World population and the gumball example, by Roy Beck

[Stevicus]

@Stevicus
I would like the US to be more like Europe. A US for the American people first, with free healthcare and free university. That spends the money on bettering the American citizens' life and not on wars that have nothing to do with the US and have turned out to be totally useless. Like in the ME.
Just that
You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one.

I would like there to be free healthcare and education in the U.S. as well. I would like a lot of changes in the U.S. to happen, but in my experience, a lot of Americans won't accept change or won't go along with it - even those who might consider themselves progressive or liberal. The conservatives want the country to go backwards, while the liberals refuse to move forward, so what direction do you think America will take? Not forward, that's for sure.

 

[Quagmire]

This has nothing to do with my argument, nor Beck's. Beck is arguing that we should curtail immigration because this will somehow magically improve their country's productivity -

His point was that the people who emigrate from undeveloped countries tend to be the wealthier, better educated, more capable members of those societies, as well as, as he puts it, "the most dissatisfied, and therefore the most likely to become agents for change". (See starting at minute 3:30)

That doesn't sound like magic to me, it sounds like common sense.

 

[Estro Felino]

Green: normal level, so a population survives. Blue: a population shrinking

 

[danieldemol]

His point was that the people who emigrate from undeveloped countries tend to be the wealthier, better educated, more capable members of those societies, as well as, as he puts it, "the most dissatisfied, and therefore the most likely to become agents for change". (See starting at minute 3:30)

That doesn't sound like magic to me, it sounds like common sense.

Why can't they be agents for change back home from the safety of developed countries? And is it truly a noble sacrifice he's trying to make or does he just dislike migrants?

In my opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You seem to think “ white nationalist” is something inherently bad.

Well... yes. Because it is. In a multitude of ways.

I gave my pov as a evil yellow nationalist.

You believe people should be denied entry to certain countries purely on the basis of their race?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

His point was that the people who emigrate from undeveloped countries tend to be the wealthier, better educated, more capable members of those societies, as well as, as he puts it, "the most dissatisfied, and therefore the most likely to become agents for change". (See starting at minute 3:30)

That doesn't sound like magic to me, it sounds like common sense.

Despite the fact that forcing people to stay in their own country has never lead to a country increasing productivity or working its way out of poverty?

Global poverty is a systemic issue. The solution does not lie in ethno-nationalism.

 

[Quagmire]

Despite the fact that forcing people to stay in their own country has never lead to a country increasing productivity or working its way out of poverty?

Examples?

Global poverty is a systemic issue. The solution does not lie in ethno-nationalism.

So there.

 

[Quagmire]

Why can't they be agents for change back home from the safety of developed countries?

Some people can and do, but most don't, and I can think of several reasons for that:

Once an immigrant becomes established in a developed country they'll have less motivation to deal with the problems back home.

They're also liable to have less influence and for that matter, less time: a relatively wealthy person in an undeveloped country might find himself spending all of his time just trying to make ends meet once he's living in a developed country.

And that's just first generation immigrants. Second generation are going to feel even less connected and almost certainly less obligated to care about what's going on in the country that their parents came from. They're going to most likely identify primarily with the country that they were born in, and for the most part won't even be able to relate to the problems that their parents had, or that their parents' friends and neighbors are still having in some far away place that they've only heard stories about.

So basically, in that scenario an entire family with wealth, influence, standing in their community, and immediate personal reasons for wanting change will have been transplanted somewhere else.

I'm not sure how common this is, I'm just explaining his argument as I understand it.

And is it truly a noble sacrifice he's trying to make or does he just dislike migrants?

In my opinion.

I don't think it makes any difference. I've never heard of the man before now so I don't really know, or for that matter care, what his personal motives are.

I'm just considering his arguments at face value, and from that perspective, and to whatever extent his statistics are accurate, so far it seems to me that his points are worth considering.

 

[danieldemol]

Some people can and do, but most don't, and I can think of several reasons for that:

Sure, but I think its morally bunk to restrict peoples social mobility on the basis that they may be of service to the peoples where they originated, I mean you could probably argue that we should insist that people who live in ghettos with the means to move to better neighbourhoods should be forced to live in ghettos so they could help the people there using the same line of reasoning.

But I'm doubtful that this person (in the OP's clip) would want to be robbed of freedom of movement and forced to live in a ghetto because of some accident of birth, so let's give immigrants that would benefit our society the same freedom and not restrict it on the basis that we don't personally like immigrants am I correct?

In my opinion.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure, but I think its morally bunk to restrict peoples social mobility on the basis that they may be of service to the peoples where they originated,

First off, I think "restricting" is the wrong word. It makes it sound like we're talking about depriving somebody of something they're entitled to.

