Okay, please keep this civil.
Why is it so quiet here? @Forostar What do you think about the recent events in Germany? I'm reading that majority of those animals are suspected to be illegal immigrants or 'refugees', as some people prefer to call that group... Did it affect your enthusiasm for welcoming 'refugees' in Europe? And in advance: chill, just asking. I'm curious.
Even human beings who commit crimes are human beings.I'm reading that majority of those animals
Many refugees are legal. Many are illegal. You're purposefully conflating refugees who have no access granted from the government with those who certainly have. Besides, whether or not a refugee has access legally granted or not (and many of the ones on the move in Europe have been granted access to Europe legally), they're still someone fleeing a war-torn home, the actual definition of a refugee.are suspected to be illegal immigrants or 'refugees'
Not European, but I have written my MP and the Minister of Immigration twice now asking that we set targets for bringing more refugees to Canada than previously stated. A lot more. 25,000 isn't enough. I'd like to see that number go up two or three times by the end of 2016.Did it affect your enthusiasm for welcoming 'refugees'
Sounds fair to me. Punish the people who commit crimes, not people who happen to share a skin colour with those who commit crimes.Deporting those found to be part of these assaults and thefts (after serving a hopefully long prison sentence in Germany) would seem like a nice place to start.
Even human beings who commit crimes are human beings.
I can't do that. Humans all deserve a certain level of consideration, even when they act like barbarians.Animal seems to fit well those people running around assaulting any woman they came across ... some self-control is what should separate us from animals, these people clearly have none.
Some recent reports confirm 379 victims of these attacks. And everyone knows that victims of sexual crimes not always go to the police...90 women
Yes, I wrote that, because my personal view is that not even majority of them are true refugees... But this aside, I've read that suspects are both illegal and officially pending for asylum... Not that it makes any difference in this context.Many refugees are legal. Many are illegal. You're purposefully conflating refugees who have no access granted from the government with those who certainly have. Besides, whether or not a refugee has access legally granted or not (and many of the ones on the move in Europe have been granted access to Europe legally), they're still someone fleeing a war-torn home, the actual definition of a refugee.
This denial leads nowhere... I wish some people stopped believing only what they like...We don't know how many people were involved, nor how many of them are migrants. How many of them entered Germany legally, or illegally. If the worst allegations are true - that 1000 refugee men attacked 90 women sexually, then we have a terrible event on our hands. What we don't have is evidence that any more than one in a thousand refugees are criminals - statistics that are significantly lower than the general population in a place like France.
Well said.Animal seems to fit well those people running around assaulting any woman they came across ... some self-control is what should separate us from animals, these people clearly have none.
Well, I went and read the linked reports at Wikipedia to gather the information, where the Cologne police have 39 people under suspicion or in custody. And I found those number to be unlikely. I just said that we don't know what happened, unlike some people, who...This denial leads nowhere... I wish some people stopped believing only what they like...
Some recent reports confirm 379 victims of these attacks.
What's a "true" refugee?Yes, I wrote that, because my personal view is that not even majority of them are true refugees...
Why? Because they were lucky enough to be born humans entitles them to that consideration? If their behavior is no better than that of animals then why not say so? Not rhetorical, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.I can't do that. Humans all deserve a certain level of consideration, even when they act like barbarians.
In a word, yes. My opinion on the importance of humanity is influenced by my beliefs (or lack thereof). Criminals of any stripe, be they the most heinous who have ever lived or the common variety we encounter in our daily lives, are still born innocent children and when they die, our species loses part of its uniqueness. In my considered opinion, there is no afterlife or eternal reward, no god to set right the wrongs of this world. We're all humans, and all capable of great good, even the worst of us. And everyone deserves a chance to make that good, even if it is while serving out the rest of their lives in prison, or something along those lines.Why? Because they were lucky enough to be born humans entitles them to that consideration?
Well, for me, we're already arguing over whether or not a group of people, who happen to be part of the other, are deserving of a chance to live their lives in an economically-advantaged set of nations, versus the war-torn, terrorist-ridden, hunger-strewn lands in which they had the misfortune to be born. When we dehumanize people after setting them as part of a group, we're dehumanizing the group to which they are part. It makes it easier to tell them no when they ask to be fed. And it makes them easier to shoot when we're told to man a border. I have no problem with saying they're acting like animals, though really, they're acting like barbarians. But calling people animals...that's putting those humans into the same category as things we can kill when we decide we need to. And that frightens me.If their behavior is no better than that of animals then why not say so?
For me, I think it's necessary to separate these groups. I don't think they're the same group, they just happen to be from the same countries/cultural backgrounds. But I understand this is an issue that is the core of the refugee debate.Well, for me, we're already arguing over whether or not a group of people, who happen to be part of the other, are deserving of a chance to live their lives in an economically-advantaged set of nations, versus the war-torn, terrorist-ridden, hunger-strewn lands in which they had the misfortune to be born. When we dehumanize people after setting them as part of a group, we're dehumanizing the group to which they are part.
