Brussels Terror Attacks

[Aerion Brightflame]

That actually not true, increasing the labor force lowers the potential consumption per unit labor of the existing population. And the US government can't even feed it's own starving citizens, we cat afford to take care of others let alone give away more of our jobs to people who will accept lower wages

 

It's not empathy, it's utilitarian ethics, AKA logic. Mewtwo's quote agrees with me even. Because you can produce more with that gift of life, and should be prioritized more so.

 

Is that a chance you're willing to bet your life on?

 

Even if you removed immigrants you wouldn't fix the job issues. It is a far more complicated issue than 'more people = greater demand'. Even with just 'Americans' within your borders, you would still have mass unemployment. It is an issue with industrialisation and unchecked capitalism, not immigration. The argument you are making has a basis somewhat in xenophobia, because it's a very common line to blame the outsiders for financial issues, not the insiders. 

 

It also worth mentioning once more; Turning away migrants on the basis that they are migrants is giving IS what they want from these attacks. They want to polarize public opinion against Migrants to drive up there own recruitment. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Is that a chance you're willing to bet your life on?

Yes.

 

I'm not going to live my life trying to do the "statistically best" thing.

[Zauls]

That actually not true, increasing the labor force lowers the potential consumption per unit labor of the existing population. And the US government can't even feed it's own starving citizens, we cat afford to take care of others let alone give away more of our jobs to people who will accept lower wages

 

That's the issue of your government not having it's priorities straight. It would easily be able to afford to accommodate for all your own citizens as well as refugees if it sorted out issues like tax avoidance and unnecessary military action. 

 

As a former economics student, I always found arguments based only on the numerical manipulation of over-simplified models to be unhelpful in analysing the impact of economic shocks such as a population increase. In theory, an influx of refugees may mean the same amount of stuff is split between more people, which is essentially what your argument is. The reality is that when they become part of the labour market and the wider economy, they will contribute in terms of taxation and will cause an injection into the circular flow of income, causing economic growth. With economic growth comes more jobs, so that problem is essentially solved. Of course there are time delays, but over time, immigrants have been shown to have positive effects on an economy, not negative.

 

EDIT: Oh, and countries like Jordan and Lebanon have taken on hundreds of thousands of refugees despite contributing significantly less to the crisis than the UK and USA. If they can cope, more developed countries should have no problem.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Even if you removed immigrants you wouldn't fix the job issues. It is a far more complicated issue than 'more people = greater demand'. Even with just 'Americans' within your borders, you would still have mass unemployment. It is an issue with industrialisation and unchecked capitalism, not immigration. The argument you are making has a basis somewhat in xenophobia, because it's a very common line to blame the outsiders for financial issues, not the insiders. 

 

It also worth mentioning once more; Turning away migrants on the basis that they are migrants is giving IS what they want from these attacks. They want to polarize public opinion against Migrants to drive up there own recruitment. 

I'm honestly blaming both. If anyone is to blame it's the business Owners who are willing to hire at a lower wage. But the person being hammered is the average working American. 

 

Also would that really work out? Would you really side with the person killing and forcing you out in the first place? Isolationism will make Daesh, Saudi Arabia and those countries's problem. The only reason I'm not a full isolationism, is a country I care about, Israel, is right in the center of that mess

That's the issue of your government not having it's priorities straight. It would easily be able to afford to accommodate for all your own citizens as well as refugees if it sorted out issues like tax avoidance and unnecessary military action. 

 

As a former economics student, I always found arguments based only on the numerical manipulation of over-simplified models to be unhelpful in analysing the impact of economic shocks such as a population increase. In theory, an influx of refugees may mean the same amount of stuff is split between more people, which is essentially what your argument is. The reality is that when they become part of the labour market and the wider economy, they will contribute in terms of taxation and will cause an injection into the circular flow of income, causing economic growth. With economic growth comes more jobs, so that problem is essentially solved. Of course there are time delays, but over time, immigrants have been shown to have positive effects on an economy, not negative.

