Sweeslamistan

[aelf]

I'm not sure I'm getting any particular hostile tone towards the immigration policy in response to Jernsida. Perhaps some eye-rolling as to the more jingoistic portions of his posts(warmongers, knuckle-draggin, inbreds, that sort of content), but not towards the immigration policy. That's more curiosity. Could you be specific if you think I'm off base?

Definitely. The retort was specifically referring to the immigration policy itself. Why would the questions be about assimilation and the welfare system otherwise?

But of course. The people you happen to agree with are always polite. Why was I silly enough to question that?

No he doesn't, because he's refused to respond to any of the points I'm making.

It's like responding with "I like cheese". It might be a good point in a vacuum, but it's not at all relevant to what I was asking.

You're missing the point.

 

[Farm Boy]

Definitely. The retort was specifically referring to the immigration policy itself. Why would the questions be about assimilation and the welfare system otherwise?

But of course. The people you happen to agree with are always polite. Why was I silly enough to question that?

Which retort aelf? Warpus's immediately after he was called an inbred? I'm not getting you. And I'd like to assume you're being polite, you probably are, rather than assuming you are dropping vague flame-baits, which I'm going to assume you aren't.

Also not sure who you think I'm supposed to be agreeing with here, Warpus? I think the Swedish immigration policy is grand, my only response to the sequentially-progressing-poster was supposed to indicate that I'm probably significantly more angry about my country not doing enough to help out than he is. So I probably agree with Jernsida more than anyone else. And he's definitely not being polite.

 

[aelf]

Which retort aelf? Warpus's immediately after he was called an inbred? I'm not getting you.

What sort of plan do you have in place that will ensure that all these immigrants integrate well with Swedish society and won't be a drain on your resources in a way that you won't be able to manage?

Your plan.. let's see it.

The retort was about the immigration policy, not about being called an inbred. I'm sure even you can agree with the proof before your eyes.

 

[Farm Boy]

That isn't a request for information? It is rather instead a retort? It doesn't seem particularly sharp, angry, or wittily incisive.

 

[Phrossack]

Whoever "acknowledge[d and still acknowledges] Darwinism in biology" also tended/tends to be fine with it being applied to society, I'd wager.

You'd wager that anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution must also be a social Darwinist?

 

[aelf]

That isn't a request for information? It is rather instead a retort? It doesn't seem particularly sharp, angry, or wittily incisive.

It's in the tone of the posts. I'd say they're made in a rather challenging manner.

Again, to use the charity example, it's like asking the generous guy, "So what are you going to about your retirement? Your plan... let's see it." Still diaper-wearing libertarian material.

'nuff said.

Your usual games are amusing but you're just re-hashing old ground now.

You'd wager that anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution must also be a social Darwinist?

Probably. I'm not the one who's comparing Darwinism with creative destruction. If someone really is a proponent of Darwinism now like people are of creative destruction, they're probably quite suspect, since the former is kinda outdated. It's like being a proponent of racial theories à la Domen.

 

[Traitorfish]

While I'm not exactly a fan of economic creative destruction, is it any more ironic than people acknowledging Darwinism in biology but recoiling in horror when it's applied to society? There's nothing hypocritical about that.

I'm not sure the analogy works. Objections to social Darwinism are primarily ethical rather than scientific, that Darwinian policies are wrong regardless of their effectiveness. In contrast to this, "economy", "society" and "culture" are all different ways of describing the collective attitudes and behaviour of human beings- the distinctions are really just between academic disciplines- so there's no self-evident reason why creative destruction should be an almost divine imperative in certain aspects of this collective behaviour and why it should be the very devil himself in others. It may not be hypocritical, but it certainly betrays some muddy or narrow thinking.

 

[Phrossack]

Maybe I'm using the wrong term- I used Darwinian in contrast to Lamarckian.

So let me rephrase that- Do you think that someone is a hypocrite if they believe in evolution but reject social Darwinism?

 

[Farm Boy]

'nuff said.

Your usual games are amusing but you're just re-hashing old ground now.

That's concern, isn't it? Like we have for people we like that do things we like? If my sister went out and donated a huge sum of money to a charity I would very pleased and proud of my sister, but seeing as I'm not certain that she has a huge sum of money to donate, I would ask follow up questions. Not because I don't like her, not because I don't like whatever charity she donated to, not because I think she shouldn't donate to charity, but I want to make sure she's alright.

Sorry if that's some form of complex game to you. It seems pretty basic from where I'm standing. Different perspectives, perhaps.

 

[aelf]

Maybe I'm using the wrong term- I used Darwinian in contrast to Lamarckian.

