Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Immigration and the Unmentionable Question

Page 4 of 7 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

07 Jan 2007, 6:34 pm

headphase wrote:
codarac wrote:
But America – like any other country - is more than just a political system or an abstract set of ideals. The majority population of America are a people with a history and culture – rooted in the white, Christian culture of Northern Europe.

“Liberal democracy” isn’t the answer to everything, despite what the neocon media would have you believe. Liberal democracy works best when the people in a country have similar ideas anyway about who they are and how they want to be governed.

Democracy has produced results recently that I doubt the average American would welcome in their own country; Robert Mugabe was democratically elected, and so were Hamas. The election of Mugabe shows you what can happen when you have democracy in a multiracial country. The election of Hamas shows you that not everyone in the world wants “freedom” as Americans understand it.

By the way, the quotes above remind me of something I hear quite often these days. The UK is so PC these days that just about the strongest thing anyone is allowed to say in public is that “people who come here should assimilate into our way of life, not the other way round”. In response, no one ever seems to ask: How are we going to measure whether or not each person will assimilate or has assimilated? How long are we going to give them? And what are we actually going to do if certain people don’t – or can’t – assimilate? Are we going to keep on letting hundreds of thousands of foreigners into our country year after year while mouthing the same useless platitudes?

Similarly, what are Americans going to do if life in their multiracial “liberal democratic republic” keeps getting worse?


I never said that a liberal democracy is what is best for all nations, and I also should have considered how the cultural structure of America will change in the future, but that is uncertain for now. It is most likely that the relative wealth and influence that America has or had will wane over this century and I am a bit troubled on how our citizens would hand the decrease of influence since a lot of them find that we're not "tough enough" on crime and we don't "spend enough" on defense. Nevertheless, I feel that our Constitution has proven to be a great model for our country and I would say about 90% of the citizens would agree.


The last statement here, our constitution is a great thing, but it needs to be updated severly. The constitution has NEVER protected minorities until they had to bleed out through an entire struggle to gain independance. One of those minorities in which we stole the land from (and pretty much erradicated their race). Plus, the Patriot Act has done ALOT of damage to our constitution, as well as integration of church and state. The values America were (as much as I hate to say it) hypocritically founded on, are almost a ghost now. Honestly I wish the world would disband from large governments/nation states and just work on being in small communities instead.



galump
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 25

12 Jan 2007, 7:18 am

The people who we white europeans destroyed to take america from were small brown and red skinned peoples. The "invasion" is mostly small brown and red skinned people.
Karma?

galump

p.s. I say let them come. Just find a way to integrate a respect for the environment into the now forming culture so we don't destroy what little we have left.



sigholdaccountlost
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,207

12 Jan 2007, 12:15 pm

galump wrote:
The people who we white europeans destroyed to take america from were small brown and red skinned peoples. The "invasion" is mostly small brown and red skinned people.
Karma?

galump

p.s. I say let them come. Just find a way to integrate a respect for the environment into the now forming culture so we don't destroy what little we have left.



Well, if it is Karma, its a long time coming and believes in holding people responsible for their ancestor's actions.


When did these invasions take place?

I don't think an awful lot of us were born or even thought of then.


_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>


headphase
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

12 Jan 2007, 1:05 pm

Almost any land dispute leads to violence, regardless of race. It is only in modern times that we have had the technology to see the full effects of our ways.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

12 Jan 2007, 1:38 pm

sigholdaccountlost wrote:
galump wrote:
The people who we white europeans destroyed to take america from were small brown and red skinned peoples. The "invasion" is mostly small brown and red skinned people.
Karma?

galump

p.s. I say let them come. Just find a way to integrate a respect for the environment into the now forming culture so we don't destroy what little we have left.



Well, if it is Karma, its a long time coming and believes in holding people responsible for their ancestor's actions.


When did these invasions take place?

I don't think an awful lot of us were born or even thought of then.


that is very true sigholdaccountlost, ...but... clearly many of you benefit from the legacy of the invasions of which you speak.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


sigholdaccountlost
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,207

12 Jan 2007, 1:55 pm

peebo wrote:
sigholdaccountlost wrote:
galump wrote:
The people who we white europeans destroyed to take america from were small brown and red skinned peoples. The "invasion" is mostly small brown and red skinned people.
Karma?

galump

p.s. I say let them come. Just find a way to integrate a respect for the environment into the now forming culture so we don't destroy what little we have left.



Well, if it is Karma, its a long time coming and believes in holding people responsible for their ancestor's actions.