We don't have time though. We're right in step for another economic bubble in 2-3 years. I'm not saying the same amount will be split equally as it may seem from the models. I'm saying firms will replace american workers with migrant workers (most of whom are skilled) who will accept a lower wage.

 

If we had eternity to wait for equilibrium, sure let them all in. We have at most 4 years

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

The only reason I'm not a full isolationism is a country I care about, Isreal, is right in the center of that mess

I just gotta ask, why Israel, of all places?

 

And "making it Saudi Arabia's problem" doesn't solve anything. It ignores the issue at hand while increasing international hostility and hatred.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I just gotta ask, why Israel, of all places?

 

And "making it Saudi Arabia's problem" doesn't solve anything. It ignores the issue at hand while increasing international hostility and hatred.

Emotional Argument: Israel has been through one Holocaust too many

Rational Argument: Mossad is too valuable a tool to lose

 

It does, cause as the 4th Larges Military Spender, Saudia Arabia has been letting #1 & 3 do most of the work. Make them bleed for it a little

 

Edit:

I stand corrected: Russia dropped recently. They're #3 not 4

[Zauls]

We don't have time though. We're right in step for another economic bubble in 2-3 years. I'm not saying the same amount will be split equally as it may seem from the models. I'm saying firms will replace american workers with migrant workers (most of whom are skilled) who will accept a lower wage.

 

If we had eternity to wait for equilibrium, sure let them all in. We have at most 4 years

 

You think firms will outright replace workers because someone comes along who might be better at the job? That's what they call unfair dismissal.

 

I agree there'd be slightly more job competition in areas with more refugees, the solution to that is just to manage the settling of the refugees into multiple areas, which will minimise the overall effect. Still, you're trying to argue that a temporary minor economic headache should be priority over helping people who've lost pretty much everything to a problem that was largely a result of American (and British) foreign policy. It should really be America's responsibility to alleviate some of the issues it helped create.

[epicmemesbro]

Actually a countries' borders should be closed in response to something like this in an attempt to stop any perpetrators or accomplices from fleeing. Also there is a difference between xenophobia and taking precautions, but apparently some European countries don't see it so.

[Zauls]

Actually a countries' borders should be closed in response to something like this in an attempt to stop any perpetrators or accomplices from fleeing. Also there is a difference between xenophobia and taking precautions, but apparently some European countries don't see it so.

 

Oh look out, we have an ignorant knee-jerking "close the borders!" person here. I'll just link you to this article written in the wake of the Paris attacks explaining how ridiculous such an idea is:

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/close-borders-petition.html?m=1

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Increased Refugee Migration could EASILY be offset by giving the government more surveillance powers...but y'all are so paranoid that Obama and such out to get you that we can't do that

 

Can't have the cake and eat it. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Actually a countries' borders should be closed in response to something like this in an attempt to stop any perpetrators or accomplices from fleeing. Also there is a difference between xenophobia and taking precautions, but apparently some European countries don't see it so.

 

People aren't debating that kind of thing, it happens in response to terror attacks in Europe. People are debating the fact people want to use these events to shut down the free borders, or migration period. Regardless of how long in the future, which is just giving into fear. 

 

Also it's worth noting that unemployment also has the fact that the US has been slowly gutting Bluecollar work and Unions for the past few decades, which leads to less actual low-skill jobs, and less people fighting for the rights of workers which lets Employee's bully them and such in terms of wages. Like when you have the choice between no money coming in and some money coming in is it actually a shock people will accept terrible wages? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh look out, we have an ignorant knee-jerking "close the borders!" person here. I'll just link you to this article written in the wake of the Paris attacks explaining how ridiculous such an idea is:

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/close-borders-petition.html?m=1

"Just think about how long it took the US to kill Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that Al Qaida hasn't been defeated yet, 14 years after the September 11th attacks on the US. Anyone who thinks that ISIS could be defeated in the course of a few months or years is clearly pretty delusional.