Is someone who wants to immigrate to a developed country entitled to just because they want to?

And does having the wherewithal to do so mean that they're more entitled than someone who doesn't?

Do people with money automatically have rights that people with no money don't have?

I mean if we're going to approach this is a moral issue let's look at the whole picture.

I mean you could probably argue that we should insist that people who live in ghettos with the means to move to better neighbourhoods should be forced to live in ghettos so they could help the people there using the same line of reasoning.

If someone's a citizen of a free country they have a right to live in whatever part of it they can afford.

Not exactly the same thing. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

But I'm doubtful that this person (in the OP's clip) would want to be robbed of freedom of movement and forced to live in a ghetto because of some accident of birth, so let's give immigrants that would benefit our society the same freedom and not restrict it on the basis that we don't personally like immigrants am I correct?

In my opinion.

Sure thing, and also: let's stop barbecuing puppies just because we like the way burning fur smells.

Am I right?

 

[Stevicus]

Green: normal level, so a population survives. Blue: a population shrinking

With a population over 8 billion, I don't think the world is going to run out of people anytime soon.

 

[Audie]

Well... yes. Because it is. In a multitude of ways.


You believe people should be denied entry to certain countries purely on the basis of their race?

For clarity, do you comsidrr it inherently evil if, say,
the Lakota indigenous Americans do not want their
reservation open to any and all Chinese to move in,
but wish to try to hold on to their cultural and genetic identity?

Or if Japanese wish to maintain their cultural integrity?
FTM, if a German town preferred to not have it overwhelmed with
English speaking Americans and all their American ways, even though
their grandparents were from Germany, and as “ Aryan” as any
could ask for, genetically?

You may have not understood my position. I thought I made it clear.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For clarity, do you comsidrr it inherently evil if, say,
the Lakota indigenous Americans do not want their
reservation open to any and all Chinese to move in,
but wish to try to hold on to their cultural and genetic identity?

No, because there is a pretty distinct difference between a reservation and a state.

Or if Japanese wish to maintain their cultural integrity?

That depends. Does the form of that "cultural integrity" mean "not allowing people who are not considered by the state to be ethnically Japanese to live there" then obviously it is evil, because that's ethno-nationalism.

FTM, if a German town preferred to not have it overwhelmed with
English speaking Americans and all their American ways, even though
their grandparents were from Germany, and as “ Aryan” as any
could ask for, genetically?

This is a lot of loaded language.

I've been very clear about what an ethno-state is. Equating ethnicity or race with culture is a pretty clear sign of hidden ethno-nationalism.

You may have not understood my position. I thought I made it clear.

You say this, and yet I asked you a very clear question that you then did not give an answer to and instead spilled the above bunch of obfuscating nonsense that equates ethnicity with "culture".

So I will ask again: You believe people should be denied entry to certain countries purely on the basis of their race?

 

[Audie]

No, because there is a pretty distinct difference between a reservation and a state.

That depends. Does the form of that "cultural integrity" mean "not allowing people who are not considered by the state to be ethnically Japanese to live there" then obviously it is evil, because that's ethno-nationalism.


This is a lot of loaded language.

I've been very clear about what an ethno-state is. Equating ethnicity or race with culture is a pretty clear sign of hidden ethno-nationalism.


You say this, and yet I asked you a very clear question that you then did not give an answer to and instead spilled the above bunch of obfuscating nonsense that equates ethnicity with "culture".

So I will ask again: You believe people should be denied entry to certain countries purely on the basis of their race?

In bold font, no less.

I first responded to you just by saying “nope” but figured you
would not understand that response, so I went back and gave a
longer answer, which you also misconstrued.
Deliberately, I’d say.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In bold font, no less.

I first responded to you just by saying “nope”

Where?

but figured you
would not understand that response, so I went back and gave a
longer answer, which you also misconstrued.
Deliberately, I’d say.

What did I misconstrue? I just answered your questions.

And don't accuse me of deliberately misunderstanding you. Meanwhile, you have made a lot very blatant and baseless assumptions about me. Show some respect and raise your game.

 

[Audie]

Where?


What did I misconstrue? I just answered your questions.

And don't accuse me of deliberately misunderstanding you. Meanwhile, you have made a lot very blatant and baseless assumptions about me. Show some respect and raise your game.

Respect like you accuse me of obfuscating and all the rest of your crap.

You’ve no respect coming to you.

 

[danieldemol]

First off, I think "restricting" is the wrong word. It makes it sound like we're talking about depriving somebody of something they're entitled to.

