People love to squabble about the specifics. Whether or not people should have applied early for citizenship/visas, democratic mechanisms, about who is to blame, who deserves what and such, if we should focus on other groups of immigrants &co. I think most people here in the comments are overlooking the deeply disgusting and hurtful nature of nationalism. How about we say that is not in our interest? No matter if it’s nationalism in the case of Brexit or Swedes cracking down on immigration.
In an ideal world, there are no states and no borders.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to. The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
Could you have done more to convince other people to do the same? Maybe, I don’t know you.
That is mean to imply they haven’t. You are treating democracy as an end in it itself while ignoring the fact that systemically speaking large decisions, even when backed with a democratic vote, have strongly tended to side with capital. Brexit for example is a pretty good example of competition between the UK and Germany.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to.
Who says we must? F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world run. Immigrants for example.
The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders? No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables. It is no better than what UKIP and Sweden Democrats base their decision making on, in fact it boils down to the same thing. It’s nationalism.
“In the first version of the study, the “learner” could be heard banging on the wall at 300 volts and 315 volts and then falling silent. The experiments unexpectedly found that a very high proportion of subjects would obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts” -The Milgram Experiment
‘Following orders’ is a part of humanity. If your plans require its absence they will fail.
I’m curious on your opinion of the execution of Ronald Clark O’Bryan in 1984.
There’s this myth that strangers are going to taint Halloween candy with poison or razor blades or drugs, so you have to check the packaging to make sure it’s factory sealed or better yet only go to our Trunk Or Treat event open only to members of Our Church. Our Church: “Fear and hate everyone who isn’t a member!TM”
Yeah let me tell you something about Our Church: The United States is the third largest nation by landmass and population and 250 years old, and out of all those people in all that space in all that time, the number of children harmed by tainted Halloween candy is ONE: Timothy O’Bryan, 1974, age 8. The son of Ronald Clark O’Bryan, a deacon of the Second Baptist Church.
Approaching Halloween of 1974, Ronald Clark O’Bryan opened several Pixy Stix (if you’re not familiar, these are straw-like tubes full of a sweet and tart powder. Small ones are crimped paper tubes, larger ones are plastic tubes heat crimped at one end and folded over and stapled at the other), poured out the candy, mixed it with potassium cyanide, poured the poisoned mixture back in the tubes and re-stapled them. His intended victim: His own son, Timothy. His motive: Life insurance fraud.
He handed out several of the tubes, to his own daughter and several other neighborhood children. After trick or treating, his son asked to eat some of his candy, and Ronald urged him to eat the Pixy Stix. He needed help with the staple, and then complained of the bitter taste. Ronald offered him Kool-Aid to help with the taste. His son complained of stomach pain and ran to the bathroom where he began convulsing and vomiting, before dying in Ronald’s arms.
He raised the alarm, “My child just ate a Pixy Stix and died! Check your child’s Halloween candy for Pixy Stix!” All of the other tainted tubes were recovered, one directly from the hands of a boy who had tried to eat the candy, couldn’t open the staple and fell asleep still holding it.
It was found after a short investigation that Ronald O’Bryan had visited a local chemical store to purchase potassium cyanide shortly before Halloween.
Ronald Clark O’Bryan was executed via lethal injection in 1984.
This is just pure moralism that doesn’t engage with my argument. If you want my opinion though, I don’t think he should have been executed.
O’Bryan knew about capital punishment in his state’s legislation and probably took it into account like almost all murderers do. It did not prevent him from killing his son. You are making my case that the death penalty does not prevent murder. There are statistics from all over the world to back this up. Homicide rates are not at all well correlated with the severity of punishment. They are much better correlated with education and poverty rates.
What you are doing is this: You are taking one rather ugly case and using it to justify the status quo or populist sentiment. What if I talked about the five times a trans person attacked a woman? Does that justify how trans people are treated, how they are looked upon with doubt and disgust in this day and age? No. There are cases where whole families are doing well organised welfare fraud. Does that justify the rabidness with which states treat people in need – like significantly lowering payouts when a family member starts menial work? No. Do these couple of cases of welfare fraud deserve the attention they’re getting? I don’t think so.
