@Comando

It puts people in a precarious position. When they really read the fscts, which are highlighted in the article and I am going to go through the painful logical reasoning process. The painful procedure of ethics critique. This gureling for me because, I don't want to be the burden of people's free thinking, or, to establish the negatives that are highlighted, but, in the interests of people and because I care, I have to do this:
"Prosecutors said the 24-year-old Iraqi national had wanted to fight in Syria and became “frustrated” at being unable to leave the UK, because a decision had not been made on his asylum claim.

Salah had collected “disturbing” Isis propaganda videos showing torture and executions, as well as guides enabling him to build and test homemade explosives."

So this article already, highlights that he has been given "asylum seekers status" .
Because through the fact, (picture yourself applying) as you're already in the country - means, you admitted you're seeking asylum. You're awaiting the outcome.
The article Futher states:
“He was frustrated that he had not yet been able to travel out to the Middle East and there was no immediate prospect of him being able to, given his unsettled immigration status,” she told Sheffield Crown Court.

Two of the London Bridge attackers had wanted to travel to Syria before they started plotting the atrocity, withringleader Khuram Butt’s passport being seized by his family and Youssef Zaghba being stopped at an Italian airport. "

So, as I recall correctly, this act of good will or, kindness - (vicarious benevolence), comes with consequences . Now, when I play the ethical critique game. Anyone can do this - : it's easy. I do this all the time. I ask risky questions. First one springs to mind:

1 . When we went to war with Iraq, why did we take refugees and allow them to seek asylum?

2. When, we allowed this action of mistrust to settle in these people, was it because, we are too wrapped up in our own lives, thoughts, and distractions ? As I am ACUTELY, aware that the whole of the British public, were and still to this day - dead against the Afghan and Iraq war. So , who is to blame?

3. Someone is to be held accountable for their actions and it's not just these jihadis. It's the fact that a simple formula , which took America to perform - the travel ban. Why did the travel ban take so long and why are we not allowing them, to go back - to face the Iraqi government?

As far as I am concerned, the Iraqi government want justice. They would be happy to take their lives. Now, does that make me a bad person because, I see these people wanting to risk their lives for a false narrative; ending up with a death sentence anyway?

I am going to hate myself for saying this but, I would prefer for them to rot in jail. Because they will become martyrs for their cause. To which , I don't think the Iraqi government do the ethical critique game either.

On an aside from earlier, I don't think Sargon has the heart to leave the UK (and he's said as much). I respect this being willing to go down with the ship, even as foolish as it appears to be.

Regarding the travel ban, AFAIK it was blocked on a number of levels by the selfsame sort that appear to have the reigns in the UK and the majority of European nations for that matter. Why? Because suddenly the entire world's problem rests on the West, it seems.

Somehow we're responsible for all the woes of the human species.

@Laucivol But then, the Iraqis themselves, would want to punish these people, claiming asylum; it could be deemed as a false claim because he came from Iraq. Then, they could punish him to death because he wanted to become a martyr.

No, Carl is a fighter. He believes in the cause. I thought it was a bit late. Considering, the attitudes of the people in the country.

Though I do agree, preventing martyrdom is better than permitting it if I understand your thought.

@Laucivol Europeans, need to allow people to discuss amongst themselves. If the discussion is prevented , then, people will think in a stereotypical method. Stereotypes, are a way of helping people find the bad. Also, through discussion they can find the problems faster. But it's too late the lockdown in verbal communication has commenced. These people, have joined forces with Antifa and oppressed speech.

The lone voice in the wilderness is not a wasted voice. And the likes of Sargon are not alone even in the wilderness that side of the pond has become.

This isn't the easiest way of me to admit the failings of many. Especially, when , the parliamentary actions are usurped by crazy government's. We are playing a vicious cycle: one that resonates through , and unfortunately, those countries have shown - they can have people - look like citizens; but, mask themselves; proceed attacks because of dumb decisions. We are weak.

When you see a radical behaving in a certain way, it's not quashed. There have been reports that these people are on refugee camps. They threaten normal civilians. They do things to them and they pretend they aren't who they say they are - : because you can do that if you ditch, your identity.

This, influx of people, came from regions whom were not even facing war. Then, they threaten the lives of other people. So, the risk factors of refugees, increases as well as, 'we' civilians. But, yet - the Blairites love war.

