Trident

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Oh and 4.0 out of 10 on my scale means that it is just below average.

To give you some idea of what that means I consider Search for Spoke

Is that a show about missing parts on a bicycle?

to be a 5.0, so a 4.0 isn't good but it is far from the worst I have seen.  if this movie had just had someone with a brain look at it's script and it had been edited down to eighty minutes or so it would have been much better.

Oh and if you insist on putting pointless robots in your movie make them look like something other then cardboard boxes.  The robot in a $200 million movie from 2014 should not look worse then ones seen in a 1970s episode of Doctor Who that had a budget of a few thousand dollars.

Neglify said:

Trident said:

Neglify said:

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

 I'm not an expert

Ok I get what you're getting at, but your concept of "letting that country fail" is bullshit. I'm all for not "upsetting the local businesses" and culture, but what you were saying seemed to imply that every country should now take the viewpoint "Me me me me me I don't care about you go die peacefully" which is pretty childish and selfish. 

 I can see where you get that from because I am not really that good at explaining things, but what I mean is that rather than propping up a country that clearly can't find its way forward it should be allowed to get eaten up by its neighbors. It means external warfare instead of internal and it means more survival of the fittest stuff, but in the end we get stronger countries rather than ones that keep tripping over their own feet.

I am thinking that the threat that such a thing could happen must serve to unite the country rather than divide it. I think that giving the people in that country a common cause will get them focussed on their own survival.

What I am not saying is ignore people who have just suffered a big disaster. That stuff we need to come out and help, but what we are doing with some countries right now is like us all watching a guy who has bought a house too big for him to pay for. We can either all keep contributing to help the guy pay for it or we can watch him slowly go bankrupt, watch the house get repossessed by the bank, and then see him later on living in a much smaller house that he can better take care of.

Its the difference between false economy and real economy.

TV's Frink said:

Something tells me he thinks we should let people in our own country fail as well.

 How do you really think the Nordic climats got populations that were able to think ahead so well? Was it by propping up everyone equally or was it by letting those who did not plan ahead starve off?

It is not popular to think about, but by making sure no one starves or dies due to lack of planning or stupidity we end up with a society that cares heaps about each other, but also one that is no longer selecting for intelligence, resilience, and versitility.

Neglify said:

^ Give specific examples of countries you think it would be better to see them fail than helped.

 I'm not an expert, but I did see a documentary that once laid it out pretty straight:

Americans saw a bunch of half-naked people in an african community and so got together and got everyone to donate clothing to the cause. They got some T-shirt vendors to kick in thousands of unsold shirts from previous games that were no longer relevant.

They got all this together and then set to giving them away in some area or other. They did this for a few years until someone pointed out that while what they were doing was swell, it was driving the local clothing merchants out of business. They interviewed the owner of a garment factory just a few miles away who said people were now just used to waiting for the new clothes to arrive from America rather than supporting his business.

Another chapter talked about how some well meaning types set about donating cattle to people so they could better sustain themselves (I think it was in Somalia). The end result was that the price of cattle in the area tanked. The local cattle herders ended up with half their herds starving to death because of a sudden lack of demand and a sudden scarcity of foraging areas. And a sudden drop in the value of cheese made from these beasts meant the idea that the families could support themselves with these sales dried up. Then came the fact that they could not afford to feed them during the dry season and the local vegetation couldn't support the increase in numbers. And families who missed out on the give away were left at a disadvantage to those who gained. Then there was the problem of easy-come easy-go where the local people who got these free animals were pressured by their friends and neighbors to throw feasts for the rest of the village (yes, eating the cattle that was supposed to sustain the family with milk and cheese) because they now had the means and could not refuse to return the hospitality of a neighbor.

There are lots of examples, but this is long enough. You get the idea.

New topic:

Sending aid to other countries is a very bad idea.

It prevents them from solving their own problems. It stops innovation. It keeps them in a welfare loop.

Some countries should just be allowed to fail. Then the international community should respond by allowing the neighboring countries to divide it up and take it over rather than propping it up for ages.

This will help to decrease the number of failed states and will remove a lot of graft from the leaky pipe that we use to donate money to worthless governments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8

Oh! lol

Why, is there something wrong with him?

