|
YF-23 posted:I don't know the explicit demographic history of Narva and the surrounding region, but for Northern Cyprus you are partially wrong. It wasn't as monolithic before the population exchange for sure, but there was a Turkish-Cypriot community before then. In either case it is far too late to change what happened 60 years ago. You cannot take back Stalinist relocations, you can't take back the Turkish invasion of northern Cyprus, and you certainly can't take back the 60 years of people being born, growing up, living and dying in those places. Yes but the invasion isn't happening now, is it? It is a past event just like the Soviet relocation was. As you say, people are being born, growing up, living and dying in Northern Cyprus. Those who were born after the invasion already have children. In ten years they'll have grandchildren. To adapt my previous question, imagine this situation: The year is 2016. Unhappy with the status quo, the citizens of Northern Cyprus hold a referendum with two options. a) unite with Cyprus or b) unite with Turkey. Cypriot government condemns the referendum. The results are overwhelmingly in favor of Unite With Turkey and that's confirmed by various polls and surveys. Cypriot government doesn't recognize referendum results. Is this a legitimate demand by the people of Northern Cyprus?
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
If a minority aren't allowed to work for independence because their forefathers got the plot of land they're claiming for their own by undemocratic means I suppose we would end up with literally every independence movement ever being illegitimate, yes. I don't really see why this conclusion is useful in any way, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If a minority aren't allowed to work for independence because their forefathers got the plot of land they're claiming for their own by undemocratic means I suppose we would end up with literally every independence movement ever being illegitimate, yes. I don't really see why this conclusion is useful in any way, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
flavor posted:Your butthurt posts when people aren't following your lunatic opinion on that separatist issue are just textbook examples for cheerleading and calling for lynch mobs on people with different opinions. Oooooooh look, somebody not completely on board with the Holy Separation From Spain, probably paid by the Spanish government, hey thread, let's gang up! flavor posted:Address the sovereign citizen comparison instead, I'm very interested. flavor posted:Also I'd be really interested to know why Europe desperately needs more small countries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If they got the land by imperialist means and the nation state that represents them already exists. Also, it's not like literally every place is populated by conquerors, some places were actually empty at the point at which the current inhabitants moved in. Insisting that a minority can be denied their rights because a nation-state for them already exists somewhere is an idea with a pretty drat bad track record. Just sayin'. Also there has never actually been a land without people of any significant size unless we go back to right after the last ice age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Insisting that a minority can be denied their rights because a nation-state for them already exists somewhere is an idea with a pretty drat bad track record. Just sayin'. Cerebral Bore posted:Also there has never actually been a land without people of any significant size unless we go back to right after the last ice age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Insisting that a minority can be denied their rights because a nation-state for them already exists somewhere is an idea with a pretty drat bad track record. Just sayin'. The Falklands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:21
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
So if it's racist to not let in >2% of your population in asylum seekers, what's the not-racist playbook look like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So if it's racist to not let in >2% of your population in asylum seekers, what's the not-racist playbook look like? free movement of people
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So if it's racist to not let in >2% of your population in asylum seekers, what's the not-racist playbook look like? Finland is running in problem with this because majority of asylum seekers who come here leave voluntarily after couple days. Apparently dodging bombs and ISIS death squads is better than living in Finland. How can we fulfill our multicultural duty like this? The only solution I can see is to force them to stay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Yes. I don't agree with you but I appreciate the consistency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Denied a single right so as to not encourage far greater crimes in the future. Y'know, when you're called out for supporting arbitrary restrictions on human rights you're not supposed to double down on it. A Buttery Pastry posted:Large parts of Central/Eastern/Northern Europe were either empty, or so sparsely inhabited that the locals were assimilated into the newcomers, meaning they retained the claim to the land through their descendants. Look, if you want to set some arbitrary cutoff point for when a group of people get to claim a land as their own, then just do it. Don't start some kind of convoluted and ahistorical bullshit please. blowfish posted:The Falklands. Seems like your pedantry is only exceeded by your inability to understand plain english.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:free movement of people What does that look like?