I would prefer it, if the Iraqi government took ownership to the people it has. I don't know , if there's enough respect left for a country to do it's service on the world. To be honest with you.

Gone are the days when a country cares about its own portrayal. The hate continues and they attack civilians and civilization itself. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/why-can-prime-minister-still-take-britain-war-without-parliamentary-vote%3famp#ampshare=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/why-can-prime-minister-still-take-britain-war-without-parliamentary-vote

@Laucivol wait for it! This is no longer about oil and people can get off this page. Every country around the world signed the climate change agreement. So, this is about ideologies.

Not *every* country stayed in, and it's been about ideology for a very long time. The oil was a fringe benefit despite what some might think conspiratorially.

As for those fleeing Iraq due to the Iraqis wanting their blood - as it seems a catch-22. Allowing martyrdom is not good, but you're right it is Iraq's problem.

@TEABAG!!! america can go to war without a vote too

Yeah, well - it show's that the people themselves , didn't want to be apart of the game. They don't have to either, with the climate change agreements - these people are just a dying breed.

You have to question people's motives because now , we are chartering into territory that we don't need oil. So , if they all bring their dispair and their hopelessness to countries that are wanting to upgrade and be technologically advanced, then , whose to say if the communists - won't counter clash? You know that it's going to happen. As they have been infiltrated already by these radicals in Antifa

I kinda want to test godwin's law in here, anyone up for the challenge?

If anyone wants to discuss something interesting, I have come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as a right to life.

@Holo

First of all, I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your conclusion.

Second, there is such a thing, because we made it so. We recognise people have this right, and we punish those who violate others' right to live. Of course, there's nuance around abortion laws, self defence, the death penalty, ... and we definitely do not guarantee quality.

@Goddess Tyche When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else

For example, in order to live, you require food and water yes? Okay, so nowadays it's impossible to acquire such things without first going to the proper people for permission, if you don't you're punished. In order to get permission, you're usually required to pay some sort of compensation, in order to get the required payment you must perform some kind of action for someone else.

If food and water are a fundamental human right, then who gives up their life in order to provide you with food and water in order for you to live?

The farmer makes the food, the companies filter and produce drinkable water, in those companies, workers tend to the machinery and oversee other workers

Maybe way back, when most of the land was uncultivated, you could argue we had a right to life, since you determined everything yourself, you answered to nobody, but nowadays it is nigh on impossible to survive without some sort of human interaction. In order to acquire that human interaction you must either demand their subservance without cost, or sacrifice your life in order to pay that cost yourself.

So my argument is not that you don't have a right to 'live' but that you don't have a right to 'life'. The difference being i use the first as a verb and the second as a noun.

That being said, like i stated, life isn't worthless. I think fundamentally hindering someone's ability to achieve life is fundamentally wrong. However we've actually legalized indirect murder, whether you like it or not.

On a grand scale it is impossible to live without paying into the system one way or another. In that sense of the word, in order to live you must sacrifice your life.

If life is a fundamental right, then food and water, that which spurs life, is also a fundamental right, but people deprive others of this 'right' in exchange for goods and services and in the basest sense, that is murder

I would define a 'right' as something that someone inherently has and cannot be denied for any reason whatsoever.

If life is a right, then you should be able to drink water without cost from any source, you should be able to hunt without a license, you should be able to grow food for yourself without getting permission from anyone else. This, in my opinion, is not the case

All of this misses the point

oh and btw, food drives don't count, you're demanding the sacrifice of others in order to provide you with your rights. This, in my opinion, goes against the entire point of a 'right'

The distincion of noun/verb is meaningless.

let's not get into semantics unless it is a fundamental point in your counter argument

also i have to take a test in 5 minutes so i won't be able to respond for an hour and a half

In both cases, in its most basic form, it is the right to not have life taken away, that is people who kill you get punished.