I guess this is close to a death penalty debate, but without going down that rabbit hole I think this is where there's a difference between comparing them to animals and treating them like animals. Since one thing that sets them apart from animals is their ability to think, rationalize, and even repent for their actions, I think it's fair to give them that opportunity. Despite that, their actions don't reflect human beings with those abilities, they're acting like animals. At least that's my impression of it.But calling people animals...that's putting those humans into the same category as things we can kill when we decide we need to. And that frightens me.
Deporting those found to be part of these assaults and thefts (after serving a hopefully long prison sentence in Germany) would seem like a nice place to start.
Deporting to where? Do you intend to airdrop them in the middle of Syria/Libya/Yemen/Afghanistan?
Identity politics is always a dangerous game. The sociological concept of The Other means defining (at least) two groups, and rating those groups by how like they are to the core group. An obvious example in European history is that of Jews during Nazi Germany. Hitler played on pre-existing social distrusts, emphasizing them to further dehumanize the Jews, in order to gain the implicit consent of the German people to destroy them. A lot of that language relates around crimes, both real and imagined, against the German people. In American politics today, we see a certain presidential candidate using identity politics against many of his rivals. Ted Cruz is being Otherized for being Canadian. Now, most Americans don't hate Canadians, but they realize that Presidents must be American, and if Ted Cruz is Canadian, then he can't be President. (Ted Cruz, of course, was born here, but we signed him over to America last year. No takesies-backsies.) That's the mildest form happening.For me, I think it's necessary to separate these groups. I don't think they're the same group, they just happen to be from the same countries/cultural backgrounds. But I understand this is an issue that is the core of the refugee debate.
Jehovah said:If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
They should be in jail for a while first, then figure it out.
That's not an answer since it can't be figured out just like that.
You want to deport them. How? a) contact their embassy b) just put them on a ship/plane going to that country c) ...?
We're talking potentially about Libya here. So, what route do you pursue?
You are to be applauded for making an effort to articulate what should be plainly obvious to anyone with a brain & even an ounce of empathy. I think you're wasting your time in this thread though.Identity politics is always a dangerous game. The sociological concept of The Other means defining (at least) two groups, and rating those groups by how like they are to the core group. An obvious example in European history is that of Jews during Nazi Germany. Hitler played on pre-existing social distrusts, emphasizing them to further dehumanize the Jews, in order to gain the implicit consent of the German people to destroy them. A lot of that language relates around crimes, both real and imagined, against the German people. In American politics today, we see a certain presidential candidate using identity politics against many of his rivals. Ted Cruz is being Otherized for being Canadian. Now, most Americans don't hate Canadians, but they realize that Presidents must be American, and if Ted Cruz is Canadian, then he can't be President. (Ted Cruz, of course, was born here, but we signed him over to America last year. No takesies-backsies.) That's the mildest form happening.
So of course using a group is at the core of this debate. There's Us and there's Them. They happen to be brown, poor, and come from countries that more of Them exist that want to kill Us. Which Them are they? Does it matter?
But there's a problem with this level of identity politics. If we go all the way back to Sroggy's original post, we get this information:
1000 migrants attacked and sexually assaulted a lot of women, anywhere from dozens to hundreds. The people who performed this are animals. Migrants performed this. Therefore migrants are animals. Unsaid is that animals are not humans, and are things that we destroy routinely, and without remorse or malice. It's not quite as vile as the word vermin, but still, most people accept that animals die regularly, and for good reasons.
But I can pick examples from each of our cultures that indicate that Canadians, Americans, and Europeans of all stripes are equally as capable of sexual assault en masse. How is a gang of migrants any different from a rapey gang of American high-school football players or Canadian university hockey teams? How is it any different than the Crusaders who raped their way through Jerusalem or from the soldiers who abused inmates at Abu-Ghraib? How is it any different than the generation-spanning, pervasive, and quietly protected pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church for over twenty years, touching places as far apart as Ireland, Belgium, LA, and my own hometown?
I know that some people who have used the term in this discussion would apply it to everyone who commits an act of sexual assault, and I applaud their consistency. But if Arabic and Islamic cultures are capable of producing these so-called animals, then we're just as guilty. In fact, no matter how far back in history we go, we always find that the so-called civilized nations are always capable of and complicit in deep, savage sex crimes against their Others. For example, I present to you, Deuteronomy 22, Verses 28-29:
Literally, it says that if you rape a woman, she has to marry you. All religions, all people, are capable of the same savagery that was present in Cologne, and we shouldn't pretend we're any better.
I'd deport them back to where they came from, unless they can find another country welcoming rapists. They lost the right to stay in Germany (or wherever) when they commit criminal acts ... serious criminal acts.