European Migration Crisis

Those type of measures are ok for globalists and liberals. Its basically righteousness to them on paper.

Indeed, they seem to have no proper respect for taxpayers money and people's time.

The tax payers are who pay for their wild ideas. Its pathetic.

Exactly. They can be as righteousness as they want, as long as someone else pays and other people do the job for them.

The idealogical cancer of Leftism will be the end of Germany. Sad but seems obvious atm.

Its very obvious the current government republican and democrat, liberal or conservative are aligned against the people. They insulate their position from those they govern through *laws*

It didn't use to be that way, but now it looks like a downward spiral. Perhaps a new sway of cultural, rather than governmental, conservatism will save the day.

I think it has a chance in the US and some European countries, but not a lot. For example, I feel Germany is pretty much done for.

http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/bluttat-in-zug-bei-wuerzburg-mann-attackiert-21-menschen-mit-axt_id_5741372.html

Nobody killed, 20 injured. Terrorist was shot and killed by police as he tried to escape.

#Refugeelivesmatter

And meanwhile in the U.S.
# of refugee attacks: 0
You Europeans need to buck up your borders.

I find this topic incredibly difficult to morally process. Naturally I believe that people have a responsibility to as much as good as they can, so I do believe that refugees escaping war should be offered asylum, but there are plenty of other moral implications. For one, I think that asylum should in a best-case scenario be seen as a way of temporarily escaping danger of death, but if there's no country left to go back to, should you just kick out all of the people you said you'd look after? And when people in your own country become endangered, even though the threat comes from only a small percentage of the refugees, how should you approach that situation?

Neither option appeals to me, as it really is becoming a one-or-the-other type scenario. The world's kind of scary these days.

It's almost as if... letting in a bunch of savages into your country is a bad idea. Arab and Muslim culture is hot garbage; let the barbarians slaughter each other. Nothing of value is lost.

Other than sounding ridiculously emotional, the rest of this message sounds quite anti liberal. Interesting.

Originally posted by Lucius
It's almost as if... letting in a bunch of savages into your country is a bad idea. Arab and Muslim culture is hot garbage; let the barbarians slaughter each other. Nothing of value is lost.

Originally posted by Scribble
I assume that your title 'Transhumanist' means that you used to be a humanist, until you did away with that pesky little empathy thing and realised you actually didn't like humans at all.

That's not it. He's just mentally unstable if not full blown psychotic at this point. I believe he frequently (and publicly) wishes for the death of conservatives and Muslims. It's very sad. I don't think he knows what transhumanist means or at the very least, is trying to appear "different" and "intelligent", but I think he's just upset at his lot in life. I'd leave him alone.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
That's not it. He's just mentally unstable if not full blown psychotic at this point. I believe he frequently (and publicly) wishes for the death of conservatives and Muslims. It's very sad. I don't think he knows what transhumanist means or at the very least, is trying to appear "different" and "intelligent", but I think he's just upset at his lot in life. I'd leave him alone.

Originally posted by Scribble
I find this topic incredibly difficult to morally process. Naturally I believe that people have a responsibility to as much as good as they can, so I do believe that refugees escaping war should be offered asylum, but there are plenty of other moral implications. For one, I think that asylum should in a best-case scenario be seen as a way of temporarily escaping danger of death, but if there's no country left to go back to, should you just kick out all of the people you said you'd look after? And when people in your own country become endangered, even though the threat comes from only a small percentage of the refugees, how should you approach that situation?

Neither option appeals to me, as it really is becoming a one-or-the-other type scenario. The world's kind of scary these days.

At the end of the day though should your own people not come first? There is somewhere that a line needs to be drawn. It's not a pleasant thought, and in order to avoid even having discussions about these things sometimes politicians just ignore them outright until the problem grows out of control.

Originally posted by Surtur
At the end of the day though should your own people not come first? There is somewhere that a line needs to be drawn. It's not a pleasant thought, and in order to avoid even having discussions about these things sometimes politicians just ignore them outright until the problem grows out of control.

Mad props to the police for taking that bastard down for good, usually they rather let people get away and flee instead of using firearms.

And I'm not reffering to small criminals here.

Heh.

Originally posted by Scribble
That's pretty much where I've arrived at, of course your own countrymen and women should come first. It's just such a messed-up situation that any outcome seems dirty to me.

Indeed it is unfortunate it has come to this.

Originally posted by Scribble
and realised you actually didn't like humans at all.