Increasingly grim climate projections have convinced a growing number of scientists it's time to start conducting experiments to find out what might work.
The grim projections are increasing because people are tuning out the repetitive mundane warnings of climate hysterics, and because they are an effective way for the climate change industry to raise money.
So if you think they're right, then how can you think race relations are good? Or getting better or that it's even possible to improve them? I'm pretty sure their thesis is that the entire structure of American society and justice is inherently and irredeemably racist.
I said corruption prevents wealth accumulation as an explanation to why that's not a "rather than" statement. It is not a claim that the immigrants understand that connection.
Meaning that they're not going to change their behavior once they're here, because they don't understand that the wealth is produced because the individual actors in the society are averse to corruption. Also, "understanding" isn't even sufficient. These are people who, in the iterated prisoner's dilemma that is civilization, have internalized the benefits of cooperation to the point they're disgusted by those who defect. And in some cases can no longer comprehend that defectors even exist ("Welcome refugees").
Other way around. Do YOU have any evidence. You're the one trying to show how dangerous they are. Onus is on your to prove it. I'm scrutinizing your evidence (your stats) in the same way you scrutinize the stats on crime.
Does it matter? If I bothered to dig up all the social science or evo psych research that shows the great extent to which our behaviors are heavily influenced by our genes, strongly, strongly suggesting that south americans in the US are going to act basically like south Americans in South America would you consider it dispassionately and update your model of human behavior accordingly?
So what's your opinion of the BLM movement?
You understand that's an undesirable solution for...essentially everyone involved, right?
Before we invited the muslims in, no one in the community wanted homosexuals thrown off buildings. Now we have homosexuals afraid they may be thrown off a building, heterosexual non-muslims who are concerned their homosexual neighbors may be thrown off buildings, and muslims upset there's all these undefenestrated homosexuals walking around. The only people this maybe works out better for is the government, which now needs more money for police and surveillance to dissuade the muslims from acting on their desire to throw homosexuals from buildings, or punish those who give in to temptation and do it anyway.
So, this is good if you want a police state?
Protecting minorities is a bedrock American principal of democracy.
Then shouldn't we only allow in people who agree that protecting minorities should be a bedrock of society? Remember, extremely few societies in the world or in all of human history have cared about protecting minorities. The default state of mankind is "fuck minorities" and a common reading of Islam is "punish with death anyone who deviates from the majority muslim opinion."
The libertarian way to deal with people who disagree is let those people/groups of people sort it out amongst themselves, without government involvement.
What's the difference between "people sort it out amongst themselves" and "share a common culture" with respect to the pool shitting problem? Remember, we have people who earnestly believe pool shitting is wrong, and people who earnestly believe pool shitting is fine and natural and normal.
It really hurts your claims of being libertarian when you immediately jump to government as the solution.
No, I'm saying government is an undesirable solution. If it's the only solution to the pool shitting problem, then it's self-serving to the left who like maximal government.
My libertarian solution to the pool shitting problem is "don't let pool shitters into the neighborhood." Walled garden if you will. What do you think is the proper libertarian solution to the pool shitting problem? And "work it out" isn't an answer.
Correction, I never said "0% chance of committing a crime." I just take exception to the argument of "illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population" because it's misleading. You're not doing anything to assuage the fears of your countrymen who don't want more crime in their area. When you have a neighborhood with low crime rate, higher crime rate illegal immigrants start coming in, and the natives say "we don't want these people here because crime," it's disingenuous to call their concerns false or irrational because the newcomers are not as criminal as inner-city Chicago. You have real people, victims of real crimes, from real criminals who shouldn't be in the country because the citizens passed laws to keep them out, and when they complain you call them names and try to justify your lack of concern by willfully misreading statistics.
You have real countrymen, with real concerns, and you just don't care. I don't think you have any great love for the illegal immigrants, as I doubt you'd live in a neighborhood with them. You just want to inflict them on others who make the same rational decision you do, but can't afford to move away. Again, I think you just hate your countrymen, because there's no rational reason to deny them the police protection of their own government except for malice on your part.
It's somewhat similar to, but even more unfair than, Israel's immigration laws that allow much easier paths to citizenship for people who are Jewish by faith and/or ethnicity.
But what else are you supposed to do if you're a Jew who wants to live with other Jews so you don't have to put up with gentile bullshit?
Is it immoral for the Japanese to not take in immigrants? It's practically impossible to immigrate to Japan. But I don't think Japan would still be Japan if they suddenly took in 30 million white people or 30 million Australian aborigines.
In the long term, do you think multiculturalism will be stable? Americans for the past few decades have spent enormous resources (both economically and culturally) to try to integrate their society. Educational programs, television stereotype programming, student codes of conduct at universities, anti-discrimination rules in the HR departments in our workplaces, "hate speech" censorship on our social media platforms, etc, and yet polls show a great number of Americans (especially black Americans) think race relations are in the toilet. What hope is there that increasing the diversity of the US will make people get along better rather than worse?
Corruption tends to limit wealth generation and accumulation for everyone (except for the very few in on the corruption)
What makes you think the south american immigrant understands that? It seems to me people immigrate, and then not only tend to keep their original culture, but those who would attempt to change the culture of the immigrants are opposed by multiculturalists.
Do you have any evidence that current immigrants are self-selected for low corruption tolerance rather than high wealth desire?
And if we're talking about illegal immigrants, then I think we have prima facie evidence that "obey the law" is not high on their value stack.
This answer seems to me to be self-serving for the left.
At heart I'm a libertarian, and I would prefer to have as few laws as possible. This means I need lots of people around me who share the same basic ideas about right and wrong (i.e., culture). For instance, I don't need a sign up at the pool that says "no shitting in the pool" when no one in my community would even think of shitting in the pool, because pool shitting is not part of our culture. Now bring in a family who thinks pool shitting is just dandy, and we need to have rules and regulation about exactly to what extent one is and is not allowed to shit in the pool under what circumstances, a Department of Pool Shit Inspection and Enforcement, etc.
This does not seem like a good deal for me in the whiny, "pool shitting is bad" camp. Seems pretty good if you're in the pool shit monitoring business, though.
the immigrant who is trying to flee from that corruption.
What makes you think the immigrant is fleeing corruption, rather than seeking wealth?
How do you figure that? Sessions always struck me as a LAW IS THE LAW kind of guy. You may not like him, but if you're pattern matching him to Jean Valjean rather than Inspector Javert then I think your pattern matcher needs recalibration.
More like, my cultural and personal morality state that homosexuals should not be thrown off of buildings. The culture and personal belief of many muslims is that homosexuals should be thrown off of buildings. What should I do with respect to muslims who want to join my society, including having access to the franchise such that their morality eventually influences our laws?
Anybody have the exact quote from Sessions?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority."
"We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail."
I'm very suspicious when the news media writes their own sentence and then quotes a single word from someone. Was Sessions talking specifically about Assange, or about leakers? Assange is not a leaker, he's a publisher of the things leakers leak. It's perfectly reasonable for the Justice Department to go after people who are entrusted with US government secrets who then leak them.
Without the full question and answer, then it looks like Sessions could have just as easily said "we're going after leakers" and then CNN says "Assange is a leaker, therefore Sessions is going to arrest Assange," despite Sessions not saying or meaning that.
So what am I supposed to do with people whose personal morality is not the morality of my culture?
"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.