Immigrant situation in Europe and sexual crimes toward women

[kickinthemebs Senior Member Member of the Month Feb 2014 Find all posts View Profile Close kickinthemebs]

You don't know how many times I have really wished you were actually a troll... but unfortunately I think you mean everything you say.

Give it back to the aborigines? No, due to the simple fact that here the aborigines were always fighting taking land from each other. So in reality it was not their land. They took it from the tribe next to them. So we did here what they did, take it from somebody else. But we made it prosper for everybody.

[Cavalier Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Feb 2015PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Cavalier]

Political correctness.

Sad but true.

[Tamora Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Aug 2015 PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Tamora]

The problem is that European countries have a legal obligation under the 1951 Refugee Convention (of which Australia is a part) and most middle eastern countries are not included in that treaty.

I suppose if Australia were nearer they'd be swimming to your shores too. At the moment 6 people on average per day are drowning in the Mediterranean...so what are we supposed to do...let them drown?

It can be argued that if we didn't have that legal obligation and open borders the problem may not exist.

[Pegasus AdministratorPE Gym EditorPEGym Hero ☺ Admin of the Month Mar 2015 Find all posts View Profile Close Pegasus]

The problem is that European countries have a legal obligation under the 1951 Refugee Convention (of which Australia is a part) and most middle eastern countries are not included in that treaty.

I suppose if Australia were nearer they'd be swimming to your shores too. At the moment 6 people on average per day are drowning in the Mediterranean...so what are we supposed to do...let them drown?

It can be argued that if we didn't have that legal obligation and open borders the problem may not exist.

We have had many come to our shores and many drowning attempting to do so . That was despite our ongoing discouragement of them . If we had encouraged them like Europe did whooeee who knows where it would have headed .
Now we sorted it out, no boatpeople drowning on the way here .
Like you say we have the same legel obligations as you guys have. Being a first world country we have many of the same issues . We just figured out how to make it work . You guys are a decade or 2 short of that from where I see you are at this time .

[Tamora Retired Super Moderator Member of the Month Aug 2015 PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Tamora]

So what would be your solution?

I certainly don't have the answer and I certainly don't agree with EU open borders for many reasons despite the refugees.

[dmizzle Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close dmizzle]

I thoight we were All citizens on a planet called Earth ? Live where ya want, but shower regularly OK?

I wish that were true. But when you have government's that hand out my money to take care of other people that's not right. Also, you have people come from thrid world countries and work for peanuts. Or you have illegal Mexican immigrants come and somehow join a union and make $35/hr without speaking English. Taking a good job from someone that is a Citizen. If we had a world government it might be different. But I make good money becauseI work hard and don't appreciate the government giving it away. Sure, some need assistance, but if you are not here legally, you should not be entitled.

Also, we can't control what our forefathers did 300 years ago. So Im not an immigrant because I was born here. And so were my parents and grandparents. Im not against immigrants, but it needs to be controlled.

[stiff staff Member Find all posts View Profile Close stiff staff]

Give it back to the aborigines? No, due to the simple fact that here the aborigines were always fighting taking land from each other. So in reality it was not their land. They took it from the tribe next to them. So we did here what they did, take it from somebody else. But we made it prosper for everybody.

Sounds like you are attempting to describe the Native Americans, not the Aboriginal Australians. (These may be quite similar prior to British subjugation, in most respects, I don't know.) Native Americans were presumably immigrants as well, but by the time the Europeans showed up they weren't fighting eachother for land per se. Tribes had fairly established territories. They didn't own the land, but they did occupy it, which ethically should have given them fair use to it.

Some of these tribes were peaceful. Many of the biggest and most powerful tribes were aggressive. Warfare was rare, but raiding and slaving was general tribal practice. They didn't steal land, but they did steal women, children, and livestock, building up their wealth through these raids for livestock and slaves, while murdering and torturing (including scalping) along the way. They did this to eachother for centuries and to the European and New World settlers as well. Raiding cultures of this type refused to be transformed into farmers, it was too much work for them, akin to a form of prison relative to how they had always lived... to settle and farm land was taken as the total destruction of their beloved culture, and the polar opposite of "prosperity." Almost all cultures have a dark underbelly that people tend to gloss over so that they can revere and honor it, cling to it out of comfort and pride. The morality of tribes did not conceive of human equality or human rights as we think of them. Rather, "might was right"-- as in the animal world. This is how tribalism generally works around the world and throughout history. We still see it with urban gangs, and it is still dominant in Africa and the Middle East most noticeably, despite some tribal regimes taking on some of the forms and conventions of Nation-States.