So let me rephrase that- Do you think that someone is a hypocrite if they believe in evolution but reject social Darwinism?

Well, the thing is evolution and social Darwinism are two very distinct things. Social Darwinism are based off of old, outdated ideas. Modern evolutionary theory and social Darwinism don't really have much to do with each other, as far as I can tell.

That's concern, isn't it? Like we have for people we like that do things we like? If my sister went out and donated a huge sum of money to a charity I would very pleased and proud of my sister, but seeing as I'm not certain that she has a huge sum of money to donate, I would ask follow up questions. Not because I don't like her, not because I don't like whatever charity she donated to, not because I think she shouldn't donate to charity, but I want to make sure she's alright.

Sorry if that's some form of complex game to you. It seems pretty basic from where I'm standing. Different perspectives, perhaps.

Again, it's in the tone, which is evident from the phrasing. Would you put it that way to your sister? If you would, I'm not sure you are all that polite to your own family.

Playing dumb all the time stops working after a while, you know.

 

[Farm Boy]

Again, it's in the tone, which is evident from the phrasing. Would you put it that way to your sister? If you would, I'm not sure you are all that polite to your own family.

Playing dumb all the time stops working after a while, you know.

I wouldn't phrase it that way to my sister, but that's because she's unlikely to have brought up the topic with a shot across the bow internet-style. Which was done here.

But hey, thanks for value judgement on the mental acuity and good faith, I keep forgetting that you start almost every exchange in this pissy little adversarial format.

 

[warpus]

You're missing the point.

He's missing the point, I'm afraid. I asked him a question, and he did not answer it. I am at all not interested in the tangent he's trying to steer me in, because that's not what I asked at all.

Essentially I was just asking how they're ensuring that all this immigration is sustainable for the future.

His response: "You are trash, our plan is awesome"

So he might have a point here, or even two points, but they are about as relevant to my question as "I like cheese".

 

[plarq]

Well, the thing is evolution and social Darwinism are two very distinct things. Social Darwinism are based off of old, outdated ideas. Modern evolutionary theory and social Darwinism don't really have much to do with each other, as far as I can tell.
.

In fact, American evangelical Christian creationists are against social welfare, etc., believing everyone should be responsible for oneself, i.e. social Darwinism.

 

[aelf]

He's missing the point, I'm afraid. I asked him a question, and he did not answer it. I am at all not interested in the tangent he's trying to steer me in, because that's not what I asked at all.

Essentially I was just asking how they're ensuring that all this immigration is sustainable for the future.

His response: "You are trash, our plan is awesome"

So he might have a point here, or even two points, but they are about as relevant to my question as "I like cheese".

Again, the issue is not about your question but how and why you made it.

It's okay, though. Everyone gets judgemental in their own ways sometimes.

 

[Domen]

The plan is to give people who need refuge from torture or death a sanctuary.

Ask yourself why there is torture and death in countries from which they escaped. And also why are they victims not perpetrators - is it because they don't support it and would never do the same to others what was done to them, or because they had no opportunity to establish themselves on the stronger side.

In other words - ask yourself who are these people you are opening borders to.

Immigrant crime statistics in Sweden seem to indicate that they are not dramatically different from their own perpetrators in terms of level of violence.

 

[Borachio]

Isn't the use of torture the sign of a weak, and oppressive (obviously), regime?

A regime whose legitimacy is in question, and one which is in danger of being overthrown?

A regime whose claim to bring prosperity to its population is failing?

 

[aelf]

Ask yourself why there is torture and death in countries from which they escaped. And also why are they victims not perpetrators - is it because they don't support it and would never do the same to others what was done to them, or because they had no opportunity to establish themselves on the stronger side.

In other words - ask yourself who are these people you are opening borders to.

Immigrant crime statistics in Sweden seem to indicate that they are not dramatically different from their own perpetrators in terms of level of violence.

Was that what the Poles thought about the Jews during the Holocaust?

 

[Domen]

Borachio - sometimes people who try to destroy oppressive regime, are worse than the regime itself.

Example - Syria. Some of North African countries after the "Arab Spring" are also sliding into radicalism.

 

[warpus]

Again, the issue is not about your question but how and why you made it.

It's okay, though. Everyone gets judgemental in their own ways sometimes.

Ahh, you think my initial question was judgemental?

Can you quote me the parts that you think were out of order? It was a very simple question... If anyone's getting insulted over what I asked, it's on them, not me.

 

[Domen]

I think Tolkien was wrong when he wrote that Trolls and Aelfs are two separate races.