Why Europe Is Doomed And Japan Is Right To Keep Out Foreigners

[Adhesive]

That's not exactly the case... a lot of the supporters of radical Islam in Western Europe are the grandchildren of immigrants, they hold European passports and don't speak good enough Arabic to hold their own if they were to return to wherever their grandparents came from.
They are mostly kids who feel discriminated against because a lot of companies won't hire them, and out of frustration they turn radical Islam and/or setting fire to cars and rioting.

Interesting, I didn't realise that was the case. It does make more sense to me, though.

[maraboutslim]

Now, for all I know, they made the right decision, and they will live a much more fulfilling life than myself, but the point is that any of them could have done exactly what I did, and knowing that, it is very difficult for me to criticize the U.S. as being a place where the deck is stacked so favorably toward the rich that the poor have no choice but to stay poor and uneducated.

Yes, "any" of them could have done as you did, but not "all" of them could have. and that's the problem with using these little personal anecdotes as evidence of the health of a society.

Yes, the usa is still (sort of) a place where almost any single individual can become wealthy, assuming they are of decent intelligence and good health (which rules out at least 30% of the population right away). But, the problem is that even for that 70% that has the capability, there is limited room at the top. In other words, "anyone" can succeed in america, but not "everyone." The fact that you took that seat in law school meant that the guy who scored right below you on the lsat didn't have a seat. See what i'm saying?

As time goes by, and the rich get richer and the poor poorer, there are even fewer seats at the top available. They need a new concept of the american dream. They need to forget praising a system by which 1 out of 100 can rise to the top and promote one where all 100 can at least reach "middle class" standards of living.

[Adhesive]

Yes, "any" of them could have done as you did, but not "all" of them could have. and that's the problem with using these little personal anecdotes as evidence of the health of a society.

Yes, the usa is still (sort of) a place where almost any single individual can become wealthy, assuming they are of decent intelligence and good health (which rules out at least 30% of the population right away). But, the problem is that even for that 70% that has the capability, there is limited room at the top. In other words, "anyone" can succeed in america, but not "everyone." The fact that you took that seat in law school meant that the guy who scored right below you on the lsat didn't have a seat. See what i'm saying?

Wow, I didn't know that our ideal society has gone from being one where individuals can go as far as their ability takes them, to one where people should be taken past their abilities. I would have a hard time arguing our society has reached that point, or even that it should.

As time goes by, and the rich get richer and the poor poorer, there are even fewer seats at the top available.

Is this really true? Are you telling me that America's poor today are poorer than the ones 100, even 50 years ago? I think this is a dangerously warped perspective that is being promulgated in our society. Today's poor own two cars per household, they have color television, internet access, and enough food to become morbidly obese. I fail to see how this is more impovershed than the poor people of yesterday who stood in soup-lines, or, like my great-grandparents, migrated from farm to farm looking for work and table scraps. This contrast is even more drastic when you consider that these people were able-bodied and willing.

Of course I agree with you that there's always more that can be done to facilitate mobility, and an effort should be made so that those who are unable do not live in substandard, inhumane conditions. I just think that the "man-keeps-the-people-down" argument is overexagerated, and that a lot of the social-ills that afflict poor people actually stem from their own personal decisions and not merely a badly dealt hand.

[ttjereth]

Good point. Unfortunately, for the non-believers (i.e. non-Muslims), the most vociferous and fanatical element in Islam selectively choose to apply certain tenets of the religion ~ and conversion of the world trumps obedience of the law. Oh well.

You could replace the word "Islam" there and use recycle that arguement infinitely, you've created a sort of form letter there

Might not work for all religions though... are there militant Shintoists?

[ttjereth]

Yeah.

It's like this though. If you took 1000 Japanese and 1000 Americans and put them in a room together. The smartest and richest dude would be an American. The next thousand smartest would all be Japanese and the 999 dumbest would be Americans. And those 999 dumb people would also be really violent.

I think I'd rather be one of the 999 dumb, violent people in that situation, since they stand a better chance of getting out of the room in one piece

[2triky]

You could replace the word "Islam" there and use recycle that arguement infinitely, you've created a sort of form letter there ]

Sadly, that's true but radical Islam seems to be the exigent concern these days, in many parts of the world. The historical dialectic changes with the times.

Might not work for all religions though... are there militant Shintoists?

Haha. I was going to say Buddhists...but I caught your drift.

