multiculturalism = oppression

[istaros]

A threat to our species? The children they rape aren't getting pregnant, so it's not as if they're passing on their rapist genes that way. And here, they get killed - before going to prison, or once they're in. So they're really just a threat to the members of the species that share their own culture, no?

[Dinaric Leather]

A threat to our species? The children they rape aren't getting pregnant, so it's not as if they're passing on their rapist genes that way. And here, they get killed - before going to prison, or once they're in. So they're really just a threat to the members of the species that share their own culture, no?

Is rape not threatening?

[JewishPhysics]

A threat to our species? The children they rape aren't getting pregnant, so it's not as if they're passing on their rapist genes that way. And here, they get killed - before going to prison, or once they're in. So they're really just a threat to the members of the species that share their own culture, no?

Are you not familiar at all with how many societal problems are related to the abuse of children?  Just to name a few:
-Drug abuse / addiction
-Promiscuity and sexual deviancy
-Delinquency
-Further child abuse and child neglect

[hoodwink]

A threat to our species? The children they rape aren't getting pregnant, so it's not as if they're passing on their rapist genes that way. And here, they get killed - before going to prison, or once they're in. So they're really just a threat to the members of the species that share their own culture, no?

moral relativism

[scourge]

With pluralism eliminated moral relativism is a boon for the species as a whole. The screwups eventually die off and the superior proliferate, moving on to greater things.

[Conservationist]

You are implying that our system is not merely broken, but that there is no chance it could be changed so as to accommodate the systems and ways of others?

I agree with this. There's no way to compromise radically different cultures. You might be able to combine English and German and Dutch, maybe some Southern European even, but more radical than that and there's little in common. Further, people are shaped by cultures genetically as well as mentally, and so they are unprepared to integrate. Even worse, they face a horrible choice: destroy their own culture and form a compromise culture, or keep their own culture and remain outsiders. Diversity is death.

[istaros]

A threat to our species? The children they rape aren't getting pregnant, so it's not as if they're passing on their rapist genes that way. And here, they get killed - before going to prison, or once they're in. So they're really just a threat to the members of the species that share their own culture, no?

Are you not familiar at all with how many societal problems are related to the abuse of children?  Just to name a few:
-Drug abuse / addiction
-Promiscuity and sexual deviancy
-Delinquency
-Further child abuse and child neglect

I'm familiar. But how does a bunch of Somalians, Saudis, Japanese, Mongolians, or Aborigines raping kids and causing these problems to proliferate have any effect to YOU unless they're infilitrating YOUR culture?

[JewishPhysics]

I'm familiar. But how does a bunch of Somalians, Saudis, Japanese, Mongolians, or Aborigines raping kids and causing these problems to proliferate have any effect to YOU unless they're infilitrating YOUR culture?

Well, first of all, there are pedophiles in all cultures.  Ignoring that though, there is plenty of reason to be concerned over these problems in other societies.  Isolationism is a delusion.  While parallelism is good, we still live on a single globe.  We can't simply ignore the problems of other societies.  Allowing other nations to implode isn't just bad for them, it's bad for everyone.  When order and sanity are brought to places of chaos, everybody gains because it makes the world as a whole better.  When nations do implode, they don't simply die out in some Darwinian fashion.  They turn into anarchic war zones which will continue to grow until somebody puts a stop to it.  I think it's better to take preventative measures to stop these things from occurring in the first place, by setting minimum standards of expected sanity and order for places.
If you want to keep pretending that you can ignore other nations' problems because they don't effect you immediately, you do so at your own risk.

[istaros]

Yes, pedophilia exists in all cultures, but there have been many cultures in which degrees of it were not only seen as acceptable, but even actively embraced. These weren't all disfunctional ones, as Hellenic pottery can attest to, for one example. But if you desire to change these cultural practices, you desire to change those cultures to be more in line with your own. The only real difference between your cultural bias against pedophilia and other cultures' bias against, say, our practice of burying the dead, is that we have the technological, economic, and social might with which to enforce our will over theirs. Pedophilia isn't damaging because it's "wrong" so much as it's damaging because of its negative social effects - in a society where pedophilia is embraced, different and far less negative social effects occur. If it's really that terrible that it's going on, and you want to enforce your vision of a perfect world upon those societies, that's fine too - but don't act as if you're acting according to some universal good. You're doing nothing more than spreading your own culture. And if it comes down to the question of letting these societies implode or adapt, how is implosion "bad for everyone?" Destruction of your (ideological, in this instance) enemies is never a bad thing for you.