 

Calling for the borders to be completely closed for an indefinite period of time is clearly a very ill-considered and impractical response to a terrorist attack. Just think about the hundreds of thousands of British tourists and business people who would be trapped abroad indefinitely. Surely few people are naive enough to actually endorse the staggeringly impractical appeal this petition makes, so what do they actually want?"

 

This argument is a little flawed. If Defeating ISIS was the top priority like Defeating the Axis was, then it would be over in a few years at most. Threw up in my mouth saying that cause of how Ted Cruz it sounded, but it is what it is

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

"Just think about how long it took the US to kill Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that Al Qaida hasn't been defeated yet, 14 years after the September 11th attacks on the US. Anyone who thinks that ISIS could be defeated in the course of a few months or years is clearly pretty delusional.Calling for the borders to be completely closed for an indefinite period of time is clearly a very ill-considered and impractical response to a terrorist attack. Just think about the hundreds of thousands of British tourists and business people who would be trapped abroad indefinitely. Surely few people are naive enough to actually endorse the staggeringly impractical appeal this petition makes, so what do they actually want?"

 

This argument is a little flawed. If Defeating ISIS was the top priority like Defeating the Axis was, then it would be over in a few years at most. Threw up in my mouth saying that cause of how Ted Cruz it sounded, but it is what it is

Fighting terrorists is completely different from fighting actual countries.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Fighting terrorists is completely different from fighting actual countries.

Not when they set up and create a country. We could liberate Raqqa and Mosul in under a month

 

And at the point, instead of circle jerking Democracy, let Iran take Iraq. Use that as leverage to make a better nuclear deal, and set up a Sunni Shia conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran

 

How my country is so mindbogglingly stupid to not realize Putin's brilliance is beyond me.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Fighting terrorists is completely different from fighting actual countries.

 

IS are actively trying to form a country. That's why it all went downhill for them very rapidly after a certain point, because they started to create the infrastructure of a country and we went to cripple it by bombing the Oil Fields and the money. 

 

It's still incredibly hard to actually beat them entirely because they can go back to just being terrorists, but so long as they keep trying to create an Islamic State, we can keep things difficult. 

[epicmemesbro]

Oh look out, we have an ignorant knee-jerking "close the borders!" person here. I'll just link you to this article written in the wake of the Paris attacks explaining how ridiculous such an idea is:

 

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/close-borders-petition.html?m=1

 

I never said close the borders indefinitely. to I meant to say that the borders should be closed until the perpetrators are caught. It appears as though you were the one who had the knee-jerk reaction.

 

 

"Just think about how long it took the US to kill Osama Bin Laden, and the fact that Al Qaida hasn't been defeated yet, 14 years after the September 11th attacks on the US. Anyone who thinks that ISIS could be defeated in the course of a few months or years is clearly pretty delusional.

 

Calling for the borders to be completely closed for an indefinite period of time is clearly a very ill-considered and impractical response to a terrorist attack. Just think about the hundreds of thousands of British tourists and business people who would be trapped abroad indefinitely. Surely few people are naive enough to actually endorse the staggeringly impractical appeal this petition makes, so what do they actually want?"

 

This argument is a little flawed. If Defeating ISIS was the top priority like Defeating the Axis was, then it would be over in a few years at most. Threw up in my mouth saying that cause of how Ted Cruz it sounded, but it is what it is

 

 

Its quite difficult to decide to what extent should one act defensively and offensively. Closing down a countries' borders until any extremist groups have been contained might do little in terms of defense. In some it would be worth considering sending a countries' troops to combat them. Although I'm against that, going after them would be a lot more effective than becoming total isolationists in hopes of preventing any further attacks.

