Richard Dawkins Smacks Down on Rick Perry

[Neltharion]

I agree, to an extent. When you exchange the suffering of strangers to the suffering of your own people, you're doing something wrong

No, if you are putting your own race/people, which you are born with by chance, above someone else's you are doing something wrong.

Sometimes I think humans will never cease to have racial prejudices unless something else comes along that makes us band together to be racist/xenophobic towards that rather than our selves.

[maledoro]

Did I hear they have a debate on Wednesday?  Should be a scream.

It'll end with, "Mrs. Bachmann? Ma'am? The others have gone home hours ago..."

[Nev]

If a country's signed up to the UN Human Rights Declaration, then it's obliged to take asylum seekers.  If they're an EU country they've also signed on to some agreements to take asylum seekers, which are somewhat more binding than the UN Declaration.

As to rationality, it depends on what a country's objectives are.  If they simply seek to protect the lives of their own citizens, then it's perfectly rational to turn away asylum seekers on the border.

If the objective is to save lives or ensure safety, as with the Human Rights Declaration (where states are obliged to do this for all people and not just their citizens), then you could create a pretty simple metric to determine if it's worth letting people in. I'd suspect that this would always come out on the side of allowing them to enter the border rather than be deported, however.

When I said we're not obligated to take them in, I meant outside of all legalism, and from a rational standpoint alone. 

Very different circumstances.  Practically the whole of Africa was owned by the Europeans, and divided up as they saw fit.  Post WWII nobody had the cash to support their empires, and they left, usually leaving behind very hastily constructed and rather artificial states.

As a result a lot of states then had problems with internal conflicts, some of which still go on today.  These problems were further exacerbated by the Cold War, with both players seeking to add the newly independent states as allies.   

Yes, there are a lot of resource rich states in Africa.  But resources are the bottom end of the product cycle - the cheapest things you can buy.  Obviously if a state had a decent amount of manufacturing capacity as well then it could be making a lot more money, but the problem is investing in that.  Loans and aid comes with conditions, and these conditions are usually beneficial to the loaners.  As a result, while there's been investment in the infrastructure needed to exploit the resources, the actual exploitation is maintained by foreign companies.

Some of them are getting their shit together, though.  Nigeria's been one of the fastest growing economies in the last three years, for example.

Ok, now I understand better. Looks like nothing is as simple as you first think.

No, if you are putting your own race/people, which you are born with by chance, above someone else's you are doing something wrong.

Sometimes I think humans will never cease to have racial prejudices unless something else comes along that makes us band together to be racist/xenophobic towards that rather than our selves.

So you couldn't give me a fucking break.

I'm so fucking tired of pretentious assholes throwing the racist label around whenever someone doesn't share their naive views that I'm not gonna even answer this.

How the fuck, after all this discussion, can you still not see my point of view?!

Jesus...

[Neltharion]

I don't recall calling you racist.

How the fuck, after all this discussion, can you still not see my point of view?!

Because I completely disagree with your view. 

I could ask you the same question.

I'm so fucking tired of pretentious assholes throwing the racist label around whenever someone doesn't share their naive views that I'm not gonna even answer this.

Really? So these people are pretentious assholes because they don't share your view?

And I fail to see how believing we should show compassion and trying to help other people escape from persecution and death is a naive view. Its not, it is a tad side more humane than the opposite, in this globalized world even more so.

[Nev]

I don't recall calling you racist.

Semantics.

Because I completely disagree with your view.

But you aren't even trying to understand, it seems. You're too extremist yourself to see anything beyond your impenetrable preconceptions. 

I could ask you the same question.

Which I could have already answered. A gazillion fucking times. "I don't support airtight borders." Remember?!

Really? So these people are pretentious assholes because they don't share your view?

No, they are pretentious assholes because they base their opinions with both emotionalism and reason, whenever it serves their agendas. When the other side does the same, they accuse them of having double standards. And because they claim to hate labeling and grouping of people, yet slap the nazi-brand on everyone who doesn't swallow the idea of liberalism whole. And because they demand open-mindedness from people who disagree with them, yet refuse to consider changing their mind on anything they (or some "intellectual") have already decided is the universal truth.

Need I continue?

And I fail to see how believing we should show compassion and trying to help other people escape from persecution and death is a naive view.

Because you seem to think it has no downsides whatsoever.

Its not, it is a tad side more humane than the opposite, in this globalized world even more so.

Humane to those who deserve it, not-so-humane to the victims of those who don't.

[Neltharion]

But you aren't even trying to understand, it seems. You're too extremist yourself to see anything beyond your impenetrable preconceptions.

No, I can understand that you have a fear that you may let in the wrong kind of person but that is an inherent risk. It is part of the law of unintended consequences. You do some good, say erect a windmill instead of a coal burning factory, yet you still do some ecological and environmental damage.

The same applies to this.  The benefits outweigh the costs as I see it. If the guy who claimed asylum does something, punish him and then deport him.

Because you seem to think it has no downsides whatsoever.

As I said, the benefits outweighs the risks.

Humane to those who deserve it, not-so-humane to the victims of those who don't.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Proven Guilty? Proven lack of persecution if repatriated? Send the bastard home.

No, they are pretentious assholes because they base their opinions with both emotionalism and reason, whenever it serves their agendas. When the other side does the same, they accuse them of having double standards. And because they claim to hate labeling and grouping of people, yet slap the nazi-brand on everyone who doesn't swallow the idea of liberalism whole. And because they demand open-mindedness from people who disagree with them, yet refuse to consider changing their mind on anything they (or some "intellectual") have already decided is the universal truth.

And yet the other side slaps "Pretentious Asshole" label on anyone who disagrees with them and does not immediately bow down to their will and just get louder and louder and louder with each passing minute hoping they can drown out someone with opposing views who plain old just disagrees with them.

Bill O'Reilly, he is a prime example of this.

The pendulum swings both ways.


I have looked at what you are saying, I can understand where you are coming from but I just disagree with it.

[Nev]

As I said, the benefits outweighs the risks.

And as I said, it's not about the risks; it's about actual shit that does happen. Remember the statistic I posted?

And yet the other side slaps "Pretentious Asshole" label on anyone who disagrees with them and does not immediately bow down to their will

I only did that after I had received the Hitler-sticker on my forehead about three times from you.

and just get louder and louder and louder with each passing minute hoping they can drown out someone with opposing views who plain old just disagrees with them.

If I get louder and louder and louder, it's because I seem to have to post the same goddamn things over and over and over again.

Bill O'Reilly, he is a prime example of this.

Again you oh-so-smoothly compare me to a well-known racist. I'm done with you on this thread.

[SiL]

How 'bout this entire conversation gets done with seeing as it's grossly off-topic?

[Hieronymus]

It was off-topic, but I felt it was fairly productive until the arguments about racism and Nazis started flying.

[Neltharion]

I thought it was just the natural evolution of the debate at hand really.

If the debate started about sports then it would be way off topic.

I only did that after I had received the Hitler-sticker on my forehead about three times from you.

I didn't. You read to much into it.

Again you oh-so-smoothly compare me to a well-known racist.  I'm done with you on this thread.

Pot? Meet Kettle.

And I wasn't comparing you to O'Reilly, you are reading to much into my replies. But this debate is going no where so believe what you will.

[NERMAL]

And with that I vote to lock the thread.

[SM]

Quite.