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So if it's racist to not let in >2% of your population in asylum seekers, what's the not-racist playbook look like? I'm not sure what racism has to do with anything, but if you are talking about the 2015 refugee wave, the two options back then were to either let people move in or to gun them down at the border(as was proposed by AfD& Co.) until we can get the walls and minefields up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What does that look like? Open borders to economic migrants and refugees of any kind. You could refuse people for pressing and extraordinary reasons like them being known criminals or disease control or whatever without being racist, but rejecting people for cultural reasons is racist, yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Open borders to economic migrants and refugees of any kind. You could refuse people for pressing and extraordinary reasons like them being known criminals or disease control or whatever without being racist, but rejecting people for cultural reasons is racist, yes Sounds like a suicide pact vision of liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Sounds like a suicide pact vision of liberalism. It's what you do for people inside your borders, and, if in the EU, other EU countries. What makes people on the other side of an arbitrary line different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's what you do for people inside your borders, and, if in the EU, other EU countries. What makes people on the other side of an arbitrary line different? Many of us complain about the conservative shitheads we have to deal with in our own countries too, and in Scotland's case that's even helped to fuel their independence movement. A whole lot of the world isn't particularly liberal or tolerant, particularly the places people would like to leave, and there's plenty of reason to think throwing open every border would lead to a decline in liberal values in host countries, both as a native reaction against their new reality (which we're already seeing in Europe and the US in a far less dramatic scenario) and from new voters who don't share those values. If the Baltics threw open their borders tomorrow, for example, I have a feeling they might see a sudden influx of Russians which could easily prove to be destabilizing down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Many of us complain about the conservative shitheads we have to deal with in our own countries too, and in Scotland's case that's even helped to fuel their independence movement. A whole lot of the world isn't particularly liberal or tolerant, particularly the places people would like to leave, and there's plenty of reason to think throwing open every border would lead to a decline in liberal values in host countries, both as a native reaction against their new reality (which we're already seeing in Europe and the US in a far less dramatic scenario) and from new voters who don't share those values. If the Baltics threw open their borders tomorrow, for example, I have a feeling they might see a sudden influx of Russians which could easily prove to be destabilizing down the road. Strange, how in the US Muslims are in the same category of highly liberal-value-supporting religious groups as atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Buddhists, but in Europe they're apparently all far-right. I wonder what the difference is here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Sounds like a suicide pact vision of liberalism. If you consider liberalism to be a weak, degenerate ideology that cannot survive in the wild sure. It seems a very strong vote of no confidence in liberalism to suggest that it can't handle the stress generated by implementing one of its core principles
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Strange, how in the US Muslims are in the same category of highly liberal-value-supporting religious groups as atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Buddhists, but in Europe they're apparently all far-right. I wonder what the difference is here. The US got disproportionately well-off and educated immigrants, because it's not cheap or easy for people to cross an ocean. Country of origin matters too, and I expect there would be a significant difference in the countries contributing to US vs European Muslim populations. I'd imagine that comprising a smaller share of the total population and not concentrating so dramatically in neighborhoods as you might see in France has also contributed to the difference, as there's more culture drift from interaction with outside groups. icantfindaname posted:If you consider liberalism to be a weak, degenerate ideology that cannot survive in the wild sure. It seems a very strong vote of no confidence in liberalism to suggest that it can't handle the stress generated by implementing one of its core principles I don't really know many liberal absolutists, but just as soon as we achieve totally unregulated markets and a totally just and fair society I'm sure we'll be ready for totally open borders as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:totally unregulated markets and a totally just and fair society i have spotted a contradiction also golly I wonder why Muslims are less than enthusiastic about Europe I mean the US is absolutely no saint in that regard as well, but at least SOME of the population treats them like human beings which is sadly a lot better than they get elsewhere. (also interesting how the problem is "muslims" without any specifics, where are they coming from? idk Muslimland)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