[hoodwink]

With pluralism eliminated moral relativism is a boon for the species as a whole. The screwups eventually die off and the superior proliferate, moving on to greater things.

that's one admittedly idealistic interpretation.  another is that moral relativism is a reductive liberal agendum.  

[JewishPhysics]

Yes, pedophilia exists in all cultures, but there have been many cultures in which degrees of it were not only seen as acceptable, but even actively embraced. These weren't all disfunctional ones, as Hellenic pottery can attest to, for one example. But if you desire to change these cultural practices, you desire to change those cultures to be more in line with your own. The only real difference between your cultural bias against pedophilia and other cultures' bias against, say, our practice of burying the dead, is that we have the technological, economic, and social might with which to enforce our will over theirs. Pedophilia isn't damaging because it's "wrong" so much as it's damaging because of its negative social effects - in a society where pedophilia is embraced, different and far less negative social effects occur.

I'm sorry to have to say this, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea here, but this reads like some type of NAMBLA propaganda.  Child rape is demonstrably bad because regardless of whatever cultural context it's practiced in, it induces trauma in the child, which in turn normally leads to negative societal problems.  The fact that certain societies can mask or reduce the damage done, doesn't make it alright.  By your logic, shouldn't we embrace pedophilia because doing so allegedly reduces the harm to society?  If not, on what basis?

If it's really that terrible that it's going on, and you want to enforce your vision of a perfect world upon those societies, that's fine too - but don't act as if you're acting according to some universal good. You're doing nothing more than spreading your own culture.

I'm not enforcing an utopian vision, just sanity.  Again, if a society is dumping toxic waste in the Pacific Ocean and they don't think anything is wrong with that, would you allow it to continue?  Is intervening a form of cultural imperialism or just the sane thing to do?

And if it comes down to the question of letting these societies implode or adapt, how is implosion "bad for everyone?" Destruction of your (ideological, in this instance) enemies is never a bad thing for you.

I thought I already addressed this, but the implosion of societies doesn't lead to a Darwinian death, but the transformation of those nations into anarchic war zones that then spread until someone with the power to do so puts an end to it.  Everybody gains from living in an orderly and sane world.  We are all interconnected because we share one globe, therefore if certain societies are in disarray it will indirectly effect everyone.

[Umbrage]

Some related news:

Immigration costs 7.2 billion a year

The immigration of non-western immigrants costs the Dutch society 7.2 billion per year. That's according to research by NYFER, commissioned by the PVV.

50,000 immigrants per year

The researchers made their calculations based on an annual inflow of 25,000 immigrants and the same amount of offspring. Immigrants make more use of public services. In addition, they pay less taxes and contributions according NYFER than the average Dutchman.

Overrepresented in crime

Non-Western immigrants are also more often on social welfare [compared to Dutch people] and make more use of a disability pension or unemployment welfare. They are also overrepresented in crime, leading to additional costs.

Shocking results

PVV leader Geert Wilders calls the results of the investigation "shocking." The Partij Voor de Vrijheid is happy that the taxpayer finally has insight into what is happening with their money, says Wilders.

Solution found for cuts

Wilders believes he has found the solution for the billions of budget cuts that are currently required [due to the financial crisis]. According to the PVV leader seven billion euros can be saved each year by closing the borders to non-western immigrants.

Refusal Van der Laan

Earlier the Freedom Party had asked the Cabinet to calculate the costs of immigration. But Minister Van der Laan refused "because the value of people can not be expressed in money."

Not merely a cost

After the NYFER report D66 leader Alexander Pechtold gave a similar reaction. Pechtold opposes the idea that non-western immigrants are merely seen as a cost to society.

People are not economic goods

According Pechtold research based on facts should not obstructed, but it also matters what politicians do with those facts. "We don't treat other groups like the elderly, the unemployed, people who smoke or who are overweight, as an expense either. Wilders says that migrants are an easy group to save money on, but people are not economic goods with profits and losses."

Where do non-western immigrants come from?

According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) non-western immigrants are people born in Africa, Latin America and Asia or Turkey, or from whom (at least one of) the parents were born in those countries. Most come from Turkey, Morocco, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

Read the whole NYFER report (Pdf - Dutch Language)

news source

The argument that immigrants are a financial benefit to society is based on a myth. Only higher educated immigrants benefit a society. Statistics show that on average immigrants make more use of welfare and other social benefits than Dutch people do. They also commit more crimes which increases their cost on society. The only people who benefit from immigrants are the corporate businessmen who bring them over here as cheap labor (and the left-wing parties who try to win the immigrants votes by offering them more privileges, heh)

Multiculturalism can work if we're talking about merging the best qualities of several cultures together but that's not what is happening here. Mass import of low educated people is hardly a positive contribution to society.

