The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[Michael Hardner]

Folks, please stop the sniping.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Optimism also plays a role. Conservatives tend to be gloomier, glass half empty types - they would perhaps say more realistic. 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Conservatives tend to be gloomier, glass half empty types - they would perhaps say more realistic. 

It's hardly more realistic when one is always screaming "the sky is falling the sky is falling" when it isn't, and when things go wrong, they falsely blame any convenient scapegoat that their masters wildly point their fingers at. 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is common sense to only have immigration that is going to protect one's culture and civilization.  

When you think it makes more sense to have a global culture and civilization common sense looks a lot like stale olde-fashioned typical right-wing conservatism. Maybe it's just the religion that makes it look so olde.

Edited April 20, 2017 by eyeball

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When you think it makes more sense to have a global culture and civilization common sense looks a lot like stale olde-fashioned typical right-wing conservatism. Maybe it's just the religion that makes it look so olde.

I like the idea of a global culture and civilization, but we would have to eradicate religion first.  

[Bonam]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I like the idea of a global culture and civilization, but we would have to eradicate religion first.  

I use to like the idea of a global culture/civilization/government when I was young and naive. But then I realized that it's a lot better to have 200 different nations, so if one gets messed up you always have the option of going to another. A lot more redundancy that way. One bad cultural, economic, or political trend crippling all of human civilization as opposed to just one or a handful of countries? No thanks. 

Not to mention people are different... they have different values, cultures, etc. And the geographic region they live in may have a significant impact on their outlook on things. Diversity of cultures around the world is better than a single homogeneous worldwide culture. 

[dialamah]

21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I like the idea of a global culture and civilization, but we would have to eradicate religion first.  

Nah, just eradicate conservatives.   Religious people who are also progressive are fine.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Bonam said:

I use to like the idea of a global culture/civilization/government when I was young and naive. But then I realized that it's a lot better to have 200 different nations, so if one gets messed up you always have the option of going to another. A lot more redundancy that way. One bad cultural, economic, or political trend crippling all of human civilization as opposed to just one or a handful of countries? No thanks. 

Not to mention people are different... they have different values, cultures, etc. And the geographic region they live in may have a significant impact on their outlook on things. Diversity of cultures around the world is better than a single homogeneous worldwide culture. 

If we could eradicate religion, we could probably figure out the rest.

[Bonam]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If we could eradicate religion, we could probably figure out the rest.

Well, religion certainly causes a ton of problems but even eradicating it, there would be plenty more left. The problem isn't religion itself but that so many people are wired to want religion. Eliminate it and something else would simply fill the void. Communism and Nazism filled the same niche in the brains of their followers as religion did. Today, social justice ideology fills the same niche in the minds of many in the left. 

Even ignoring all that, I think there are still considerable survival and adaptability advantages in diversity. And when it comes to an individual, having the freedom to move to somewhere in the world where the culture/law/etc better matches what one wants rather than the whole world being a single way is a good thing to have. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Bonam

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Nah, just eradicate conservatives.   Religious people who are also progressive are fine.  

There  would be no guarantee that some nutcase wouldn't decide that it all wasn't quite good enough, and whip up the rest. There's a fine line between going to the church and going to the stoning. If I'm going to join a global culture, it would have to not believe in ghosts. 

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

.

 

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

If we could eradicate religion, we could probably figure out the rest.

 

First you would have to eradicate 90% of the world's population.   Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao made a serious attempt at eradicating all opponents, but in the end, it made no difference.  Their ilk ended up in the grave sooner or later, and their legacy as tyrants is established.

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2017-04-18 at 9:58 PM, Bonam said:

Or simply explore ways of making economies work in the face of stagnant or slowly-declining population, rather than continuous population growth. The world's population won't keep growing forever, and birth rates are falling all across the world, including all our immigrant source countries. Sooner or later, economies will have to work with a constant or shrinking population and we might as well get to work on addressing that eventual economic reality early.

How do you make economies work for stagnant/declining population, at least as good as an increasing population?  A growing population means more overall production (overall GDP) and more consumption domestically. How can a society compete with these simple economic facts, unless we upend capitalism?