Then my opinion is correct, you have the right to strive to live, but not the right to life itself

Well, semantics it is then.

```When i say you don't have a right to life, i don't mean that life is worthless or that you don't have a right to survive, only that you don't have a fundamental right to live regardless of anything else```

literally the first sentence

"regardless of anything else" ... if you remove context, rights are meaningless.

I do not follow your logic, i consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right

I consider rights to be principles of law.

gtg now sorry

I need to weigh in on that, and the semantics is important- a *right* is based on that hypothetical if you were in that uncultivated environ.

If freedom of speech were independent of laws, all countries would have freedom of speech. And we wouldn't have to wage the culture war.

Rights can be carved away by social mores (as enshrined in law) but they're inherent to the individual.

What does "Rights are inherent to the individual." even mean?

Natural.

And i don't think there is such thing as natural or inherent rights.

So it means what I think it means

In this case, I argue that even if they are, they are meaningless without enforcement, which is usually done via law.

Every declaration of right, IMO, means that they are confirming the rights they thought they already had. Never a document create rights on their own, the Bill of Rights doesn't just create rights to free speech out of nowhere, and the US constitution doesn't just create the right to have a US house of representatives. Meaning the rights they thought they had were being violated, and it was up to them to enforce those rights by laws, and in some cases by force.

@Goddess Tyche i apologize for getting your hopes up, i didn't expect an 80 question test, i'm exhausted

@Holo totally agree. It took me a long time to process, the fact someone would want to end the lives of others as well as their own. It redefines the logic to exist.

@TEABAG!!! pardon?

are you saying that you agree with me that people don't have a right to life but a right to use every available means to try and live?

Well the theory of the sucide bombers and the fact that they would want to end their lives and the lives of others. Then, should they receive the death sentence as their punishment? However , they must surely have a cause and that cause means they don't have the right to life because they are trying to kill people. So , when they survive, shouldn't they be rotting in jail because they want to die for their cause?

```However , they must surely have a cause and that cause means they don't have the right to life because they are trying to kill people.``` but i don't agree with this statement

They had a right to try and live, not life itself. The moment they attempted to end their own life, they willingly gave up their right to 'try' and live

@Holo but then the cause ends up with them dying. I don't think they should die; as suffering in life for eternity is: a better outcome for punishment. So, it takes away their want or need to "exit" , so easily. To be honest with you, I have no idea how - suicide is not seen as strange in certain cultures

solitary confinement until death, either that or public execution

<@477272900240670731> http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/ek/EK_Heuristic_2007.pdf

waterboard em with gasoline!

@Holo as phrased, you are correct. There is no right to life, or to just live.

Sorry @Goddess Tyche, but if you are talking about something like the US constitution, it doesn't protect the right to live. It protects the right to live *peacefully*.

Life, is a state of being, like death. All life eventually dies. Rights, at the end of the day, are claims humans make, but there is no way for a human to claim they should live in perpetuity. Well, no way to do it on their own at least.

to claim you have the right to stay alive is like saying you shouldn't ever die. That's an impossibility. The best you can hope for is to live without someone else trying to violently take all your stuff, a right to live *peacefully*.

@Lupinate not even that, you don't have a right to live peacefully either, what is peace? If you live in the woods and a tornado hits, dare say that that's not peaceful at all, but you are able to attempt to survive.

I think the constitution provides a right to 'live' such that nobody is allowed to inhibit that life directly

Peaceful doesn't really mean without risk, @Holo . It's tied more to the idea that, in order to have any shot at life, other people have to agree to not try to murder or assault me on a whim. It's a negative right in that sense, as it requires others to not act.

A tornado hitting you is a tragedy, but it's not mother nature attempting to wage a brief war against you, either. It's just weather.

Peace is simply a state of non-conflict (not at war) when it comes to them in terms of the "right to live" colloquially. Tornados and other natural disasters aren't orderly, and they don't promote states of calm, but they aren't really conflict scenarios, so to use those examples doesn't quite apply to the term from that perspective.

@Lupinate that also doesn’t cover it. I’d say racism isn’t covered by that right because you are depriving someone of the ability to generate income/purchase products that are necessary for life

The only thing that truly covers it IMO is saying ‘you have a right to survive best you can without direct interference from other people’

a right is not an infallable guarantee

@Holo well, strictly speaking preventing people from discrimination is a 1a violation. Right of association includes the right to disassociate from people, regardless of reasons.

I'm not quite sure why racism needs to be covered by a right to live peacefully either tbf.

