“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

[Maxperson]

I don't quite understand the impulse that, because we are failing some people, we need to fail even more.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying we need to succeed with our own people before we succeed with others. Nobody is saying that we should continue to fail and then fail more.

 

[Maxperson]

You see a point where people should stop being helped, because they are a leech on resources. In hat case you'd cut aid and leave them to fend for themselves even if they can't.

Where have I said that? I said help them become productive.

You make allowances for those with disabilities, but what about those that just can't hack it in the workforce? You fine with them just dying?

You mean those too lazy to work?

 

[Orlax]

Where have I said that? I said help them become productive.



You mean those too lazy to work?

Or can't stand up to the pressures of the current workforce (because we live in a world of damn near unreasonable expectations). They have all the knowledge and training and can do the work, but can't do it quickly enough, and just don't meet the performance standards demanded at their level of the workforce. Should those people be forced to starve because they just don't make good workers?

 

[Umbran]

We seem to spear head every save the nation conflict out there.

Frustrating.

Well, many of the those conflicts are directly in your own (oil-dependent) interests.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Um, no. Look again at what I was responding to:



That's flat, absolute, as presented in the text. There's no qualifiers, no wiggle room. He didn't say, "doesn't strongly promote," or "rarely promotes". It is a complete rejection, as written. Very difficult to oversimplify, given it's extreme simplicity. Please, inform us on how I oversimplified or otherwise mis-characterized this very simple statement.

All I did was paint a picture that might suggest to someone who has a little empathy that perhaps it isn't so absolute. I did not say this was the *only* contributor, or that the US was the *only* country on the hook for dealing with it. Nor did I assert any other absolute in my response.

But, you turned that into *solely* anyway.



Yes. But, the counter to an absolute does not need to be another absolute - all it requires is a single case. Recognition that these things aren't all-or-nothing would allow us to quibble over how much each issue contributes to radicalization, and how cost-effective each preventive measure is.

I recognize that countering an absolute with another is common on the internet, but it did not happen here. Until such time as you recognize that, your position is a strawman, and does not otherwise call for rebuttal.

Oh, man, the irony. This is a classical example of a tone argument: "I don't like that you said that that way, so I don't have to address the rest of your unrelated to this arguments because you said mean things." The fact that the rest of that post has nothing to do with the above means nothing so long as you can skate those arguments by getting offended over these.

 

[Kramodlog]

Plot twist: refugees aren't an unwashed mass on the prowl for a welfare state.

Only about 6.3 per cent of refugees contacted indicated they were interested in coming to Canada when the UN got in touch with them between Nov. 18 and 26. This was chiefly in Jordan but also in Lebanon.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/

Ok, that might not be significant. It is Canada we are talking about.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

We have allowed literally millions into this country (legally and illegally) and many states are suffering for it. Texas being one.

Just wanted to point out that we don't actually allow illegal immigrants into this country. They get in without being allowed, which is why they are considered illegal immigrants. If we allowed them in, they would be able to get jobs in which they would pay taxes. This would actually help out states, like Texas.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, man, the irony. This is a classical example of a tone argument: "I don't like that you said that that way, so I don't have to address the rest of your unrelated to this arguments because you said mean things."

It isn't a tone argument. It has nothing to do with them being mean, or having a particular tone. It has to do with how it was rhetorical weak sauce (which, I see, you don't deny).

We all have better things to do with our time than deal with strawmen. You have better things to do than put them up, I have better things to do than knock them down, and anyone else reading has better things to do than watch a series of such interactions. Folks should go and, I dunno, maybe go play D&D or something, rather than read this.

Let's be honest. It isn't like I'm going to change your mind. And, with arguments like that, you certainly aren't going to change mine. No major issues of the day will be resolved by the two of us arguing on a smallish website. And, this far in, we aren't going to inform or influence anyone - the thread's way too long for it to have any new readers, and anyone sticking around this far has probably already been influenced as much as they are apt to be by our words.

So, the only reason to continue is because it is *entertaining*. And, to be honest, your arguments are not entertaining. I'm bored. I've been reading for quite a while now, and you're not saying anything I haven't heard many times before. You are not giving cites or references often at all, much less to stuff I haven't seen that I might learn from. Once the discussion goes to the strawman stage, it is running down to having no real content. It is of no value unless you happen to enjoy conflict for the sake of conflict.

Which I don't. If you do, I hope you find someone else of like minds to butt heads with.

 

[Maxperson]

Or can't stand up to the pressures of the current workforce (because we live in a world of damn near unreasonable expectations).

If they can't stand up to the pressures due to mental problems, disability covers them. If it's for other reasons, then they can get a new job. If the don't want to get a new job, they are lazy and deserve whatever fate has in store for them. They should be given nothing. If they choose to starve to death, that's on them. Reality will have them getting a job, though. When they get hungry enough even the lazy will get to work.

They have all the knowledge and training and can do the work, but can't do it quickly enough, and just don't meet the performance standards demanded at their level of the workforce. Should those people be forced to starve because they just don't make good workers?

No. They should starve because they're lazy. People can meet the demands if they want to.

 

[megamania]

I love these opinions. As if immigrants do not contribute to the society and only siphon from it.

Not all do. But there is evidence to support the intake of certain groups have risen crime and welfare.

Cuba in the 80's Texas currently.

And from there, there is no easy nor correct answer to these questions. It is a mean and foul world we live in.