Governments decide what people who meet certain eligibility criteria are entitled to. Take for example driving licences, people who meet the eligibility criteria are entitled to one. One doesn't get to say for example licences are a privilege not a human right therefore it is ok to deprive black people of their licences. The same applies to immigration. One government has decided that people who meet certain eligibility criteria are entitled to move and certain right wing conservatives wish to come along and restrict or remove that entitlement.

Is someone who wants to immigrate to a developed country entitled to just because they want to?

No, there are practical reasons we can't allow everyone to immigrate, however those who meet eligibility criteria set by the government who wish to *are* entitled to as explained.

And does having the wherewithal to do so mean that they're more entitled than someone who doesn't?

In an ideal world the answer would be no, however in the real world practical considerations limit our ability to save everyone. Wouldn't it be nice if in a purely ideal world everyone could have a drivers licence independant of means? In practice though there are costs to the government associated with having a drivers licence so part of the eligibility criteria is a fee. Likewise with immigration.

Do people with money automatically have rights that people with no money don't have?

Are we talking about rights or entitlements? A person who can afford to own a home in Silicon Valley who is prepared to pay the money to own a home in Silicon Valley is entitled to do so. Unless you are going to assert that owning a home in the wealthiest areas is a human right then rights don't enter the picture. Same for immigration.

I mean if we're going to approach this is a moral issue let's look at the whole picture.

Done and dusted.

Sure thing, and also: let's stop barbecuing puppies just because we like the way burning fur smells.

Am I right?

No, it is a bad analagoy because
a)No sane member of the left is barbecuing puppies whereas I believe the person in the OP *is* arguing for what would in practice restrict the entitlements of eligible immigrants,
and,
b)If the effects of what the man in the OP clip are trying to implement result in a loss of entitlements to a people and that those people are kept far away from him I believe it is reasonable to suspect that he simply does not like immigrants.

In my opinion.

 

[Quagmire]

Governments decide what people who meet certain eligibility criteria are entitled to.

And (theoretically anyway) in a democracy voters get a voice in what their governments decide. If some voters want to clamp down on immigration, they have a right to want that, and in a democracy they have a right to work towards that.

Take for example driving licences, people who meet the eligibility criteria are entitled to one. One doesn't get to say for example licences are a privilege not a human right therefore it is ok to deprive black people of their licences. The same applies to immigration. One government has decided that people who meet certain eligibility criteria are entitled to move and certain right wing conservatives wish to come along and restrict or remove that entitlement.

And they have a right to wish that. I'm not sure what your point is.

No, there are practical reasons we can't allow everyone to immigrate, however those who meet eligibility criteria set by the government who wish to *are* entitled to as explained.

Yes legally (because that's what the law says for the moment) but you were approaching this as a moral issue, and from that angle things start to get pretty subjective.

Personally, I think that if we were going to decide on immigration policies based strictly on moral considerations, we (all of the developed counties) would save all of our available slots for people who's lives depend on it.

Right now there's a back log of over a milliion and a half asylum seekers just trying to get into the U.S. News from TRAC.

Of course that wouldn't be practical, and I don't think there's a nation on earth that could afford such a policy.

Point is: your argument doesn't hold from a legal standpoint because (theoretically anyway) in a democracy those laws are by the will of the people, conservatives included.

And it doesn't hold from a moral standpoint for the reasons I just mentioned.

In an ideal world the answer would be no, however in the real world practical considerations limit our ability to save everyone. Wouldn't it be nice if in a purely ideal world everyone could have a drivers licence independant of means? In practice though there are costs to the government associated with having a drivers licence so part of the eligibility criteria is a fee. Likewise with immigration.


Are we talking about rights or entitlements?

To me, you were talking about entitlements as if they actually were rights. That's the point.

A person who can afford to own a home in Silicon Valley who is prepared to pay the money to own a home in Silicon Valley is entitled to do so. Unless you are going to assert that owning a home in the wealthiest areas is a human right then rights don't enter the picture. Same for immigration.

In that case, nobody is violating anybody's rights by wanting to restrict entitlements, they're just exercising their own.

Done and dusted.


No, it is a bad analagoy because
a)No sane member of the left is barbecuing puppies whereas I believe the person in the OP *is* arguing for what would in practice restrict the entitlements of eligible immigrants,
and,
b)If the effects of what the man in the OP clip are trying to implement result in a loss of entitlements to a people and that those people are kept far away from him I believe it is reasonable to suspect that he simply does not like immigrants.

In my opinion.

It wasn't meant as an analogy. I was just responding to one loaded question with another.

Here's where I'm at with this: I have no idea who the man in the video is or what he's said elsewhere, but taken at face value, his point --- that immigration won't help solve world poverty --- makes sense to me. And so far I haven't seen anyone in this thread actually refuting any of his points or statistics.