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm pretty sure Two Girls One Cup had a limited theatrical run.

I really wish I didn't know what that is. 

 What's so bad about knowing what a theatrical run is?

I don't have any kids to share and I don't want yours so no.

Haha!

True. I guess we have to think of something else.

DominicCobb said:

Yay conformity, right?!

 I guess I'm not really explaining myself right. I don't think everyone has to wear the same outfit, I'm just stating a fact: the closer people are in thinking and agreeing together the less friction there is.

Is it better to have a country full of people who don't agree about even basic things?

Leonardo said:

 lol

Leonardo said:

To address your first post in as few sentences as possible, I can't say I totally agree with it.

Good!

I think "assimilation" (it's been a while since I took anthropology, the terms might have changed, and I didn't pass it anyway) should happen naturally, just letting people be people like they have been for centuries.

This also kind of means they end up forming groups that have rival goals.

I agree with Eyeshotfirst, where he says the U.S. seems to have an ambiguous identity, almost a non-identity ( I hope I'm not mis-interpreting your thought).

The "melting pot" thing doesn't seem to have happened at all... Well, at least for the people who aren't fair skinned.

 Well I'm sure it isn't everywhere, but there does seem to be a number of people from different ethnicities who act and behave in an American fashion as well as those who do not.

Mrebo said:

Look, I'm new here,

Welcome! I don't know who is new and who isn't these days.

Thank you!

goes on and on and accomplishes nothing particular.

That is Politics' mission statement.

And maybe you're right and politics is where it belongs, but right now we're all here so let's talk!

 Well that's what I'm doing ;)

Trident said:

So what I'm looking at here is that all these people are still coming to North America, but now there are no common hardships to force them to work together and integrate and become a common nation. I'm thinking that I don't want to introduce an adversity, but I am thinking that a way to conform voluntarily should be rewarded in the form of citizenship. Basically a relationship that states that this one group cared enough to join us on our own terms rather than to come here and appear to scorn our culture.

When I think of difficult problems that warrant creative solutions I think gamification. At the risk of getting you in trouble - a risk I'm willing to take - what immigrant populations do you think are most troublesome?

 I think it is any group that bring their complete culture with them in sufficient numbers that the current residents have little to no reason to interract with the new group and vice versa. I like people and I like difference, but if I am walking into a neighborhood and all evidence of English is gone and people who have lived in the area for 3 generations still don't understand the language I think there is something wrong. How can these people be expected to have a common identity and a common system of goals as those who live just over the hill and are more connected?

Then, when these people votes all it takes is a candidate who panders to their special interest to gather up all their votes in a block and, with enough numbers, now your immigrant population is changing the direction of the country back towards the familiar back-home feel. It is not what has made America great. What has made America great is that people from all over had to work together to build it. Now that it's built it seems people are now just coming from all over to take advantage of it and maybe steer it off-course.

Here's a dime. I'm holding out for the million.

RicOlie_2 said:

I agree in many ways, although I do believe firmly in being charitable to people. We have it good in North America and we should avoid selfishness.

If you were on a sinking ship and could get onto a lifeboat that could only hold 20, what do you do with the 250 people who want to get on? If they all get on the boat will sink and everyone goes down. It's selfish, but it's also true.

On the other hand, it won't do any good to bring everyone else's problems here.

I think the basic bit I'm trying to say is that people coming here need to at least first realize what things we did right that make this a better place than where they are from. They then have to get rid of the thinking that they should cling to their former ways because that is contradictory to what they were supposed to be doing in coming here.

I think the "multicultural" idea that we have is idealistic, but simply not realistic. A society should have a certain degree of homogeneity, and we can't have people wanting to live by Sharia law here, basically undermining our own justice system (note: I don't really know much about that specific issue, it's the principle I'm getting at). So the big question is: where do we draw the line? What sort of diversity do we allow and what sort is harmful for our society?

 I think diversity is healthy in many things, but I think there need to be some basic things that everyone who lives in a certain place should agree about. They have to be fairly basic, but they should be things like women are equal, blood feuds are not a good idea, and it's dumb to build high-ceilinged homes in areas where it's too cold.

DuracellEnergizer said:

This thread is ridiculous. You don't think with your eyes, open or closed.