Well my point is that i think people have a right to survive as best they can, if someone actively prevents that for whatever reason then Id say you’re infringing on that right

Racism was just an example as it was a common reason for denial of service

Racial discrimination is natural and evolutionarily beneficial, change my mind

@ETBrooD It only inflames tensions between groups of people, It accomplishes no good

@The Electric Lizard I suppose at one point in the distant past (perhaps with a distant human or hominid ancestor?) discrimination was beneficial because other groups were liable to outright harm you (you'd only be safe within your in-group)....but the world's relatively safe compared to back then, so it isn't as beneficial NOW.

@The Electric Lizard That's not a rebuttal to what I said

And it's not even an argument, you're just stating it as fact/opinion just like I did.

Discrimination in the sense of disenfranchising others by ingroup/outgroup is a logical extension of the more classical definition of discrimination (discernment of differences of things) applied to the gradient of genetics (ie, Hamilton's Rule on a macro scale)

Its benefit or detriment is contingent on the actual success of whatever strategy (inclusion or exclusion) is employed in a particular environment.

I read all of you and I am saying the Americans are wrong and, Trotsky is way out there.

Fresh is there!

@Fresh Would you agree that these types of discrimination can be covert and incovert?

They do not need to physically harm someone, but they can, intellectually and emotionionally cause harm, to an individual, if, they are a group?

Then as a group they could cause further fraudulent behaviour and perhaps go into a sexual trafficing phase if, they are not addressed?

I would agree with you it is to do with genetics as well as collective groups, because some people, stick to their ethnic groups are more collective than others. (asch and also collective trauma and collective identity, jefferys &co.) For example, you have people go through collective trauma and they then, cannot detatch themselves from that feeling and then socially exclude people because of those things.

The determinant of the group deepends on their collective behaviour in the first place. Thus, when it comes to defining right from wrong,a country has to hold on to the Laws so that people can make ethical decisions which would test their moral judgements.

I am not picking on one group. I am saying that several groups could be a problem, for example Antifa. This is a collective bunch of people who are allowed to, traumatise people, physically, emotionally and even go so far as in to indirectly cause harm, by doxxing people - for their thoughts. So their, group exsitence is to breakdown the morals, and the ethics of the individual, through a collective.

Would everyone agree or disagree that the laws around the world need to change? Due to the collective being able to incovertly discriminate all types of people.

@ETBrooD Let me put it to you as straight as a nail, would be nailed to make the foundation.

As a collective and this has happened for centuries, where a country thinks that it is better and is able to create acts of violence, with a collective. For example,Yugoslavian wars from 1991- 1997, (I mention this now because people still are stuck in the past, and it is time you got with program, that happened of what recently happened, whereby, the EU are sanctioning these countries.)

So, this is why people do not like socialists in Europe because Slobobadan Milsovech was an evil dude and went down for war crimes in 2000 for the geoncides of the following countries: Croatia, Bosnia and Albania all suffered from the plight of this man, who got the collective and did not think about the rights of the individual.

Yes, discrimination can of course be overt or covert, and the intensity of its consequences increases with more people in the ingroup. More to the point is that there should not be interference between people to form groups should they so choose; and neither should there be interference when a person or group discriminates in some (non-violent and generally legal) fashion against an individual

people discriminate on a multitude of things, race is only one

@ETBrooD So racial discrimination is not natural and evolutionarily beneficial, what you are talking about is 'profiling' which is a completely natural instinct humans have developed for survival.

Racial, situational, and class profiling is extremely beneficial in pretty much any situation where information is limited

I cannot think of an example off the top of my head where two animals from the same 'race', that is to say the same genus, i believe, actively discriminate against each other for no other reason than dislike

When i say that i mean, if two types of sneks fight, that is probably racial discrimination as snakes probably don't meet each other often, however with higher levels like say, cats, or dogs might come into contact with differing 'races' of dogs/cats and therefore have some sort of impression of them either from personal or peers that would justify their discrimination

Our quick mode of thinking - the one that we use intuitively, which includes instinct - exists for superficial profiling of people.
Racial discrimination is linked to whether a person prefers the quick mode or the slow mode of thinking. It's easier to just discriminate against people with a less familiar skin color rather than taking the time to reconsider.
Also, when you reconsider your initial judgement of a person, you have to justify it, which can be painful. "Did I really think these thoughts? That's not nice." The less pain-tolerant a person is, or the less a person uses slow thinking, the more likely they are to stick to their initial judgement, so they won't have to question themselves.

