I don't speak German, but was able to discern based on the graphs shown that those big dark blue bars are immigrant crime rates compared to the small, light blue bars of the law-abiding German citizens.

this report comes directly from the crime statistics

That's the bit I take issue with, see? I believe you. I don't believe the crime statistics. How were the particular statistics reported on compiled? If it's based on arrests or convictions then I don't believe it's a trustworthy source, because police are untrustworthy and principally absent of integrity.

and has been acknowledged by pretty much all political parties (aside from the AfD who did not like it at all) as being of good quality and a fair representation.

The opinions of political parties are more or less rashes to me.

It is not a fabricated hitpiece against refugees, it is a report that is based on statistics that show that refugees are overrepresented. For which the main reason is not that they're refugees, but that most of them are young men, and young men are a demographic that commits more crimes than other demographics, that's not a condemnation of refugees, that's simply cause and effect.

And here we get to the meat of it. Yes, I have never doubted or disputed that the police of every nation are more likely to target young, poor, dark-skinned men who speak other languages than other groups. That this leads to, as you claimed in the OP, an inevitable and verifiable fact that accepting more refugees is literally directly proportional to more German women being raped is an absurd and racist falsehood.

So yeah, that's exactly how statistics work and the only reason you're disputing the accuracy of a report that you know nothing about, that was done by an agency that you know nothing about in a country that you know nothing about is that your ideology.

I'm sure the report is accurate. The conditions of the report are what bother me. I know plenty about the agency, its report, and the nation it serves to pass judgement. Germany is one of the world capitals of modern imperialism, economic and military. The BKA is a state police organization that answers to the government of Germany. The report is one that summarizes arrest statistics of this organization.

This is not the USA, this is Germany where the police, while certainly not perfect, is actually doing their job.

Laughable. What precisely do you think the job of the police is?

You are demonstrating exactly the moral cowardice that I was talking about in the OP, instead of acknowledging the facts and arguing for why your position is still the morally superior one, you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA".

This is what bugs me most. Did you read the second paragraph, in which I actually pretended these facts are trustworthy in any way? Or the point of my post? Even if these statistics reflected absolute truth, and refugee communities were 1000% more likely to commit crimes than any other, the claim that this can lead to any kind of conclusion-- especially the one you mention, the hilarious slippery slope that every single refugee accepted adds some decimal to the rape rate-- is baseless, unscientific, and racist.

 

[warpus]

police are untrustworthy and principally absent of integrity.

Maybe in America...

 

[Ryika]

Do you have a citation for that?

Yes, the report for the whole of Germany has those numbers:
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downl...2016ImkBericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8
(That's a direct link to the pdf)

On page 11:

Crimes per 100.000 citizens, excluding "ausländerrechtliche Verstöße". Not sure how to translate that, but entering the country illegally, or being in the country illegally would be that.

under 14 - 2.056
14-18 - 2.124
18-21 - 5.527
21+ - 1.875

This statistic does not differentiate between boys and girls of each age range, but the overall number of crimes are 1.526.565 for males, and 495.849 for females.

I'm sure if you want more general statistics google should deliver that easily. That don't seem like controversial figures at all to me.

Btw, aren't there a LOT young German men in Germany already? Surely these young male refugees are just a drop in the bucket.

9,2% of the resolved cases hat at least one immigrant as a perpetrator. This number is mirrored in most of the sub-categories, including crimes against sexual self-determination - so the idea of the epidemic of sexual predators from the Middle East that you sometimes hear about on Breitbart is not actually a thing, who would have guessed. Highest overrepresentation is Theft, with 31%.

That's 1.413.265 refugees being part of 9% of the crimes committed in Germany, which has 82.6 million citizens. Of course this can't be taken as a percentage, as those crimes are not categorized as "refugee-only" crimes, a part of those will also be crimes that were committed by a mixed group of immigrants and citizens.

But again, that's not even what this thread is about. The acknowledgement that refugees are overrepresented was just the intro to that conversation I had, it was not meant to be a an argument against taking refugees by me or my friend, it was just an acknowledgement that led to a conversation that ended really weirdly as I stated very bluntly that even the morally right decision can have negative effects that we should be aware of, at which point my friend freaked out because he could not handle it.

inthesomeday - Not only dark-skinned, young men are overrepresented, young men in general are. That's really easy to explain, too - for example, young men are very open to risks, and have not yet formed the moral compass that adult men have. There's literally no reason for all the nonsense that you've built around it, and it's so far off reality, and so much delusional talk about a country and a police force that you still know nothing about, that I will not waste my time with a proper response. You have nothing of value to say on the issue.