[Guest]

Just now, blackbird said:

First you would have to eradicate 90% of the world's population.   Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao made a serious attempt at eradicating all opponents, but in the end, it made no difference.  Their ilk ended up in the grave sooner or later, and their legacy as tyrants is established.

Yeah, I'm not actually going to spend this year's vacation time getting it done. 

Although I like the population control idea. Would sort global warming out. 

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How do you make economies work for stagnant/declining population, at least as good as an increasing population?  A growing population means more overall production (overall GDP) and more consumption domestically. How can a society compete with these simple economic facts, unless we upend capitalism?

What matters is GDP/capita not total GDP. GDP/capita is mostly driven by productivity gains which arise from technological innovations. Domestic consumption depends on domestic incomes, which may rise more quickly if there is labor supply scarcity rather than labor supply overabundance driven by rapid population growth. 

There is nothing inherent to "capitalism" which requires continuous population growth. Capitalism is merely the idea that people should be able to freely trade with one another, typically tempered with government regulation and taxation (as opposed to say communism where the means of production are state-owned). A global financial system driven by ever expanding debt is not an integral part of capitalism. 

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There  would be no guarantee that some nutcase wouldn't decide that it all wasn't quite good enough, and whip up the rest. There's a fine line between going to the church and going to the stoning. If I'm going to join a global culture, it would have to not believe in ghosts. 

Anyone can be a nutcase, not just religious people.  And who is more likely to decide it all wasn't quite good enough: someone who is open to diversity and embraces change or some who is closed to diversity and who fights against change?

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyone can be a nutcase, not just religious people.  And who is more likely to decide it all wasn't quite good enough: someone who is open to diversity and embraces change or some who is closed to diversity and who fights against change?

 

Both.

[Moonlight Graham]

16 minutes ago, Bonam said:

What matters is GDP/capita not total GDP. GDP/capita is mostly driven by productivity gains which arise from technological innovations. Domestic consumption depends on domestic incomes, which may rise more quickly if there is labor supply scarcity rather than labor supply overabundance driven by rapid population growth. 

There is nothing inherent to "capitalism" which requires continuous population growth. Capitalism is merely the idea that people should be able to freely trade with one another, typically tempered with government regulation and taxation (as opposed to say communism where the means of production are state-owned). A global financial system driven by ever expanding debt is not an integral part of capitalism. 

Yes, total GDP & total domestic consumption matters too, because corporations depend on it, as does our financial markets.  In order to attract investors, domestic and foreign, Canadian businesses need growth.  Nobody will invest in Loblaw if there's a outlook of decline in how much overall food is being eaten, the same with most established food companies/industries.  Nobody will invest in homebuilders and their suppliers if there's a declining (or even stagnant) number of homes and buildings being built.  Same with clothing, retail, restaurants, banks, and any number of services and many other Canadian industries.  More overall consumption means more profit & production.

If Canada were shrinking and US were growing, why would investors bet their money on our economic growth?

Edited April 20, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyone can be a nutcase, not just religious people.  And who is more likely to decide it all wasn't quite good enough: someone who is open to diversity and embraces change or some who is closed to diversity and who fights against change?

Good point. We might have to eradicate universities, too. 

[blackbird]

45 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyone can be a nutcase, not just religious people.

I think the nutcases you have to worry about are those who hold the reins of political power but don't respect the fundamental rights of the people they rule over.   Religious or atheist can be dangerous.  In Iran you had the Ayatollah.  How many people did they execute in the 1979 Islamic revolution and afterward?  How many infidels were killed in the last 1400 years across the Arab world?  How many people did the non-religious tyrants Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot kill in the 20th century?   How many people did the tribal dictators in Africa kill in the genocides, like Rwanda?  Tyrants can be driven by some kind of false religious fervour or be atheists.  It has nothing to do with christianity.  But some like to lump christians in with any kind of religious extremists, which shows they don't understand christian teachings at all.  But it gives them a feeling of superiority in their atheism.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by blackbird

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 But some like to lump christians in with any kind of religious extremists, which shows they don't understand christian teachings at all.  But it gives them a feeling of superiority in their atheism.

