Please stop, you're just embarrassing yourself now.
UN Migration Pact - Criticising Migration = Hate Crime
- Thread starter Deluxe1
- Start date
Please stop, you're just embarrassing yourself now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 10,996
Well, immigrants benefit a country, especially the UK - fact that.
Well, im glad thats that debate sorted! Nicely done lads and ladies have a nice evening.
If only we lived in a pro-truth world! Where facts are accepted..... well.........because ......they are facts!
Well, im glad thats that debate sorted! Nicely done lads and ladies have a nice evening.
If only we lived in a pro-truth world! Where facts are accepted..... well.........because ......they are facts!
[/QUOTE]
That's the interpretation of a staunchly anti immigration politician. That doesn't mean it's correct in the slightest...
Presumably you take everything Caroline Lucas says about the environment with just as much sincerity?
There's a infinite number of variables in climate change, its impossible for Humans to create a accurate model. All the experts come to different conclusions and their models conflict, and some manipulate numbers to get more favourable results so they get funding. Many of these so called think tanks are funded by conflicting groups, big oil or friends of the Earth types.
There's the idea that nature regulates the climate, even removing a few species from a environment can create a massive butterfly effect. There's been other work that comes to similar conclusions, read Sergei Zimov's work in Siberia and Paul Stamets work on mycelium. Even the smallest microcosms affect the climate. Another example is removing predators from a environment results in trees no longer growing as the herbivores eat the saplings.
There's so many conflicting ideas, Ive been following work by individual scientists around the world doing their own research in the field, they all seem to be pointing at the destruction of habitat and no so much the CO2 as some would have you think. It makes sense when you think about it, nature has been terraforming this Planet for over 5 billion years and now we are meddling in this process. Its also rather sad when you think about it, nature has evolved a creature that can leave the Planet and spread life throughout the Cosmos and all we do is dig the Earth up to produce crap, exchange it for paper then stick it back in the ground.
I keep asking why dont we have a global Manhattan project to solve the fusion problem? Fundamentally it is a energy problem if we solve that we could build vertical farms and replant forest. Nothing is done because the idiot politicians we have, bought by big oil.
There's the idea that nature regulates the climate, even removing a few species from a environment can create a massive butterfly effect. There's been other work that comes to similar conclusions, read Sergei Zimov's work in Siberia and Paul Stamets work on mycelium. Even the smallest microcosms affect the climate. Another example is removing predators from a environment results in trees no longer growing as the herbivores eat the saplings.
There's so many conflicting ideas, Ive been following work by individual scientists around the world doing their own research in the field, they all seem to be pointing at the destruction of habitat and no so much the CO2 as some would have you think. It makes sense when you think about it, nature has been terraforming this Planet for over 5 billion years and now we are meddling in this process. Its also rather sad when you think about it, nature has evolved a creature that can leave the Planet and spread life throughout the Cosmos and all we do is dig the Earth up to produce crap, exchange it for paper then stick it back in the ground.
I keep asking why dont we have a global Manhattan project to solve the fusion problem? Fundamentally it is a energy problem if we solve that we could build vertical farms and replant forest. Nothing is done because the idiot politicians we have, bought by big oil.
The Younger Daya is a prime example of why Global warming was changed to Climate Change. As Earth warms in general there will be changes in local climate, in some places that means hotter, in some places that means wetter and in other places that means colder. The potential shutting off of the Gulf stream is one of the reasons there's a suggestion that Europe will get colder for a time as the Earth generally warms.
There are already explanations about the increase in ice overall in the Antarctic. It's predominantly to do with a warming world creating more precipitation. The important point to note though is that the growth is decreasing, because of an increase in melting at the edges.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-growing-in-a-warming-world/
The problem with most climate change deniers is that they come up with what they consider killer points, not realising that they aren't just being ignored by climate scientists and/or they are in fact related to climate change (the latter probably being because they have an extremely simple understanding of the argument).
Most of the most vocal anti Climate Change advocates are not scientist, but politicians. Where they are scientists they are generally not in a discipline that relates to it and/or they have not practiced for decades.
Out of interest would you be more keen on a Carbon tax if it was revenue neutral - i.e. all the funds collected from it are given back to the population? That way it persuades people to be less polluting (a good thing, not just because of Carbon), but people that are less polluting actually gain from it monetarily.
It's like those times people write about this new fangled solar variation, as if they just discovered Milankovitch cycles... Climate scientists are obviously ignoring something that has been studied for almost a century.
Then again, he seems to think modern societies can run without computers. Guess he still uses candles and carrier pigeons...?
Where does the compact say you can't have carefully controlled immigration?
All it basically says is migrants should have human rights and be treated as humans, and migrants should be persuaded to do it legally.
How about relying upon current, perfectly functional legislation to do the job properly instead of potentially introducing further confusion? The U.N. are a great organisation for preaching stuff and actually doing very little so I'll be happy for our legal system to do its job, thanks.
Fair enough, countries that want to adopt a framework, fill your boots and take what you need from it, but don't take it as gospel.
The paranoid loon in me thinks that this whole thing is an attempt to deflect attention and blame away from Merkel for an extremely bad decision.
How about relying upon current, perfectly functional legislation to do the job properly instead of potentially introducing further confusion? The U.N. are a great organisation for preaching stuff and actually doing very little so I'll be happy for our legal system to do its job, thanks.
Fair enough, countries that want to adopt a framework, fill your boots and take what you need from it, but don't take it as gospel.
The paranoid loon in me thinks that this whole thing is an attempt to deflect attention and blame away from Merkel for an extremely bad decision.