When did these invasions take place?

I don't think an awful lot of us were born or even thought of then.


that is very true sigholdaccountlost, ...but... clearly many of you benefit from the legacy of the invasions of which you speak.



Well, maybe.
I just...think we, as an entire society, need to draw a line between what history we need so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past (or do that to a lesser extent) and which while a very interesting past is just that...the past.

I mean...I know certain people complain about such-and-such (really present day such and such's great-great-great-great-great grandparents) mistreating their great-great-great-great-great grandparents as if this is happening today or what have you and expect compensation.

But I also know this if you were to miniscule this and complain that complainer's father mistreated yours, they'd be the first to do a U-turn and whine that it's not fair that you're holding them responsible for what their father did, despite them holding you responsible for what your ancestors from before your father did.

I think I'll shut up now.


_________________
<a href="http://www.kia-tickers.com><img src="http://www.kia-tickers.com/bday/ticker/19901105/+0/4/1/name/r55/s37/bday.png" border="0"> </a>


Atomika
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 738

12 Jan 2007, 3:50 pm

I really don't know what the big deal over immigration is because to be honest, I am pretty sure that we people with European ancestry were not the first ones here. In a sense, we all all immigrants who came to America to have the same opportunities that the hispanics are coming here for.



andy1976uk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122

23 Jan 2007, 1:56 am

ascan wrote:
snake321 earlier in this thread wrote:
Race isn't even a factor in it to me. It's about economics.



snake321 wrote:
I am against illegal immigration, but it has NOTHING to do with their color or their culture.


But the race of those immigrants does have an economic impact. What would be best for your economy, 200,000 from some African state with a mean IQ of 85, or 200,000 from, say, Japan with a mean IQ of 110?

Here's a relevant discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
and:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence



ascan, you RACIST TROLL, you need to stop filling threads with your stupid flaimbait remarks before you get seriously hurt.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

23 Jan 2007, 12:54 pm

Atomika wrote:
I really don't know what the big deal over immigration is because to be honest, I am pretty sure that we people with European ancestry were not the first ones here. In a sense, we all all immigrants who came to America to have the same opportunities that the hispanics are coming here for.


Yeah, but America was different then, economically. There weren't as many people and as many economic concerns, our society has changed. With so many people entering now we have to know who'se here and who'se not, who are our citizens? Because if theyr not here legally, theyr taking away from OUR resources, OUR tax dollars, OUR social security. Like I said, it's not about race.
And to ascan, race doesn't make one person smarter than another. Alot of why it might generally seem that way sometimes is because people buy into their own propaganda, whatever race, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or whatever they are. I've seen intelligent people come in all colors.... You could make a general statement that whites are usually more intellectual or more successful, but alot of that is also due to propaganda differences between the various tribes, and also to some extent the now-dying-out-but-still-breathing white priveledge (but this is sometimes combated by the equality invalid affirmative action), as where higher paying job markets are concerned. Some ethnicities are bred in general to have a victimology complex too. But that's all general statements, it's not correct to judge an individual by stereotype.



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

23 Jan 2007, 5:31 pm

andy1976uk wrote:
ascan wrote:
snake321 earlier in this thread wrote:
Race isn't even a factor in it to me. It's about economics.



snake321 wrote:
I am against illegal immigration, but it has NOTHING to do with their color or their culture.


But the race of those immigrants does have an economic impact. What would be best for your economy, 200,000 from some African state with a mean IQ of 85, or 200,000 from, say, Japan with a mean IQ of 110?

Here's a relevant discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
and:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence



ascan, you RACIST TROLL, you need to stop filling threads with your stupid flaimbait remarks before you get seriously hurt.


Is that a threat?

Racial differences - including racial differences in IQ - are real. Name-calling doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't exist to make you feel comfortable, and it has nothing to do with whether you or I are good or bad people.
This is something I've seen a lot of: people are so certain of the moral superiority their "anti-racist" credentials confer upon themselves that they don't think they need to bother with old-fashioned ideas like manners.

My personal opinion is that it is important to discuss the reality of racial differences honestly. I despair of the grip political correctness has on our society, so I admit I am attracted to topics that break politically correct taboos. Andy, to be honest, I had expected a reaction like yours far sooner. Generally speaking, people on this thread have been far more civilized than many I've tried to discuss these matters with online.



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

23 Jan 2007, 5:57 pm

snake321 wrote:
And to ascan, race doesn't make one person smarter than another.