We don't voluntarily change our thoughts and behaviors unless the easier path that we used to take becomes too burdensome. Only then do we look for an alternate path, i.e. in this case questioning our prejudices towards foreign-looking people.
Furthermore, if we have added incentive to apply our existing prejudices, then we are even less likely to find an alternate path. Such incentive could be a personal bad experience.

What stands behind all this is evolutionary: we've evolved to walk the easier path (whatever we perceive as easier).

Irrational behavior is included in this, we're not inherently rational creatures, we're just capable of rational behavior. Whether we choose to behave more irrational or more rational depends on many factors, and among those factors is the above mentioned quick thinking mode. The more we use that one, the more irrational we behave. Thus racial discrimination is a logical outcome of our evolution. We have evolved to discriminate racially.

I'm aware racial discrimination may just be a byproduct of one of our evolved traits and not a direct purpose of it, but one could argue that for many other things as well, so I think it's a valid argument.

Also, research shows that, as groups, all races discriminate.

(not talking about individuals)

@Holo It's not beneficial it's called, prejudicial. Because you are preparing yourself, against your competitors.

You can rationalise your prejudices, by not being a stereotype. Although , nowadays, we are in a phase of - "group clustering. "

There are other social experiments in the past about it, but, it does have drastically - terrible outcomes. When you stereotype people and then that brings about an irrational fear.

Stereotypes are useful: they provide you with an approximation of reality with little need for you to analyze the situation. If you see a black youth in baggy pants, with a bear chest, tattooed up, with a baseball bat, in some US inner city it is perfectly reasonable to want to avoid him rather then try to seek out further information about weather it's safe to be around him or not (unless you perhaps really have to try to be around him).

.
On the other hand this has *very* little to do with specifically race-based discrimination. It's about a set of characteristics (one of which is being black) in a given environment that you associate with danger. You associate the fact he is black with danger because blacks in Murica tend to commit more violent crimes. In places where blacks aren't particularly common, the fact that someone is black just makes him weird on the other hand. And the other is always a bit scary because we fear the unknown as a very basic survival instinct (if you don't know what a thing is, you poke it with a stick a bit before hugging it). But the point is all the Murican stereotypes about nigger don't apply in this context, the locals don't associate blacks with anything at all so they just keep their distance more then usual as they would with any unknown thing.

.
All this to say that: yes, we absolutely automatically discriminate against the other. It's quite unlike what Amerimutts are accustomed to as far as racial tensions go. It's an entirely different mechanism for the most part. Mutts are not only largely accustomed to blacks being around, but they also are so accustomed to them that they have culturally ingrained stereotypes about them. This is nothing like a (more or less) first contact situation. And a first contact situation is where you could reasonably try to measure such things as the difference between what is the difference between when a group meets a stranger that looks akin to them, as opposed to when they meet someone that looks quite different. Otherwise you get lots of uncontrolled for cultural noise. I'm, by the way, sure that the average response to the stranger that looks more akin would be more positive. But to what degree? I don't think any study that claims to measure something like this is serious in our modern, interconnected day and age. I also think mutts' optics on this are quite cringe and gay, simply because of how much your society revolves around racial tensions to begin with...

I mean... You dumb cunts have an everyday linguistic taboo around the word "nigger" is how central this topic is to your culture!!! You're the least objective population to talk about this subject I can think of... And yet y'all study this shit in your ridiculously biased country. 0/10 for methodology tbh.

@TEABAG!!! @Holo @Holo

@ETBrooD

#SocialPsychologyIsAScam

I believe western society has successfully erased much of the intrinsic racial discrimination from our minds as part of our upbringing, and that's why we don't see as much of it as we would otherwise. So I think we've gotten about as far as we can get with eliminating racial tensions. To try to decrease it further by means of enforcement seems naive and can easily be pushing it too far, to the point where people who were brought up to be tolerant may actually start to push back and become less tolerant.
This would indicate that some people do have a natural propensity to discriminate racially, not neccessarily because they put much weight on race itself, but because discrimination is natural, and thus racial discrimination is also natural, as it is simply one form of it.

@Tonight at 11 - DOOM