Which legislation are you talking about? The UK's or existing UN legislation?
As far as I'm aware the whole reason for this is to have a consistent approach worldwide. I.e. it'll hopefully persuade other countries to treat migrants as we do (thinking of places in the Middle East as an example). If western nations don't sign up to it, why will any other nation that would actually need to change it's laws to coincide with it?
TBH it is basically paranoia, just read through the actual document and then read what half the people in this thread are writing about it. Then for even more laughs see what they think about other situations (Climate Change, Pizzagate, Trump etc etc). The tin foil hat is most certainly an important protective item for a lot of the respondents in this thread.
Agreed on your comment about the UN. That is however because the UN relies on countries to actually follow through and do/persuade others to do so. It has very little power in itself and it's why the response to this is so laughable.
And to be fair to Merkel, she didn't make a situation worse, she was just trying to ease the pressure on the South Eastern EU nations, taking by far the biggest burden, in a crisis that was not her (or their) doing (destabilizing of Iraq and Syria). More than half the migrants had already arrived in Europe when she made her speech - they were all in Greece, rather than Germany...
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,053
All immigrants? Thats a very wide group of people to lump into one basket.Well, immigrants benefit a country, especially the UK - fact that.
Well, im glad thats that debate sorted! Nicely done lads and ladies have a nice evening.
If only we lived in a pro-truth world! Where facts are accepted..... well.........because ......they are facts!
My wife and I have traveled a lot in the last 20 years and I don't see other countries so obsessed with being "diverse". Why are European leaders so invested in the idea? Is it just for the cheap labour?
The most beautiful and peaceful places I have visited in the world have always been traditional, homogeneous and family focused. I'm just not a fan of the metropolis and have never understood the appeal of places where the people have no shared heritage other than shopping.
Those who want more "diversity" why? what am I not getting? Am I just old?
The most beautiful and peaceful places I have visited in the world have always been traditional, homogeneous and family focused. I'm just not a fan of the metropolis and have never understood the appeal of places where the people have no shared heritage other than shopping.
Those who want more "diversity" why? what am I not getting? Am I just old?
Actually, many countries have far higher immigration levels than most of Europe. EU migrants in the UK are paid more than UK nationals. Direct economics have little to do with it, it is mostly about having access to sufficiently skilled labour market. For example, the NHS would completely collapse without significant percentage of foreign workers. The fact that EU migrants earn more than the average Brit and are less likely to use benefits means there are economic benefits, but that is not the reason for the immigration, that is just a great side effect.
Such as where?
I never understood why people like watching football. Many find people with different heritages much more interesting.
Why not? It is benefitial to the country, society, culture, economy. There are numerous positives
Age is irrelevant. you are probably just xenophobic
First you should perhaps answer why you don't like diversity.
Comments like this are exactly why people are pushing back now against integration and now swinging to the right. Nothing he said indicated he has a dislike or prejudice against foreign people (which is what that word means). He was just asking what the benefits were and that he has found foreign single culture societies to be preferable. Yet he gets called xenophobic.
Austria, Slovenia, Norway, Finland, Japan, Poland. My favorite part of the U.S. is New England, the sense of community there is so strong compared to somewhere like New York State. Maybe population density and city life is a big factor I dunno.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,907
Well New Englanders are ok.
Better than a lot of the Southern states.
Better than a lot of the Southern states.
I think that's subjective, economy maybe not. But what is best for the country, society and culture is not absolute, it's a matter of opinion.
Why does a country that has no culture of FGM and forced marriages need to legislate against it? Because we now have a large number of people living among us who in their culture practice these things. Some of the parts from their culture we welcome and it gets added into the melting pot of UK culture but some of it we deem unacceptable. However this shows where we have both multiculturalism and integration at the same time, you either have one or the other. Having both causes resentment. You either have multiple cultures co existing (argue the pros and cons for that if you want) or you have integration into one big culture. Having both is paradoxical. There seems to be a difference of opinion on how migrants should 'assimilate' should they come here and live the way they lived before, or should they come here throw away what they know and do as the Roman's do? Look at the burkha issue, it wasn't an issue 50 years ago. Why? There weren't that many people in the UK wearing them. Now there are more, to the point where people have strong opinions either side of it. That's a negative of 'diversity' you have parts of different cultures that conflict with one another. You can't pretend diversity is purely good, it causes complications.
Just as a general broad question, if you wanted a cohesive and harmonious environment, would your first instinct be to put people who have differences of opinion and belief together? Look at GD, it's not harmonious or cohesive at all, it's petty and combative, why? People have different opinions, and a lot of them vehemently oppose the others. Let's say that everything is 'black and white' you have people of opinion A and people of opinion B. If all the A's lived in their bubble and all the B's lived in their bubble, the bubbles respectively might be cohesive and harmonious. Put them together and I don't think it would be at all.
I think he vast majority of people want the same fundamental things: to have the freedom to 'live a good life' (however they may define that) in relative safety so that their lives, family and property aren't at risk. People may disagree with each other on a vast range of topics, but most people just want to live and let live.
There are lots of reasons why GD feels combative, but I bet most of us would get along ok if we met in person. It's just different online.
In a couple of other threads, I've joked about how I've found myself agreeing with @Roar87 and @Caracus2k. While it's true that we disagree on plenty of issues, the fact that we share some common ground suggests that, while we may not be best friends, we would probably get on fine in person. In fact, there are only a handful of members on here (from both 'sides' of most arguments) that I think are so out on the fringes that they would struggle to stay civil with each other in the real world, but then they would probably just avoid each other, rather than start a fight.