The Roma are coming, the Gypsies are coming!

[cybercoma]

Are groups different ? Yes, definitely. But I would have thought that the idea of passing judgment on whole groups of people in this way would have died a long time ago.

We did have a eugenics board in Canada until the 1970s after all. We're not as enlightened as we like to pretend we are.

[Michael Hardner]

I've written about the cultural and value issues of north American urban blacks on any number of occasions. These include the general lack of value placed on education, the immitation of the hiphop "gangsta" values, especially including a ludicrously heightened machismo inspired agression among young black males, the enormous level of single parenthood and subsequent lack of involvement of the 'fathers', the general persecution complex which saps the will to strive for better under the assumption that nothing will work anyway, etc. What would you like to discuss? Should we be importing them as immigrants? No.

You are a curiosity because you are so objective and consistent that you are willing to admit such things. I do appreciate your intellectual honesty in this regard.

edited to add: It's also helpful to those debating at this level to keep in mind that name calling is a minefield. Calling well considered theories racist needs to be justified, IOW.

[Wild Bill]

Wow! So it was never about Michael making an unconnected and unfair inference about ME! He DID imply that my argument was racist! His defense is an obvious obfuscation.

Now it seems, it is all MY fault! Unbeilevable!

I'm not quitting. I just need some time to cool off. I truly feel I have been unfairly insulted. As I said, to me MLW has been showing a definite slide not just into illogical emotional thinking but outright rudeness!

There's other boards where that is the norm. I don't happen to like such an environment and that's why I ended up here. Now it seems MLW may go the same way. So be it. I don't expect the world to change just for me.

However, I do have to make up my own mind as to how much I care to participate.

I think Michael got me confused with the posts from Mr. Canada but is not willing to admit it. I have done the same myself before but when it was pointed out I simply apologized.

Whatever, when even a moderator can pull a "rabble" style stunt I find it rather disheartening.

I'll be back when I cool off. However, I am seriously considering if I am finding this board fun anymore. There are no other options, it would seem. There are what I consider left or right wing fanatic and emotional boards but MLW is the best I have found for civilty so far.

If that changes I guess I will have to find another interest. I don't expect MLW to be affected by my absence in anyway. There are lots of other members as active or more active than me.

However, I myself might feel better! For me, that's enough!

[Argus]

That's very close to the theoretical framework you're working with. Explicitly, no matter how law abiding, how economically successful and ingenious and creative, if you don't come from the right ethnicity (or country, since you like to float between the two) you shouldn't be allowed in Canada. Rather than accepting people on their individual merits, you want to slam the door on people because of the "culture" that they come from. This is an awful and dangerous proposition because the people that are exceptions to their culture may be the ones that are trying to escape it. However, you would slam the door on them and force them to remain in their "barbaric" societies, as you call them.

Actually, it's nothing whatever like the theoretical framework I'm working with but I wouldn't expect that to be something you would be capable of considering with any degree of rational thought. What I have said is, flat out, immigrants from certain source countries have now and have always done considerably better than those from other source countries. This is based on statistics from the government. It's reality. It's fact, however much it might make your lower lip tremble and your eyes water up. The logical thing to do then is to bring in more immigrants from the succesful source countries and less from the unsuccesful ones. There's nothing in there but logic. Your rational, if one deigns to term it so, is that we should instead put enormous effort into sifting through all the applications from the more unsuccesful countries (even though, of course, we've been doing just that for decades) in a desperate effort at being fair to them -- foreigners - at whatever the cost to us, so that we can puff our chests out and act all liberal and unbiased and noble. I just don't give a crap about all that nonsense. I care about reality.

That's a state I suspect you have little time for.

[cybercoma]

So you think that anyone who objects to female circumcision or honour killings or selective female abortion is a racist?

You don't even notice that you change units of analysis when it comes to your objections do you?

You say you object to female circumcision or honour killings. What you mean is that you object to West Africans, regardless of whether they hold these beliefs or not. Because anyone that comes to from these cultures, you're going to paint with the same broad brush. You only see things in black and white. You can't even perceive gradations within cultures when it comes to these discussions.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't especially mind it when people call me names, Michael. What I don't like is that on this site they're free to do so because you and Charles are both of the same left wing ideological view, and don't consider terms like 'bigot' or 'racist' as insults. On the other hand, if I reply that the person using those terms is an idiot and a moron I'll wind up getting suspended.

