Moral Cowards!

Young men are overrepresented when it comes to crime statistics, refugees consist mostly of young men, while Germany as a whole consists mostly of adults, ergo refugees make up a relatively large amount of the crime statistic overall, despite being a comparably small group. I'm not saying that's a problem, it's just how it is. Again, even with the overrepresentation in the crime statistics, the amount of people who commit crimes is very low in both, the German citizens and the refugees, and most of the crimes in both camps - but especially with the refugees - are rather low-end crimes such as theft. Neither are a reason for concern, neither are unexpected, and the overrepresentation in the crime statistics is in my opinion not a good reason to be against taking refugees.
 
Because it's the main reason that is named in the document from the BKA for why refugees are overrepresented in the statistics, which was the starting point of the conversation I had.
 
but if a person cannot even admit to themselves the consequences of their actions, does not think about why they hold the position they hold, then I have to say, in my opinion, those people are not acting on a moral framework at all - those people are acting on what feels good to them, not on what creates results. That works as long as the moral decision is easy, but the moment the moral decision is not the one that feels right, or good, anymore, they will show themselves as the moral cowards that they are.
Well, of course. This is how morality works, really. The feels man. It is plainly absurd to expect people at large to behave any differently, let alone to take their morals actually serious and take them to their logical conclusion. Because man, that can get like really annoying and inconvenient. Tough stuff.
But to be against racists - that is fun fun fun.
Yeah, this is straight up racism.
National solidarity trumping international solidarity is racism now? Okay....

RACISM RACISM racism everywhere
Though I for one very much welcome my racist nation then. Would suck if I had to give away all the luxury I enjoy to all the other people in the world. Healthcare, infrastructure and just the whole package, all very racist-like confined to Germany and Germans. Loosing that, that would, like, really really suck. But sure, you are just fine with that, am I right? Or are you - *gasp* - a racist too? Filthy dirty racist. You dirty the light that is my righteousness! Perish! Perish to ash!
 
Ummmm. Yeah.

"My luxury is more important than your survival" is a racist sentiment.

Its another kind of cowardice to not admit that you consider these people undeserving because they are non-european/different culture group/wrong nationality or whatever marker of ethnicity/race.
 
Its another kind of cowardice to not admit that you consider these people undeserving because they are non-european/different culture group/wrong nationality or whatever marker of ethnicity/race.

B--but it isn't! It-- it's because they come from ^^^another ^^^country!
 
Its another kind of cowardice to not admit that you consider these people undeserving because they are non-european/different culture group/wrong nationality or whatever marker of ethnicity/race.
If that's their motivation, then this is indeed moral cowardice in the sense that it is used in this thread!

Of course at this point it's just you pretending to know their motivations. I guess we'll have to wait until Brexit happens, hope that Britain goes up in flames as a civil war erupts and then wait for the Brits to get into their Fishing Boats that they thought would drive their economy to come over to Germany and the Netherlands, and see how the people who are against refugees now react to them. If they are against helping the Brits, then they're consistent, and your accusation of racism was clearly wrong, if they're not, then that's a great gotcha.
 
The safety of one's own people is of paramount importance.

The rape of one singular German girl is not worth the so-called rescue of any amount of refugees. They shouldn't be running off with their tails between their legs when their own women, children, elderly and infirm are left to fend for themselves anyway.
I would venture that you did not really understand the source of your avatar.
 
That actually makes sense! Thanks!... but I'm not sure where you really stand on these issues. Which doesn't really matter since I am heading back to bed

Where someone stands is actually a bit tangential to the topic started in the OP, not that I've found much actual discussion of OP topic in this thread unfortunately.

You can hold or refute the accuracy of the consequences, but regardless choices should be made with the outcome in mind. Separating "do what is right" from "what gives the best outcome" in an irrational manner is the topic highlighted in the OP. The specific conversation was just an example, one that was clearly not agreed upon.

The underlying concept that any choice made with "what is right" must take outcomes and potential anticipated downsides into consideration is sound. I will go so far as to say that not doing so isn't "moral cowardice", it's a complete misconception of what is moral. To give an example, I reject "good intentions leading to a choice that kills 10,000 more people than an alternative choice to no benefit" as a credible "moral choice" in the first place. Outcomes are what matter, and the process needs to work with anticipated outcomes.

Since it's difficult to actually collect good data, disagreement on the consequences of doing an action is typical. Rejecting the framework where you would make choices based on anticipated outcomes, however, is irrational.
 
Last edited:
"My luxury is more important than your survival" is a racist sentiment.
Regardless of the reason? Because, I always figured the reason or motivation or what have you kinda makes racism racism. I mean what about chauvinism, plain good ol' egoism, nationalism - there are so many isms to shame people with! So can we now just forget about those words because everything evil is racism?
Its another kind of cowardice to not admit that you consider these people undeserving because they are non-european/different culture group/wrong nationality or whatever marker of ethnicity/race.
I don't consider them "undeserving". I don't think what anyone "deserves" even enters the equation. I don't think it ever did, really. I think if you look clearly at morals or justice or the idea of deserving something in all the ways those ideas actually matter, actually are carried out and uphold, you always end up with systems and structures focused on profiting the people involved, or at least mediating conflict in a way better than the alternative, not on realizing an actual thing.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm. Yeah.

"My luxury is more important than your survival" is a racist sentiment.
I'm still awed by the ability of some people to outdo the stupidity of their racism obsession even when they already broke the ceiling of nonsense several steps ago.

That's somewhat fascinating.
 
@Akka
Well it is an old and quit natural story, isn't it? It is all about social status, really. Just in those weird and twisted ways society transforms many of our natural impulses into.
By its very power the accusation of racism became a tool more than a mere description. A tool of social status. Or rather, of relegating certain views or people to a certain (low, outcast) social status. We have witnessed the same thing with fascism, or the word Nazi, or the word socialism, or any word of very powerful and negative connotation. We have even seen it with pedophilia, a word that seems straight-forward enough in its meaning, yet [older] adults being into say 15-year-olds is commonly referred to as a case pedophilia, which is just nonsense.
 
Tfw defending your racism leads you to defend pedophilia
 
So whats a non-racist reason to get picky about who gets humanitarian assistance? If you want you can suggest general hypothetical ones and ones relevant to Germany.
 
Imagine thinking refugees were a bigger problem than racism

Actually, for these people, maybe they are, because refugees result in no change and racism benefits them
 
So whats a non-racist reason to get picky about who gets humanitarian assistance?
Well, do you think the German Government would have to accept a russian citizen who wants to enter the country under the reason that living on social benefits here is better than in Russia?

Surely not, because the German government is obligated to grant social benefits to its citizens, and maybe because we accepted the obligations, citizens from other places in the EU, but surely not citizens of other countries, and it is not obligated to accept citizens of other countries who want to come here explicitly to live on social benefits, purely because they believe its beneficial to them.

Humanitarian assistance is different of course and internationally we have decided that a certain number of rules are to be followed when it comes to refugees - and it's good that we did - but surely you realize that a person who thinks that these rules are wrong and that the state should primarily focus on its own citizens even when it comes to refugees is in itself still not a racist stance. It may be fueled by racism, but to say taking that stance is itself racism is just a gross misuse of the word.
 
Back
Top Bottom