 You know, I didn't think of it that way! I just tried thinking with my eyes closed though and I stargteg typing like this so mayagb e theres's something about keeping them open.

Mrebo said:

I think the high ceilings probably have a fair amount to do with having lots of money.

Well that also makes sense: people with lots of money have the money to raise the ceiling to cool their house as well as a way of making visitors feel inferior. It's still dumb.

Having requirements for citizenship is a good thing, but some of yours are fairly arbitrary. There is a difference between needing to conform and needing to integrate - the latter being a worthy endeavor. Like EyeShotFirst says, we have many kinds of people. The Amish have never conformed! I don't think forcing people to give up their heritage helps.

I agree that forcing them is probably the wrong way around, but encouraging them is what I'm after. I think about all the different ethnic groups that settled in North America as pioneers and how they were forced to get along because of the hardships they were all facing and had in common. This happened really quickly in North America where it took a lot longer in Europe because there was no reason to do it the same way.

So what I'm looking at here is that all these people are still coming to North America, but now there are no common hardships to force them to work together and integrate and become a common nation. I'm thinking that I don't want to introduce an adversity, but I am thinking that a way to conform voluntarily should be rewarded in the form of citizenship. Basically a relationship that states that this one group cared enough to join us on our own terms rather than to come here and appear to scorn our culture.

The way I look at it is: people want to come to America, cool, how best to we regulate that? A preference on people with skills is good. Showing comptency in English is already generally required.Mostly, I don't see what dangers lurk in a multicultural society - even if people have a distorted view of what a multicultural society looks like. I also think Politics is sufficient to encompass all the comments.

 Feel free to talk about it in politics if you like. Look, I'm new here, but I've looked at the politics thread and it goes on and on and accomplishes nothing particular. All I wanted to do here that was different was to see if there were ideas that could actually move society forward without the liberal/conservative stigma that locks people down in the politics thread.

And maybe you're right and politics is where it belongs, but right now we're all here so let's talk!

EyeShotFirst said:

Everybody in 1984 wore the same clothes, and that was a Paradise. ;)

I get your point and I agree that what I said was open to that kind of interpretation. I was just trying to make an observation that if half the population walks around with scarves covering their faces and the other half have men wearing jackboots there might be more friction than if everyone had more conformity, but it is a superficial thing and so probably not that important. Even if it is probably true.

Illegal immigrants should be made citizens and should be made to follow the same laws and pay the same taxes we do.

Here's where I agree with you: having two types of citizens means that some don't pay taxes while others do mean that one has to support the other by paying for all the services while the other can undercut them by living on the cheap tax free. That's true.

Where I disagree is that it removes the deterrant to immigrate illegally. Why stand in line patiently and pay your fees when you can get the exact same results by cheating? It isn't fair to those who do it properly and it means that the country is then wide open to a hundred times its current population flooding in and overwhelming its ability to cope.

One thing America seems to have suppressed, is a unique culture. We are almost the anti-culture. This is the great melting pot, but no matter how many ingredients go into the pot, we are still blatantly stale. We had culture at one time. Look at America's first 150 years.

I disagree. America has one of the most unique cultures the world has ever known. Even its different states have cultures. All a culture is is a way of doing something. A way that was tried and true and so passed down. Some cultures have staying power and some don't, but America today definitely has a strong cultural influence on the rest of the world.

I live in Houston, which is probably the most racially and culturally diverse place I've ever been in my life, and even after that, anything Asian or European is Americanized. Sure, you have your China towns, little Italys, and your Polish quarters, but that's separating people who, in my opinion, are American. Hispanic influences have held strong, which is one thing I can say, but other than that.... The state I currently live in is almost and has been it's own Country, yet I can't tell much of a difference in it than any of the other 7 states I've lived in, other than the heat and the wealth. You go from being used to seeing little 1 story houses, to driving past mansions that seem to go on forever.

I digress, and probably haven't made much of a point. I just think we have a lot to learn from the many people that come into our country, and diversity could make our country strong if we went about it in the right way. I do believe English should be enforced in the workplace, but I like experiencing different people's ways.

 I like what you are saying. I think I understand your point perfectly fine and I agree that there are positives from meeting other cultures and people. All I ask is that other cultures not overwhelm what is normal to those who were already living there before they came. All I ask is what the North American Natives were asking for awhile, actually.