2

In Western countries, Christians are held in check by secular governments.   History and certain Christian majority countries and regions demonstrate that Jesus' teachings do nothing to prevent Christians from using violence to impose Christianity on non-believers, or from oppressing those they disapprove of - such as gays or women, especially women who don't know their place.   Christianity is no better than Islam in its inherent patriarchy and tendency to oppress those who don't follow their religious dogma.   

Still, many Christians and Muslims reject this part of their religion and practice a much more progressive form of their faith, one I believe is much more in line with what their respective prophets taught.  Those folks are ok by me.

 

 

 

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In Western countries, Christians are held in check by secular governments.   History and certain Christian majority countries and regions demonstrate that Jesus' teachings do nothing to prevent Christians from using violence to impose Christianity on non-believers, or from oppressing those they disapprove of - such as gays or women, especially women who don't know their place.   Christianity is no better than Islam in its inherent patriarchy and tendency to oppress those who don't follow their religious dogma.   A

Still, many Christians and Muslims reject this part of their religion and practice a much more progressive form of their faith, one I believe is much more in line with what their respective prophets taught.  Those folks are ok by me.

 

 

 

There have been periods in history when the Roman Church did impose it's brand of christianity on the population.  But this was not biblical christianity as Jesus taught.  You have to understand the difference.  Christianity as practiced in the beginning of the church age about 2000 to 1700 years ago was nothing like the Roman church's christianity practiced throughout the Holy Roman Empire after the Roman church became established several hundred years after Christ.   Rome set up the Holy Office to run the Inquisition for hundreds of years.  Many "heretics" were tortured and burned at the stake.  Many people believe this was christianity but it was the furthest thing from it.  There were several small sects who did not recognize the Pope or the RC Church but practiced christianity and followed the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in parts of Europe.  They were eventually hunted down by Rome and killed.  Biblical christianity does not oppress women or "impose" christianity on non-believers.  Again you have to distinguish the Roman Catholic church down through the ages from small groups of true bible believers.  True biblical christianity cannot be understood by looking at the big Roman church or the Eastern Orthodox or Russian Orthodox.  These are a different thing from bible believing christians.   Bible believing christians do not oppress other people or force them to become christians.  Jesus and the apostles never did that either.  People that used violence in the past to impose christianity or oppress people are not genuine believers but are in a cult or false religion masquerading as christianity.

Incidentally, I am not aware that women are being oppressed in churches today.  I would doubt that very much. I think they are generally treated with respect.  If you have any examples of where women are oppressed, let's hear it.  It sounds more like a myth.  If you want to discuss it I would be happy to.

As far homosexuality is concerned, many christian churches do not believe homosexuality is biblical and so do not agree with it;  however they do not mistreat LGBT people.  They welcome them if they want to attend their churches.  There are a few churches that have gone astray and actually condone the practice of homosexuality itself and some even ordain homosexuals or lesbians as ministers.  But nobody in the christian community mistreats them to my knowledge.   Gay bashing is done by non-christians and hateful people in the general public.  This is not the fault of genuine christians. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by blackbird

[kactus]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Optimism also plays a role. Conservatives tend to be gloomier, glass half empty types - they would perhaps say more realistic. 

Pessimism and realism are too different things meeting at different ends IMO. 

If I am facing a major challenge in my life I would rather show a positive attitude than be miserable git and moan how gloomy things are..... Realistically, people with positivity have a better chance to overcome obstacles...Just saying.....  

Edited April 20, 2017 by kactus
correction

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

1.  There have been periods in history when the Roman Church did impose it's brand of christianity on the population.  But this was not biblical christianity as Jesus taught.  You have to understand the difference. 

2.  Biblical christianity does not oppress women or "impose" christianity on non-believers.  Again you have to distinguish the Roman Catholic church down through the ages from small groups of true bible believers.  True biblical christianity cannot be understood by looking at the big Roman church or the Eastern Orthodox or Russian Orthodox.  These are a different thing from bible believing christians.   Bible believing christians do not oppress other people or force them to become christians.  Jesus and the apostles never did that either.  People that used violence in the past to impose christianity or oppress people are not genuine believers but are in a cult or false religion masquerading as christianity.