People love to squabble about the specifics. Whether or not people should have applied early for citizenship/visas, democratic mechanisms, about who is to blame, who deserves what and such, if we should focus on other groups of immigrants &co. I think most people here in the comments are overlooking the deeply disgusting and hurtful nature of nationalism. How about we say that is not in our interest? No matter if it’s nationalism in the case of Brexit or Swedes cracking down on immigration.
In an ideal world, there are no states and no borders.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to. The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
I didn’t vote to leave
Sure. It is not your fault. Could you have done more to convince other people to do the same? Maybe, I don’t know you.
My point is, that is how a democracy works. Don’t like it? Do something about it.
That is mean to imply they haven’t. You are treating democracy as an end in it itself while ignoring the fact that systemically speaking large decisions, even when backed with a democratic vote, have strongly tended to side with capital. Brexit for example is a pretty good example of competition between the UK and Germany.
Who says we must? F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world run. Immigrants for example.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders? No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables. It is no better than what UKIP and Sweden Democrats base their decision making on, in fact it boils down to the same thing. It’s nationalism.
“In the first version of the study, the “learner” could be heard banging on the wall at 300 volts and 315 volts and then falling silent. The experiments unexpectedly found that a very high proportion of subjects would obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts” -The Milgram Experiment
‘Following orders’ is a part of humanity. If your plans require its absence they will fail.
Human nature argument that can be safely ignored.
I’m curious on your opinion of the execution of Ronald Clark O’Bryan in 1984.
There’s this myth that strangers are going to taint Halloween candy with poison or razor blades or drugs, so you have to check the packaging to make sure it’s factory sealed or better yet only go to our Trunk Or Treat event open only to members of Our Church. Our Church: “Fear and hate everyone who isn’t a member!TM”
Yeah let me tell you something about Our Church: The United States is the third largest nation by landmass and population and 250 years old, and out of all those people in all that space in all that time, the number of children harmed by tainted Halloween candy is ONE: Timothy O’Bryan, 1974, age 8. The son of Ronald Clark O’Bryan, a deacon of the Second Baptist Church.
Approaching Halloween of 1974, Ronald Clark O’Bryan opened several Pixy Stix (if you’re not familiar, these are straw-like tubes full of a sweet and tart powder. Small ones are crimped paper tubes, larger ones are plastic tubes heat crimped at one end and folded over and stapled at the other), poured out the candy, mixed it with potassium cyanide, poured the poisoned mixture back in the tubes and re-stapled them. His intended victim: His own son, Timothy. His motive: Life insurance fraud.
He handed out several of the tubes, to his own daughter and several other neighborhood children. After trick or treating, his son asked to eat some of his candy, and Ronald urged him to eat the Pixy Stix. He needed help with the staple, and then complained of the bitter taste. Ronald offered him Kool-Aid to help with the taste. His son complained of stomach pain and ran to the bathroom where he began convulsing and vomiting, before dying in Ronald’s arms.
He raised the alarm, “My child just ate a Pixy Stix and died! Check your child’s Halloween candy for Pixy Stix!” All of the other tainted tubes were recovered, one directly from the hands of a boy who had tried to eat the candy, couldn’t open the staple and fell asleep still holding it.
It was found after a short investigation that Ronald O’Bryan had visited a local chemical store to purchase potassium cyanide shortly before Halloween.
Ronald Clark O’Bryan was executed via lethal injection in 1984.
This is just pure moralism that doesn’t engage with my argument. If you want my opinion though, I don’t think he should have been executed.
O’Bryan knew about capital punishment in his state’s legislation and probably took it into account like almost all murderers do. It did not prevent him from killing his son. You are making my case that the death penalty does not prevent murder. There are statistics from all over the world to back this up. Homicide rates are not at all well correlated with the severity of punishment. They are much better correlated with education and poverty rates.
What you are doing is this: You are taking one rather ugly case and using it to justify the status quo or populist sentiment. What if I talked about the five times a trans person attacked a woman? Does that justify how trans people are treated, how they are looked upon with doubt and disgust in this day and age? No. There are cases where whole families are doing well organised welfare fraud. Does that justify the rabidness with which states treat people in need – like significantly lowering payouts when a family member starts menial work? No. Do these couple of cases of welfare fraud deserve the attention they’re getting? I don’t think so.