This doesn't make European and American settlers blameless, noble, or even justified. But the clash of values does make the subjugation of tribalism pretty much inevitable. As the world got more crowded, something had to give. Aside from total annihilation of a people and complete genocide, the only remaining alternative was to destroy the age of barbaric tribalism through the use of national military force. Governments of every size and everywhere on the earth came into existence primarily for the purpose of dealing with tribal threats of this kind... that is government's primary claim of necessity. This is what is popularly called "progress" and "development." It isn't pretty, it may not even be just, but there's only so much land and humans are too successful a race these days.. and so we have refugees and so forth.

It isn't PC, but the problem is tribalism and the tribal mindset that immature people possess. Some tribes are peaceful, but they tend to be victims or forgotten about (until they eventually become victims of nation-backed corporate interests). The non-PC part that people can't stand to hear is that certain groups and cultures are, on average, blatantly immature. This is what multiculturalism refuses to acknowledge. To call people immature is to be called racist. Even though this criticism is based on attitude and behavior, not genetics. So this analysis is discredited, if not by being called racist, then by being called culturally oppressive and culturally insensitive, which is a politically incorrect no-no of the same magnitude.

[WIItard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close WIItard]

Again, not disagreeing with what you're saying Mizz...but some would say that being a white male in America that you are an immigrant too.

Indians lost fair and square. That's true everywhere in the world, all countries are temporary, all have been built by battle, all fall by battle, never ending loop.

[stiff staff Member Find all posts View Profile Close stiff staff]

I certainly don't have the answer and I certainly don't agree with EU open borders for many reasons despite the refugees.

Real solutions require a slow steady commitment; quick fixes usually only create more problems. The current problem is not likely to subside until skepticism takes hold in the Middle East, to challenge the thoroughly irrational religiosity of fundamental Islam. As long as fanatics such as those of ISIS can persuasively recruit support and coerce submission using religious rhetoric, these problems are never going away.

Not saying it will happen, but until it does, there will be no solution. In the US, it is difficult to promote this strategy because of the political strength of religious fundementalists of our own who are also threatened by rational skepticism. The US is steadily becoming more secular with each passing generation, so there can be some hope that the progress made prior to the rise of the current Sharia states in the Middle East will return, and the region will re-emerge from the dark ages.

[stiff staff Member Find all posts View Profile Close stiff staff]

Indians lost fair and square. That's true everywhere in the world, all countries are temporary, all have been built by battle, all fall by battle, never ending loop.

So, "fair and square" is whoever is strongest has the right to take what they want? The weakest don't have rights? Might is Right? It's pathological, but human rights aren't a fact or self-evident truth, they are totally imaginary. And yet if you act in disregard of that idea, you go to prison. Because you are weak, and the state is strong. The state says you don't have the "right" to infringe on other's "rights"... so you don't. They are right because they have the police FORCE. Crazy world, huh?

I'm going to go stretch my penis now.

[WIItard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close WIItard]

Real solutions require a slow steady commitment; quick fixes usually only create more problems. The current problem is not likely to subside until skepticism takes hold in the Middle East, to challenge the thoroughly irrational religiosity of fundamental Islam. As long as fanatics such as those of ISIS can persuasively recruit support and coerce submission using religious rhetoric, these problems are never going away.

Not saying it will happen, but until it does, there will be no solution. In the US, it is difficult to promote this strategy because of the political strength of religious fundamentalists of our own who are also threatened by rational skepticism. The US is steadily becoming more secular with each passing generation, so there can be some hope that the progress made prior to the rise of the current Sharia states in the Middle East will return, and the region will re-emerge from the dark ages.

I don't think you understand that the middle east isn't a people? Persian's aren't Arabs. etc. etc. Add to it a religious fight that has been going on for years on many levels. The western world trying to find a solution to all these countries problems is not working. It they didn't have oil they would be like Chad, Ethiopia and the those other African countries that know one cares about. Somalia doesn't even have a government or at least not one that has control of anything. No economic importance there so no one cares.