I realize that it's a thorny issue.

Charles' politics is not part of this though. Don't make assumptions there.

And now you'll suggest something along the lines of 'well, if you don't want people calling you a racist don't act like one' but the same term doesn't apply if someone is acting like a moron or an idiot, now does it? I don't get to call them morons or idiots just because they so clearly are.

I don't know what to do about this. Maybe a separate thread on Racism vs. Ethnicity dispising... not sure...

In essence, what people like you and Cyber are trying to do is bully people away from talking about issues which make you uncomfortable. And the only reason you can get away with it at times is because Charles is even more uncomfortable than Cyber with anything that isn't politically correct.

For the record, I put you in a different category than ... others ...

I recognize the problem here, though. All I can do is suggest a thread for it. As far as I remember, baseless calls of racism did get rebuke in the past.

[cybercoma]

In essence, what people like you and Cyber are trying to do is bully people away from talking about issues which make you uncomfortable. And the only reason you can get away with it at times is because Charles is even more uncomfortable than Cyber with anything that isn't politically correct.

So sitting at the adult table means feeling bullied when someone disagrees with you.

I hope I don't ever grow up.

[TimG]

We did have a eugenics board in Canada until the 1970s after all. We're not as enlightened as we like to pretend we are.

eugenics was the climate change of the first half of the 20th century - all good progressives like Tommy Douglas supported it because it was 'evidenced based policy making'.

[Argus]

Fair enough - and what made a race or an ethnicity noble or ignoble ? It was their perceived traits, nothing more.

And who said they were noble or ignoble? You're asking a question based on your own never argued proposition.

I'm pretty floored by the fact that perceived negative traits of whole groups of people seem to be seriously being considered as a way to decide whether to allow them in to Canada. It misses the point entirely.

Actually, no, it hits the point directly. I'm pretty floored at how basic logic so floors you. Everything we do in life is based on our experiences. That most especially includes everything we select. If we have to select anything whatever, it's generally based on previous experience. If we're going to eat a certain food, go to a certain restaurant, watch a certain tv show, buy clothing, cars, appliances or electronics, if we're going to visit certain resorts, cities, countries, if we're going to accept invitations to events, including personal parties, or hang around with certain people, ALL of it takes into consideration our degree of satisfaction with previous encounters. What you're saying is that you're floored anyone would suggest doing this with regard to immigration. Which, as I said, floors me at how divorced from reality you immigration supporters can be.

Are groups different ? Yes, definitely. But I would have thought that the idea of passing judgment on whole groups of people in this way would have died a long time ago.

Only among those who wall off concepts like intellectual honesty in the name of political correctness.

[Argus]

So sitting at the adult table means feeling bullied when someone disagrees with you.

I hope I don't ever grow up.

Why? You like whining that the grown ups are talking about stuff you don't like?

It's not an attractive personality trait.

[cybercoma]

What I have said is, flat out, immigrants from certain source countries have now and have always done considerably better than those from other source countries. This is based on statistics from the government. It's reality. It's fact, however much it might make your lower lip tremble and your eyes water up. The logical thing to do then is to bring in more immigrants from the succesful source countries and less from the unsuccesful ones.

In that case I agree with you, but only bearing in mind that you're suggesting the proportion of immigrants changes, not that we reject wholesale people from countries whose immigrants struggle when they get here. And that's not saying anything about refugees at all. This I can agree with, but it didn't seem like that was your initial argument.

[Mr.Canada]

Why? You like whining that the grown ups are talking about stuff you don't like?

It's not an attractive personality trait.

That is what the left wing ideologue does when confronted with positions that they cannot defend. They yell racist! They do it all the time in public, shouting people down etc. It's a proven tactic of the left to bully people into submission. They will never go into a debate, they would rather yell with mega phones and covered faces....yet the right wing is somehow the cowards.