The only thing I'm hearing from the opposition so far is, "He's a bad man, don't listen to him". That doesn't seem to me like a very constructive way to deal with opposing viewpoints (although it has become extremely popular).

I'm going to listen to everybody and make up my own mind, thanks.

 

[danieldemol]

And (theoretically anyway) in a democracy voters get a voice in what their governments decide. If some voters want to clamp down on immigration, they have a right to want that, and in a democracy they have a right to work towards that.



And they have a right to wish that. I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not arguing against democracy or the right of conservatives to participate, so thanks for bringing up a strawman.

Yes legally (because that's what the law says for the moment) but you were approaching this as a moral issue, and from that angle things start to get pretty subjective.

Personally, I think that if we were going to decide on immigration policies based strictly on moral considerations, we (all of the developed counties) would save all of our available slots for people who's lives depend on it.

Right now there's a back log of over a milliion and a half asylum seekers just trying to get into the U.S. News from TRAC.

Of course that wouldn't be practical, and I don't think there's a nation on earth that could afford such a policy.

Precisely, they couldn't afford it, but just cause they can't afford to save everybody doesn't mean they can't afford to save anybody. Those they can afford to save (who would typically be those who can contribute to covering the cost of their salvation) can and should be saved. In Australia we already take in a percentage of people who's life depends on it in accordance with what the government feels it can afford.

Point is: your argument doesn't hold from a legal standpoint because (theoretically anyway) in a democracy those laws are by the will of the people, conservatives included.

And it doesn't hold from a moral standpoint for the reasons I just mentioned.

But your line of reasoning appears to be we can't save everyone so we shouldn't save anyone, which is a total non-sequitur.

To me, you were talking about entitlements as if they actually were rights. That's the point.



In that case, nobody is violating anybody's rights by wanting to restrict entitlements, they're just exercising their own.

Glad we agreed that to "restrict" is the correct word after all.

It wasn't meant as an analogy. I was just responding to one loaded question with another.

Except that I believe I demonstrated in my prior post that my question wasn't loaded but was reasonable.

Here's where I'm at with this: I have no idea who the man in the video is or what he's said elsewhere, but taken at face value, his point --- that immigration won't help solve world poverty --- makes sense to me. And so far I haven't seen anyone in this thread actually refuting any of his points or statistics.

I believe that pointing out that he is knocking over a strawman *is* a form of refutation, and people have certainly done that in this thread.

The only thing I'm hearing from the opposition so far is, "He's a bad man, don't listen to him".

If thats all you've been hearing then I question your listening skills.

In my opinion

 

[Quagmire]

I'm not arguing against democracy or the right of conservatives to participate, so thanks for bringing up a strawman.

Then what exactly is it you're objecting to? Your point pretty clearly seems to be that in your opinion conservatives and the person in the video are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

I'm just asking you to explain why you think that.

Legally they have a right to their stance, so nothing wrong there.

Morally, like I said, this is a pretty subjective issue and it seems like the only way you can make them wrong morally is by making assumptions about their motives, which you've done; "so let's give immigrants that would benefit our society the same freedom and not restrict it on the basis that we don't personally like immigrants".

To me, it sounds like you're disregarding any opposing arguments out of hand and just writing off anyone with an opinion that differs from yours as a bigot who just "doesn't like immigrants".

I
Precisely, they couldn't afford it, but just cause they can't afford to save everybody doesn't mean they can't afford to save anybody. Those they can afford to save (who would typically be those who can contribute to covering the cost of their salvation) can and should be saved. In Australia we already take in a percentage of people who's life depends on it in accordance with what the government feels it can afford.


But your line of reasoning appears to be we can't save everyone so we shouldn't save anyone, which is a total non-sequitur.

Only if you completely ignore and/or purposely misinterpret everything I said.

At this point I think you're just trying to put me on the defensive so I'll shut up.

Good luck with that.

Glad we agreed that to "restrict" is the correct word after all.

Yes, now that I know what YOU mean when you use it, sure.

Except that I believe I demonstrated in my prior post that my question wasn't loaded but was reasonable.

Here's what a loaded question is:

"A loaded question is a trick question, which presupposes at least one unverified assumption that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with. For example, the question “have you stopped mistreating your pet?” is a loaded question, because it presupposes that you have been mistreating your pet."
what is a loaded question - Google Search

It has nothing to do with the person in the video. You were, once again, trying to get me to shut up by putting me on the defensive.

It's a cheap trick.

I believe that pointing out that he is knocking over a strawman *is* a form of refutation, and people have certainly done that in this thread.


If thats all you've been hearing then I question your listening skills.

In my opinion

It's all I've been hearing from you.