TV's Frink said:

Trident said:

The more we act and look the same the more likely we are to have common values and common goals.

 *faceplam*

Also, there was no need to make a separate thread for this.  The New Thread Thread awards you one demerit.

 So there is only one single take away from what I said? If you think its wrong just say why. If you think it makes sense but you don't like it, just say so, but hitting yourself in the face because of one sentence is simplistic.

Also, I can make threads about whatever I want whenever I want and don't need your permission in your very long-winded New Thread Thread of lame threads that award thread awards.

So what I was getting at face-slapper is that the more things we have in common the more compatible we are. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

darth_ender said:

I like the use as of this thread but I think it could fit under politics. I think you really have to dig deeper for it to warrant it's own thread.

 I don't want it in the politics thread. I don't want it mixed in with chats about who is running for president and what stupid thing someone did to get on Youtube. I want to talk more about what happens when we don't think about where we want our society to end up rather than what is the liberal versus conservative position.

I want to explore a couple of things that bother me. I think they should bother you too, but whether it is for the same reasons you will have to let me know.

1) Immigration.

OK, here it is: everyone in the world is basically descendants of immigrants unless they are still hanging out in the same region in Africa where our first whatchamacallits came from. I get that. I understand that in thinking this way no one really has any more claim to a land than another group, but...

I also realize that some cultural groups figured out how to solve problems that other cultural groups still seem to be baffled by.

I don't believe in racial differences as much as I do cultural ones. I don't think that a white guy and an indian guy with the same basic upbringingings are going to be spectacularly different, but I do think that a man born in one part of India is going to be very different from one born in a different part.

Here's what I am wondering: should people who grew up in failed states, or regions of the world with backwards thinking be allowed into first-world countries?

Pros

Something something humanitarianism, love, equal opportunity, mutual respect, hope, charity, do-unto others, something, something.

Cons

How can you expect a huge group of people from a failed state are going to be able to behave any differently in a new country than they did in their former place. I can understand one or two coming over and conforming, but won't a huge bunch at once just simply make a ghetto and adapt their environment to suit what they are used to?

Here is a dumb example, but whatever: where I live there are a lot of people coming over from India, Pakistan, and the Middle East. Where I live it is cold most of the time. These people are so used to living in a hot climat that the first thing they do is build their houses with 12 - 16 foot tall ceilings just like back home so the hot air would rise and keep them cool. Where they live now though they should be lowering their ceilings like we do to keep them warm. Huge waste of energy warming all that space above their heads for most of the year.

Now this is a dumb example because these people who can afford to build houses are not exactly what I am getting at when I talk about people coming from a failed state, but it does illustrate that people often don't conform unless forced to do it. They have changed the looks of entire neighborhoods without even thinking about it.

But when people come from failed states with no idea of how to behave in civil society they come and change the rules and laws of the land to work more the way they did back home. So they end up partially wrecking what used to work fine and without really thinking about it they have the potential to turn the functioning state into a failed one. In the end this helps no one.

Bottom Line

I don't really know what to think. I just know that I live in a unique age when one country or people actually want to help rival countries and people instead of just destroying them like in the past. I think it is a good thing, but then I wonder what is going to happen when the people who have come into the new country eventually outnumber the former residents without first changing their mindsets about how a country should be run so that their new home country ends up as screwed up as the one they left. Whereas immigrants can always return to their former home natural residents have nowhere else to go once their country has been overrun and changed in this way.

It seems unfair to not allow desperate people into a prosperous country, but then it also seems unfair to allow a bunch of homeless people to barge into a five-star resort and sleep by the pool.

A Suggestion

Immigrants should probably not be given full citizenship until either the second generation or they have proved they can speak the language fluently and no longer need to wear clothing traditional to their former place of birth, etc. I know it is petty stuff to some, but society has to be cohesive, not divisive. The more we act and look the same the more likely we are to have common values and common goals.

imperialscum said:

Possessed said:

Just stop bullying warbler by your existence, that's all we ask.  :)

Who gave you the permission to use "we"? When you speak for yourself you use "I".

I think it was a joke? But then maybe you're making a joke too. But if so, where's your *&%$ winky? ;-0