3.  Incidentally, I am not aware that women are being oppressed in churches today.  I would doubt that very much. I think they are generally treated with respect.  If you have any examples of where women are oppressed, let's hear it.  It sounds more like a myth.  If you want to discuss it I would be happy to.

4.  There are a few churches that have gone astray and actually condone the practice of homosexuality itself and some even ordain homosexuals or lesbians as ministers.  But nobody in the christian community mistreats them to my knowledge.   Gay bashing is done by non-christians and hateful people in the general public.  This is not the fault of genuine christians. 

 

16

1.  The Catholics were and are one of the many faces of Christianity.  You can certainly identify them as "not being really Christian", but that's exactly the same excuse some Muslims use when presented with evidence of what other Muslims do.

2.  I rarely look at Catholics; I'm much more familiar with evangelical Christians.

3.  Church of Mormon, especially the sect that follows polygamy.  Hutterites, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Coptic Christians, Christians in third world countries.   Many Christian churches within Canada and the US support the patriarchal idea that women should submit to their husbands and should dress 'modestly'; should a woman fail to follow these guidelines, she may be 'talked to' or shunned by other church members. 

4.  In Uganda in 2014, the Christian government tried to pass a law making homosexuality a capital offense; they were fully supported by American Christian politicians.  After an international outcry, they backed down and decided to only jail them for life.  Nonetheless, many Christian Ugandans still think gays ought to be killed and some are doing so.  There are Christian groups in the same area of the world who behave much as ISIS does; they just don't get the attention that ISIS does.   

Yes, you can say all these examples aren't 'really Christians' all you want.  I would call them 'conservative' Christians because they cling to old ways, rather than embracing change and progress.   I would call progressive the Christians who accept and even ordain gays, who don't even mention women's duty to submit to their husbands, who don't criticize or shun women who dress less modestly.   Same for Muslims: there are individuals and groups who are working to bring an end to conservative Muslim beliefs.   In my opinion, it's conservatives and conservative religious people who are the bane of a tolerant and free society.   It's progressives, those who aren't afraid of change, who challenge the status quo who bring the world forward - whether it's fighting for the right of women to vote in Canada in 1916, or fighting to allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia today.   Same with gay rights in the Western world, and in the developing countries.  Conservatives fight to keep things the same; they have objected to women's rights, black rights, gay rights, LGBT rights, and immigration - and many have used and still use the Bible to do so.

Edited April 20, 2017 by dialamah

[Argus]

19 hours ago, cannuck said:

But, that is EXACTLY what every politically correct, globalist Liberal wants to do - CHANGE this country. 

Refer to the OP. Open people love variety and change and diversity, and do not value loyalty much. That is why liberals love immigration, because it brings all those things. They don't really care about the economics of it, since that is just the excuse. As to the impact it might have on Canada's culture, again they don't care. Change is good, and since they have little loyalty or nationalism they don't really care about importing vast numbers of foreigners who might not ever assimilate.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, kactus said:

However, my point of contention is with those who use the religion in the context to divide people into those who can assimiliate into the canadian culture and those who cannot.

Again refer to the OP. This thought of excluding those who won't assimilate might not bother you, but it definitely bothers closed types, who value ingroup loyalty and traditions. They see this as members of another tribe, potentially a hostile tribe, settling on their territory. And they can, frankly, see those on the left who want this, as guilty of betraying the group, of being traitors.

19 hours ago, kactus said:

Why can we not have a system to identify good from bad apples instead of resorting to such divisive tactics that incites xenophobic tendencies against other groups?

Well, the only one to propose that was Kellie Lietch and every media organ in the country has attacked her ceaselessly over the very notion we might consider screening potential immigrants for values which are hostile to ours. That is because in the minds of the progressive media, who are virtually all of the 'open' value set, suggesting our values might be better than that of other countries is unfair and potentially racist.