Also: USA + naturalization of mexican illegals + obamacare = ?

[scourge]

True. The best qualities of a culture are embodied in the fewest representatives. Overwhelmingly, we're getting the mediocre and the worst, whether immigrant or not. With immigrants, why would they immigrate in droves if they weren't representative of the worst who couldn't even improve things or at least get by back in their native environs? If immigrants tend to represent the best, then we are depriving their homelands of their best, making those places worse. Multiculturalism is failure across the board.

JB says society collapse can spread. But if it's adjacent to a strong and prosperous one, it'll get smashed in turn. Push what's falling!

[scourge]

Immigration destroys the future of our own brightest youths.

What’s to blame for such high unemployment rates? The mainstream media has focused on only part of the problem at hand. It is fairly obvious that the economic climate hasn’t been favorable to Americans, particularly those who are young and new to the labor market. Extraordinarily, the media has largely overlooked one of the most critical issues affecting the unemployment rates in this country: immigration. While more and more young Americans attempt to find jobs, Congress continues to import 1.5 million new foreign workers into the United States each year.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/grantblog/june-4-2010/college-grads-cant-find-work-while-feds-continue-flood-job-market-for

[istaros]

I'm sorry to have to say this, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea here, but this reads like some type of NAMBLA propaganda.  Child rape is demonstrably bad because regardless of whatever cultural context it's practiced in, it induces trauma in the child, which in turn normally leads to negative societal problems.  The fact that certain societies can mask or reduce the damage done, doesn't make it alright.By your logic, shouldn't we embrace pedophilia because doing so allegedly reduces the harm to society?  If not, on what basis?

I understood the risk of what it might "sound like" when I wrote it, I just don't care. If it is bad regardless of cultural context(arguable, though I'm not willing to get into that here), then it is bad for THAT culture. Can you actually, verifiably equate the damage from dumping toxic waste into the ocean with that of pedophilia? Dumping toxic waste into the ocean affects you, and everyone else, no matter where it occurs because of weather patterns/ocean currents/etc. The only way pedophiles or victims can harm your culture is if they infiltrate or, at minimum, interact with it. Child rape (or childlove, to make sure I still sound like NAMBLA promoter) does not transmit by air.

Now, the answer to your question is no, we should not embrace it, by my "logic." I don't know if there's logic behind my position or not, and it doesn't matter either. My basis is that I don't want any children being molested in my culture. I don't have to justify or rationalize that - I simply DON'T WANT IT. Faced with some petulant asshole that is so self-absorbed and common that he has the gall to oppose that edict, I would suffer no hesitation to shoot him in the face. In fact, I'm fairly certain I'd experience heartfelt joy in doing so.

I'm not enforcing an utopian vision, just sanity.  Again, if a society is dumping toxic waste in the Pacific Ocean and they don't think anything is wrong with that, would you allow it to continue?  Is intervening a form of cultural imperialism or just the sane thing to do?

Sanity is a loaded, nebulous term, and to my mind, a very relative concept. However, to address your second question (seeing as I already addressed the first) - it is cultural imperialism AND the sane thing to do. The same would go for eliminating pedophilia. I recognize that is imperialistic, I just don't see the problem with that. Might makes right, inasmuch as there is such a thing as "right" at all(there isn't).

I thought I already addressed this, but the implosion of societies doesn't lead to a Darwinian death, but the transformation of those nations into anarchic war zones that then spread until someone with the power to do so puts an end to it.  Everybody gains from living in an orderly and sane world.  We are all interconnected because we share one globe, therefore if certain societies are in disarray it will indirectly effect everyone.

You addressed it in an incomplete manner. If they turn into anarchic war zones, WHY NOT NUKE THEM? Hell, why not nuke them right off the bat, if they practice such vile things. Why try to correct their behavior, siphoning off manpower, resources, energy, and time from devotion to your own society's improvement, especially when those attempts to correct theirs do not have guaranteed results? Bombs have only one outcome. If a society is dangerous enough to negatively affect everyone on the globe, just fucking eliminate it. Why the savior ethic? Some things are too broken to fix; some can be fixed, but the cost outweighs the benefit. Sometimes you have to shoot the horse in the head, even if all that's wrong with it is a broken leg.