[cybercoma]

eugenics was the climate change of the first half of the 20th century - all good progressives like Tommy Douglas supported it because it was 'evidenced based policy making'.

You're right in what you're saying, except for comparing it to climate change. I don't know how you can compare sterilizing people to industrial regulations.

[TimG]

You say you object to female circumcision or honour killings. What you mean is that you object to West Africans, regardless of whether they hold these beliefs or not.

That is not what I mean or say, What I am saying is you are a hypocrite because you have your own list of 'unacceptable' cultural traits and you have no problems demanding that immigrants change their culture to conform to your requirements yet you complain when others present a different list of 'unacceptable' cultural traits.

The question of whether people from countries with 'unacceptable' cultural traits should be admitted at all depends on whether you believe those traits can be successfully expunged from the immigrant population once they get here. You believe they can - others say we should not take the risk.

[cybercoma]

Why? You like whining that the grown ups are talking about stuff you don't like?

It's not an attractive personality trait.

Rather than it ever crossing your mind that perhaps I misunderstood your arguments, you've gone on for many posts now calling me a moron and a child. I don't appreciate you acting like a condescending asshole, when I haven't been the least bit disrespectful to you in that way. In the past, I've given you all the credit in the world for articulating your arguments well and being rational on these forums. Even when I disagree with you on other topics, you're generally respectful. However, when it comes to immigration issues, you consistently become disrespectful and abusive to those that disagree with you. I would appreciate it if you would stop being a belligerent jerk simply because I don't agree with your positions on this matter.

[TimG]

You're right in what you're saying, except for comparing it to climate change. I don't know how you can compare sterilizing people to industrial regulations.

Eugenics arose because the simplistic understanding of genetics led people to believe that genetics was destiny. This led to many government policies which caused harm that we regret today.Climate change arose because the simplistic understanding of climate led people to believe that CO2 is everything. This is leading to many government policies which will cause harm and we will regret someday.

[cybercoma]

That is not what I mean or say, What I am saying is you are a hypocrite because you have your own list of 'unacceptable' cultural traits and you have no problems demanding that immigrants change their culture to conform to your requirements yet you complain when others present a different list of 'unacceptable' cultural traits.

The question of whether people from countries with 'unacceptable' cultural traits should be admitted at all depends on whether you believe those traits can be successfully expunged from the immigrant population once they get here. You believe they can - others say we should not take the risk.

No. The problem is that I don't believe "countries" have cultural traits. Countries are abstract political entities. People have cultural traits and there is a large variety of differences in those traits between people from any given country.

[Argus]

I realize that it's a thorny issue.

Charles' politics is not part of this though. Don't make assumptions there.

No assumption is required. I go back to when Charles was a poster, and expressed how 'outrageous' some of my opinions were. He still uses that term when suspending me. His political views are strongly held and have not evidenced change.

I don't know what to do about this. Maybe a separate thread on Racism vs. Ethnicity dispising... not sure...

The proposition behind rational discourse is that you address the subject matter rather than instead address the demonstrated or imagined moral flaws and motivation of the person you are addressing. Am I wrong? Yet this seems almost impossible for those on the Left to adhere to when discussing subjects which have any kind of ratial or ethnic connotation.

For the record, I put you in a different category than ... others ...

Thank you. And you are not as politically correct as ... others.

I recognize the problem here, though. All I can do is suggest a thread for it. As far as I remember, baseless calls of racism did get rebuke in the past.

And who decides if they're baseless? Are calls of 'simpleton' and 'moron' okay if they're not baseless?

[cybercoma]

Eugenics arose because the simplistic understanding of genetics led people to believe that genetics was destiny. This led to many government policies which caused harm that we regret today.Climate change arose because the simplistic understanding of climate led people to believe that CO2 is everything. This is leading to many government policies which will cause harm and we will regret someday.

Charles Darwin's cousin is the one that began eugenics. It wasn't a simplistic understanding of genetics. It was the best understanding they had at the time. Social sciences at the time were coming from a positivist framework that believed social outcomes were determined by particular factors.

As for climate change science, when a better explanation for things comes forward, the scientists will change their opinions. That's the way it has always worked. The problem is that a better explanation hasn't been put forward. This is all a topic for another thread however.