No one's suggesting that. It's a matter of averages. Some blacks have higher IQs than some whites. Some whites have higher IQs than some Japanese. But on average whites have higher IQs than blacks, and Japanese have higher IQs than whites.

A common liberal tactic is to focus on exceptions ("outliers" to those who know some statistics) as if to prove that all generalisations are wrong and dangerous. But the existence of racial differences in average IQ, for instance - as well as the refusal to recognise it - has real-world social consequences. For example, think of all the public money that is spent on finding sociological (i.e., non-biological) explanations of why children of different races perform differently at school.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

23 Jan 2007, 8:26 pm

Like i said, in generalization that might make since. But these generalizations are promulgated into them through propaganda... In other words, lets say, BET sells stereotypes to blacks, it tells them theyr stupid, they can only succeed as basket ball players, drug dealers, or rappers. Without this propaganda to influence them, they could be just as intelligent as white people. The same goes for hispanics, or people of any color.
The general intelligence percentages of the different races differ only because of propaganda, not because of genetic biology.



andy1976uk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,122

23 Jan 2007, 8:55 pm

codarac wrote:
andy1976uk wrote:
ascan wrote:
snake321 earlier in this thread wrote:
Race isn't even a factor in it to me. It's about economics.



snake321 wrote:
I am against illegal immigration, but it has NOTHING to do with their color or their culture.


But the race of those immigrants does have an economic impact. What would be best for your economy, 200,000 from some African state with a mean IQ of 85, or 200,000 from, say, Japan with a mean IQ of 110?

Here's a relevant discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations
and:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence



ascan, you RACIST TROLL, you need to stop filling threads with your stupid flaimbait remarks before you get seriously hurt.


Is that a threat?

Racial differences - including racial differences in IQ - are real. Name-calling doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't exist to make you feel comfortable, and it has nothing to do with whether you or I are good or bad people.
This is something I've seen a lot of: people are so certain of the moral superiority their "anti-racist" credentials confer upon themselves that they don't think they need to bother with old-fashioned ideas like manners.

My personal opinion is that it is important to discuss the reality of racial differences honestly. I despair of the grip political correctness has on our society, so I admit I am attracted to topics that break politically correct taboos. Andy, to be honest, I had expected a reaction like yours far sooner. Generally speaking, people on this thread have been far more civilized than many I've tried to discuss these matters with online.





Interesting how concerned you seem to be for ass-can's welfare.....it's also interesting how similar your writing styles are, not to mention your xenophobic opinions (on this site and other AS sites). You wouldn't happen to be the same person by any chance would you?



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

24 Jan 2007, 4:38 am

snake321 wrote:
... The general intelligence percentages of the different races differ only because of propaganda, not because of genetic biology.

There's plenty of research been done to suggest that's not the case. Furthermore, considering how natural selection has given such a wide range of body shapes, and skin colours specific to certain populations it would seem quite unreasonable to believe that something as important to human survival as the brain wouldn't have been influenced by those same selective forces.

When those selective forces function at an extreme it's possible for significant changes to occur within a relatively few number of generations. That can be shown by experiment with fruit flies in a lab, or by looking at the different forms of domestic dog or cat and considering how they came to be. If we turn to humans and consider the two different environments presented by, say, Northern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, is it not reasonable to argue that different selective forces would have been acting on the two populations? Doesn't the skin colour and difference in build between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans give further weight to that argument? If so, what's wrong with examining cognitive differences between the two populations? It's quite reasonable.

Can someone articulate why it is not reasonable?

If these cognitive differences do exist then ethically can they be ignored? Can someone articulate exactly why we should ignore them?



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

24 Jan 2007, 5:04 am

ascan wrote:

Can someone articulate why it is not reasonable?


well ascan, you would only have to read the wikipedia link you posted earlier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the ... of_Nations ) , which seems to pretty much dismiss the idea.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

24 Jan 2007, 6:39 am

peebo wrote:
ascan wrote:

Can someone articulate why it is not reasonable?


well ascan, you would only have to read the wikipedia link you posted earlier ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the ... of_Nations ) , which seems to pretty much dismiss the idea.

That wikipedia article discusses a particular book, and various related subjects. It cites papers, publications etc. that look at the subject from different angles. The point of me including it was to demonstrate that it is a reasonable thing to discuss; also to provoke a critical, and hopefully interesting, response.

So, go on then peebo, can you articulate why it is not a reasonable thing to discuss? It's scientific fact that skin colour is darker in certain populations because of natural selection; the same applies to physique, so why shouldn't cognitive functions be similarly influenced?