You are starting to remind me of Chris Christie when he kept mentioning 9/11 in an attempt  to sway the public in approving of his proposed increased government surveillance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I never said close the borders indefinitely. to I meant to say that the borders should be closed until the perpetrators are caught. It appears as though you were the one who had the knee-jerk reaction.

He's correct on this. Till they're caught? They'll never be all caught till every Daesh member has a bullet in his or her head

 

Which will take time thanks to how much people value their "privacy"

[Zauls]

I never said close the borders indefinitely. to I meant to say that the borders should be closed until the perpetrators are caught. It appears as though you were the one who had the knee-jerk reaction.

 

And if they aren't caught? Imagine if, after 9/11, the USA decided to close the borders until the perpetrator ie. Bin Laden, was caught. That's plain ridiculous.

[epicmemesbro]

I meant the actual perpetrators of the attack, not anyone connected to them. Those who backed the perps would be sought after through different means. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I meant the actual perpetrators of the attack, not anyone connected to them. Those who backed the perps would be sought after through different means. 

So if it was a suicide bomber, nothing changes?

[Zauls]

I meant the actual perpetrators of the attack, not anyone connected to them. Those who backed the perps would be sought after through different means. 

 

Just to clarify, you mean only closing the borders of the country in which the attack took place, right? Even if that's the case, it's an enormous exercise for something that's really unnecessary. Even if an attacker gets across the border, the effort to detain them is done through international co-operation, particularly if the attack is in the EU. Closing every port, airport etc. for what may be weeks isn't worth the enormous cost associated.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I cannot tell what ISIS's motives are. I cannot tell whether they are an entirely autonomous entity or a proxy for western powers. It does not matter to me. What is evident is that nature is taking its course. Hatred (including self-hatred) has its own rationale, its own momentum, its own values. Hatred deserves our respect and compassion. The capacity for a person to take their own life and many others with them should serve as clear-cut evidence to that effect. If hatred dictates that a given person should die, then by its own mechanisms that person shall die, and it could be us. The inability to acknowledge that as the frail human beings we are is hubris. 

 

We do however have an ultimate choice. You can choose that hubris that mankind can eradicate life-destructive hatred, or you can choose faith in a world in which that hatred exists. At present, I'm quite certain of where I stand. 

 

The pressures that lead a suicide bomber to act are thankfully beyond the comprehension of anyone here. Such people deserve our retrospective pity, and anyone considering following in their footsteps deserves our compassion and respect. What good could condemnation of a suicide bomber's action do? They're already dead.  

 

I am absolutely pro-immigration and against any form of surveillance. If killing us were easy, it certainly wouldn't be glorious. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I cannot tell what ISIS's motives are. I cannot tell whether they are an entirely autonomous entity or a proxy for western powers. It does not matter to me. What is evident is that nature is taking its course. Hatred (including self-hatred) has its own rationale, its own momentum, its own values. Hatred deserves our respect and compassion. The capacity for a person to take their own life and many others with them should serve as clear-cut evidence to that effect. If hatred dictates that a given person should die, then by its own mechanisms that person shall die, and it could be us. The inability to acknowledge that as the frail human beings we are is hubris. 

 

We do however have an ultimate choice. You can choose that hubris that mankind can eradicate life-destructive hatred, or you can choose faith in a world in which that hatred exists. At present, I'm quite certain of where I stand. 

 

The pressures that lead a suicide bomber to act are thankfully beyond the comprehension of anyone here. Such people deserve our retrospective pity, and anyone considering following in their footsteps deserves our compassion and respect. What good could condemnation of a suicide bomber's action do? They're already dead.  

 

I am absolutely pro-immigration and against any form of surveillance. If killing us were easy, it certainly wouldn't be glorious. 

Killing jews was considered glorious too.

[MiracleGhost47]

I don't know much about stuff like this, and I prefer not to. It always ruins my day, putting hatred in my heart. Bless the souls of the victims... : (

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

 

Poll reveals 40% of Muslims want sharia law in UK

 

How funking deranged are people these days?