My solution is do our best to keep them where they are and let them fight to death until someone wins then deal with the winner. That's how the Romans worked. The Roman's held their empire together much longer then the US or most European countries have been around.

What would have happen during the US civil war if France went full on against England in the US? US civil war killed the most American then all other US wars combined but other countries getting involved to save people would not have worked. The fight needed to be fought, winner declares the terms afterwards. For that matter what would have happened if England came in during the French revolution to restore King Louis to the throne? The rebels were cutting the heads off the nobles of France, the PC thing would have been to save them.

There is no such thing as PC war. War is about killing your opponent and killing his will to fight. Generally wars are fought over economics or religion, those two cover just about all wars.

[WIItard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close WIItard]

So, "fair and square" is whoever is strongest has the right to take what they want? The weakest don't have rights. Might is Right. It's pathological, but human rights aren't a fact or self-evident truth, they are totally imaginary. And yet if you act in disregard of that idea, you go to prison. Because you are weak, and the state is strong. The state says you don't have the "right" to infringe on other's "rights"... so you don't. They are right because they have the police FORCE. Crazy world, huh?

I'm going to go stretch my penis now.

The world is run by force and sex. Religion has a lot to do with religion, Christian or Muslim what is the biggest topic? Sex. Whether it be related to family or marriage or relatives, there is much said about sex and it's products.

BTW for those who don't know Jesus is high up in the Koran as a prophet. In fact there are many cross platform players in the two religions. We're not talking Buddhists compared to Christians.

[corageon Banned Find all posts View Profile Close corageon]

The world is run by force and sex. Religion has a lot to do with religion, Christian or Muslim what is the biggest topic? Sex. Whether it be related to family or marriage or relatives, there is much said about sex and it's products.

BTW for those who don't know Jesus is high up in the Koran as a prophet. In fact there are many cross platform players in the two religions. We're not talking Buddhists compared to Christians.

Money, Power and Sex...

..And the Vatican/Rome created most religions or at least, fondled with the Idea's of them...they've rewritten practically every religious text in the World and have control over much of the World's Wealth...

[stiff staff Member Find all posts View Profile Close stiff staff]

Wiltard,
Agree PC war is an absurd concept. War crimes? What? If you have to go to war, it should be because there are no alternatives but to kill or be killed. To try to impose civilized rules on that scenario is insane, and wars become nothing more than a colossal waste of money.

I didn't say the Middle East is one people. But until the Islamic world transcends it's outdated ideology there will never be a solution. If there was no oil, it might not matter. But for the meantime, we are over there meddling and making enemies... and so we engage this unending problem, and our Western government officials and compassionate citizens seem to think that we are obligated to deal with the tragedies of it all. Your proposed solution is nice, but its no more likely than any other solution, especially if you factor in eventual nuclear weapons capability.

In my last post I commented on the myth that human rights to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness and so forth, are not universal truths... human rights are just an idea. A rational idea, but not a fact. If we would admit this, then we could see that there are no "human rights" only "citizen rights" which are only true within a culture. They aren't actually true outside of that given culture. The Native Americans didn't necessarily have them. The Syrians don't necessarily have them, which we can see demonstrated both by ISIS and by the sexual assailants among the Muslim refugees, all of whom believe that might is right, that they can do whatever they can get away with. If a culture is to accept people into their nations, maybe they should be able to demand cultural assimilation before extending rights to those people. Since rights are just an idea, maybe they are better thought of as privileges or responisibilites. In order to keep those privileges you have to respect the freedoms of others. If you violate the freedoms of others, you lose your freedoms. That would make justice a bit more straight forward, I would imagine. But that's not what we are working with.

[WIItard Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close WIItard]

You do know that in hardcore Muslim place, a women is never out in public without a male family member and covers herself? I'm not really sure if those countries even have rape laws?

If a women puts herself in a position where a male relative isn't there then she is a whore and deserves and wants to be raped. I'm pretty sure that's how the law reads in some Muslim countries? Don't think some of you guys understand what exactly is rape in various countries? If you kill the male relative guarding the women then rape her then you will have a crime and most likely you will be put to death for that crime. Relative defends women's honor etc. etc. Without male relative escorting you then the women becomes a whore and you can't rape a whore.

Back to the 12 th century.