[TimG]

No. The problem is that I don't believe "countries" have cultural traits. Countries are abstract political entities. People have cultural traits and there is a large variety of differences in those traits between people from any given country.

I can agree with that. But there is nothing wrong with discussing what cultural traits allow someone to integrate into Canadian society and making generalize statements about which cultures should be the source of immigrants and which cultures we wish to discourage,

[Argus]

Rather than it ever crossing your mind that perhaps I misunderstood your arguments, you've gone on for many posts now calling me a moron and a child. I don't appreciate you acting like a condescending asshole, when I haven't been the least bit disrespectful to you in that way. In the past, I've given you all the credit in the world for articulating your arguments well and being rational on these forums. Even when I disagree with you on other topics, you're generally respectful. However, when it comes to immigration issues, you consistently become disrespectful and abusive to those that disagree with you. I would appreciate it if you would stop being a belligerent jerk simply because I don't agree with your positions on this matter.

I would suggest you examine your recent posts on the subject, because one after the other, directed at me or not, has shown a condescending degree of contempt based on your assumption that all the arguments involved are based on racism. As for my atittude on immigration issues. I always try to be as logical as possible, but unfortunately those who disagree, like you, tend to get emotional and resort to insults and accusations and I admit to feeling condescending and disrespectful towards such people.

[Mr.Canada]

In that case I agree with you, but only bearing in mind that you're suggesting the proportion of immigrants changes, not that we reject wholesale people from countries whose immigrants struggle when they get here. And that's not saying anything about refugees at all. This I can agree with, but it didn't seem like that was your initial argument.

I would say all ethnic groups we let in form homogeneous enclaves within our cities where only the home language is spoken insulating themselves from integrating into Canadian society. This isn't what I'd call a multicultural triumph. Roma's are not wanted anywhere because they do this and because they are responsible for a high level of crime. If they were so upstanding of citizens wouldn't every nation want them?

So instead of screaming "racist!" why not look into the facts of why these people are constantly chased out of nations.

][/color]Investigators have smashed a massive international crime ring centred around a Gypsy cell that recruited people to come to Ontario from Romania, according to Durham Regional Police.

As one person distracted victims, while their cohorts would steal valuables and leave the scene. Men, women and their children took part, tucking stolen items inside long skirts which had inside panel compartments.

Once in Canada, the newcomers would apply for social assistance, mostly in Toronto.

With the aid of identities provided by police, however, Toronto social services officials have calculated the individuals have received more than $2 million from various programs since January 2012.

Source

This was from Sept.6. Sure seems like these people are pillars of the community. I'm sure their crime is due to some kind of racism from a white person. They commit the same types of crimes all over Europe, this isn't new and limited to Canada.

These people are not refugee claimants. It hurts real refugee claimants that are truly in need with these bogus types of claims being made in the hundreds and thousands.

[TimG]

Charles Darwin's cousin is the one that began eugenics. It wasn't a simplistic understanding of genetics. It was the best understanding they had at the time. Social sciences at the time were coming from a positivist framework that believed social outcomes were determined by particular factors.

So you think that the Eugenics policies were perfectly justified given the understanding of the time?

[cybercoma]

I can agree with that. But there is nothing wrong with discussing what cultural traits allow someone to integrate into Canadian society and making generalize statements about which cultures should be the source of immigrants and which cultures we wish to discourage,

Like I said above, I agree with Argus's assessment that when accepting immigrants the proportion of them should be greater from countries whose applicants are more successful in our society. However, I don't think that means shutting the door on other countries, regardless of Argus's objection about how much work it is to vet applicants. In other words, someone should not be excluded simply because they are from a particular race or culture.

I'm saying all of this in the context of this thread. All of the arguments about the Roma sound all too much like the arguments made in the 20th century about Jews. There is no reason we should be rejecting applicants simply because they are Roma. If someone meets the criteria for immigrating to Canada, then they should be afforded that opportunity.

Now the question is what are those criteria and how can we ensure that they're fair, while still protecting our country?

[cybercoma]

So you think that the Eugenics policies were perfectly justified given the understanding of the time?

They certainly believed so at the time.