we've made it son, finally, after all the horrors we have seen, we have finally reached peace and freedomA Buttery Pastry posted:Denied a single right so as to not encourage far greater crimes in the future. or business as usual, i guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:i have spotted a contradiction  Turns out absolutist liberalism isn't actually a good thing!Yinlock posted:(also interesting how the problem is "muslims" without any specifics, where are they coming from? idk Muslimland) I don't think Muslims as a group are a problem, which is why I never said that they are. The lovely conservative religious culture in many of the Arab states in particular is a problem though, which is why I indicated that country of origin matters. Surprisingly enough, religious countries that oppress women, homosexuals, trans people and religious minorities have some citizens who don't fit in naturally on day one in the relatively secular West, and unchecked immigration from those countries might cause some problems. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any, but the idea that was promoted here that there's no such thing as too high a level is really dumb; of course culture shock can be disruptive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:also golly I wonder why Muslims are less than enthusiastic about Europe There are more Muslims in "muslimland" as you put it than there are Europeans globally. I wonder who treats Muslims badly in Muslimland countries. Perhaps the Swedes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Ligur posted:There are more Muslims in "muslimland" as you put it than there are Europeans globally. You're absolutely right, because people from other countries were treated extremely poorly in those countries, that completely justifies treating them poorly elsewhere. This is a fantastic point and definitely not one of the go-to arguments for justifying slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Y'know, when you're called out for supporting arbitrary restrictions on human rights you're not supposed to double down on it. Cerebral Bore posted:Look, if you want to set some arbitrary cutoff point for when a group of people get to claim a land as their own, then just do it. Don't start some kind of convoluted and ahistorical bullshit please. Brainiac Five posted:Strange, how in the US Muslims are in the same category of highly liberal-value-supporting religious groups as atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Buddhists, but in Europe they're apparently all far-right. I wonder what the difference is here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Full free movement of the people works if you are fine with the refugees living in the streets and starving, it's less fine when you if actually want to feed, clothe and offer them a place to live.
Andrast fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Large parts of Central/Eastern/Northern Europe were either empty, or so sparsely inhabited that the locals were assimilated into the newcomers, meaning they retained the claim to the land through their descendants. Palestine and South Africa too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Open borders to economic migrants and refugees of any kind. You could refuse people for pressing and extraordinary reasons like them being known criminals or disease control or whatever without being racist, but rejecting people for cultural reasons is racist, yes Has there ever been a country, in any period of history, that allowed foreigners to come in in unlimited numbers, for indefinite time, regardless of their national/religious background and regardless of their motivation? Doctor Malaver fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Has there ever been a country, in any period of history, that allowed foreigners to come in in unlimited numbers, for indefinite time, regardless of their national/religious background and regardless of their motivation? The USA and a bunch of South American countries, at least before 1924 and ignoring Chinese
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
The problem with these "open border" policies is that they are incompatible with the modern (European) welfare state especially since to cost of relocating has decreased drastically.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Full free movement of the people works if you are fine with the refugees living in the streets and starving, Not really, because it is ultimately more expensive to have homeless starving people disrupting society than it is to provide them with food and housing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Not really, because it is ultimately more expensive to have homeless starving people disrupting society than it is to provide them with food and housing. Indeed, everywhere where there are homeless or hungry people, it is just because the goverment doesn't want to save money by giving them houses and food and stuff, simply out of malice. OH COME ON DOVERHOG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Strange, how in the US Muslims are in the same category of highly liberal-value-supporting religious groups as atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Buddhists, but in Europe they're apparently all far-right. I wonder what the difference is here. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Indeed, everywhere where there are homeless or hungry people, it is just because the goverment doesn't want to save money by giving them houses and food and stuff, simply out of malice. No, it's because free housing is socialism/communism/satanism/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Indeed, everywhere where there are homeless or hungry people, it is just because the goverment doesn't want to save money by giving them houses and food and stuff, simply out of malice. It's cheaper to maintain a functioning peaceful society with social programs than it is with cops and prisons. Are you disputing this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Good point to bring up the fact that according to the OECD, the US are the second largest spender on social programs after France(by % of GDP). They are just an extremely inefficient spender, similar to how they handle health care.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:12 |
|
|
doverhog posted:It's cheaper to maintain a functioning peaceful society with social programs than it is with cops and prisons. Are you disputing this? Just because it's objectively cheaper won't mean the 'fiscally responsible' right won't be vehemently against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 13:45
|
|