[RD] Our Children, Their Children, and the Question Dances With Wolves Couldn't Answer.

[Ryika]

You seem to think that no one coming from such a country is incapable of living by the norms of the country they immigrate to.

You're an American who does not know much about Europe, aren't you? I'm not saying that immigrants are "incapable" of integrating into their host country, I say that many of them simply don't want to beyond a certain point, and that's obvious from my perspective. And that's not a bad thing either as long as they accept the rules of the country, which most of them do - people have a right to their own opinions, and if they don't want to leave their identity behind, they shouldn't be forced to. But these differences between populations clearly exist, and that you still think that they would just get assimilated and give up their own heritage is ridiculous. You just have to look at some of the studies where Muslims are asked about their opinions and ideals to know that these differences exist and that they are massive on some issues.

But excluding whole peoples because some of their members might be trouble isn't protecting Western values. It's just racism. Which means the people making the argument that you are making are not part of Western values in the first place.

Sure, when it's about immigration, then if a person looks at the views people of a specific country hold and then says: "People from there? No!", then I agree that's racist, because they're ascribing the average values to every individual. Ideally, we would just vet people there extra-carefully (OMG she's for profiling!) and make sure we only take people who do not hold backwards views, the people who actually want to leave that theoretical poohole behind and live by western values.

But of course you can't do that with refugees who come in masses, and without asking for permission first, so you have to find a generalized approach to the situation as a whole. Not because you think they're "all like that", but because you have no ability to vet the individual. You MUST generalize, and the difference between me and the people who have very negative attitudes towards refugees I would say is that I try to base my generalization on the actual information that is available to me, and that I try to find a balanced view, while they seem to be following their own horror fantasies.

The difference between you and me on the other hand is that I live in reality and know that a boat can only carry so many people and that there may be a point where you have to stop taking in people if you want your boat to stay above water, while you live in a fantasy land where you'll happily fish people out of the ocean even as your own boat is already filling up with water because of overload.

...I should really stop making water-related metaphors in this context, shouldn't I?

 

[Cutlass]

You're an American who does not know much about Europe, aren't you? I'm not saying that immigrants are "incapable" of integrating into their host country, I say that many of them simply don't want to beyond a certain point, and that's obvious from my perspective. And that's not a bad thing either as long as they accept the rules of the country, which most of them do - people have a right to their own opinions, and if they don't want to leave their identity behind, they shouldn't be forced to. But these differences between populations clearly exist, and that you still think that they would just get assimilated and give up their own heritage is ridiculous. You just have to look at some of the studies where Muslims are asked about their opinions and ideals to know that these differences exist and that they are massive on some issues.


Sure, when it's about immigration, then if a person looks at the views people of a specific country hold and then says: "People from there? No!", then I agree that's racist, because they're ascribing the average values to every individual. Ideally, we would just vet people there extra-carefully (OMG she's for profiling!) and make sure we only take people who do not hold backwards views, the people who actually want to leave that theoretical poohole behind and live by western values.

But of course you can't do that with refugees who come in masses, and without asking for permission first, so you have to find a generalized approach to the situation as a whole. Not because you think they're "all like that", but because you have no ability to vet the individual. You MUST generalize, and the difference between me and the people who have very negative attitudes towards refugees I would say is that I try to base my generalization on the actual information that is available to me, and that I try to find a balanced view, while they seem to be following their own horror fantasies.

The difference between you and me on the other hand is that I live in reality and know that a boat can only carry so many people and that there may be a point where you have to stop taking in people if you want your boat to stay above water, while you live in a fantasy land where you'll happily fish people out of the ocean even as your own boat is already filling up with water because of overload.

...I should really stop making water-related metaphors in this context, shouldn't I?

"Race realism" isn't living in reality.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

People can change, I have changed alot over the years. The problem is the belief in determinism, that people can't change, an easy but very wrong and dangerous way.

 

[Ryika]

"Race realism" isn't living in reality.

Do you even know what the words you use mean or are you just throwing around buzzwords that you know have negative connotations? Nothing I said has anything to do with "Race realism", not even with "race".

 

[Cutlass]

Do you even know what the words you use mean or are you just throwing around buzzwords that you know have negative connotations? Nothing I said has anything to do with "Race realism", not even with "race".

No. But you keep dancing around the word while at the same time making up fictional reasons why people of certain races should not be allowed to be free and then justify it by calling yourself a realist.

I'm just editing out the misdirection in your posts.

 

[Ryika]

No my friend, what you're doing is to draw conclusions from the fictionalized version of what I said that only exists in your head, and then act as if those were the things I have said. I really begin to wonder why I have to repeat in every second post that I am for taking refugees, and that I am also for freedom of movement in most situations. Is there something wrong with your short-term memory, or do you just not read what I say?

But no matter, I will be nice and repeat again: I do not object to immigration, what I object to is your simplistic view that immigration must be allowed at all costs, and that there can never be a scenario where we should deny people access to our country. That's silly, access to our country is a privilege just as on the private level, being allowed to enter your house is a privilege. On the country level it's a privilege that we should give to people as much as possible, as it help everybody involved, but we have every right to deny access from a place in the world that we assume would bring in overly negative consequences for us.

Some people think bringing people in whose cultural values are due to the different morals and ethics that exist around the world, very different from ours are already "overly negative consequences". Thar is a notion that I disagree with, a notion that in fact most people in the western world disagree with, but a notion that is also not "immoral" as you have claimed earlier in the thread.