[maraboutslim]

Wow, I didn't know that our ideal society has gone from being one where individuals can go as far as their ability takes them, to one where people should be taken past their abilities.

Individuals, plural, can not go as far as their ability take them. Only some of them can. And that's what we're discussing basically: what rules of the game allow the largest number of individuals to succeed as possible. You seem to be happy with the current rules since you made it (so far). I'm doing fine as well. But that's simply beside the point.

What I would say is that the success of a society should not be judged by the life lived by its most wealthy members but the life lived by its least wealthy. Otherwise, you're at risk of saying that society exists in order to increase the odds that some people get very wealthy, when society should exist to provide for the common good.

Is this really true? Are you telling me that America's poor today are poorer than the ones 100, even 50 years ago? I think this is a dangerously warped perspective that is being promulgated in our society.

The terms "rich" and "poor" only have meaning in relative terms. So yes, the poor today are poorer than those 50 years ago when the wealth distribution in the usa wasn't as wide. It makes absolutely no sense to me to compare people today to people 50 years ago. Next you'll be telling me that, despite being shorter than the current average height, a Japanese woman who is 155cm is "tall" because she's taller than women were in Japan 50 or 100 years ago.

But just so you know, the USA actually reached their peak in things like life expectancy, literacy, and child mortality rates and the like a while back and have now started going back down again. So the gains you speak of are now being erased.

I just think that the "man-keeps-the-people-down" argument is overexagerated, and that a lot of the social-ills that afflict poor people actually stem from their own personal decisions and not merely a badly dealt hand.

The problem is that you are looking at individuals and not the group. Yes, some individuals can rise up and do so because of their own decisions and some don't rise up because they make the wrong decisions. Nothing could be more obvious. But it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. We are talking about class.

So...do you believe it is possible for every American to have a middle class standard of living? (and by that I mean, the have levels of housing, health care, education, etc. that are, say, at least 1/4 as good as the best available? would that be a decent definition of "middle" class?) Or do you admit that the "success" (for the rich) of the American economic system requires a certain percentage of the population remain poor and be denied a decent (by comparrison) standard of living?

Over the last few decades, real wages have actually declined (adjusted for cost of living), and business owners and executive have demand a higher percentage of the profits of their business than what they allow their workers to earn in wages. This isn't true in many other capitalist societies, but it is in the USA (go look at the gini numbers). It's become very obvious that they need poor people. They keep wages low and lower in order to maintain their own greedy lifestyle, and then when they can't make enough money for that fifth vacation home without lowering wages even further, they simply eliminate the job completely and go offshore where they can pay foreigners even less. Clearly capitalism always requires a certain percentage of unemployment to keep wages low, but in recent years, corporate America has put further squeezes on employment by replacing one full time benefit earning job with two non-benefit part time jobs, or freezing wages, or otherwise screwing the wage earning classes.

Yes, for any individual getting screwed by their employer, it may be their own fault and they could have made better choices and become the exploiting employer themselves. But that's beside the point. The whole class of such people can't become the bosses. So the question is, what is a fair life to provide for the group of people.

[ttjereth]

Sadly, that's true but radical Islam seems to be the exigent concern these days, in many parts of the world. The historical dialectic changes with the times.

I find radicals, extremists and even simply overly enthusiastic beleivers of pretty much any religion to be creepy and frightening. Having been brought up Christian I've met some pretty wacked out Christians throughout the years too. From the Sunday school teacher I had as a kid who would yell and scream at us every week about how we were all sinners and going to hell till we were in tears (why yes, it was Catholic, how'd you guess) to a former friend's family who would join hands in a circle bow their heads and pray out loud at the table at KFC...

Haha. I was going to say Buddhists...but I caught your drift.

I thought about using buddhists and then the whole Tibet thing popped into my head and I switched to shinto.

[2triky]

I thought about using buddhists and then the whole Tibet thing popped into my head and I switched to shinto.

President Jintao and the Dailai lama should settle this thing in single combat.

[ttjereth]

President Jintao and the Dai lai lama should set this thing in single combat.

If Chinese theatre has taught me anything it's don't mess with asian monks in orange robes or else they'll start flying around and kicking you in the back of the head.

[Adhesive]

What I would say is that the success of a society should not be judged by the life lived by its most wealthy members but the life lived by its least wealthy. Otherwise, you're at risk of saying that society exists in order to increase the odds that some people get very wealthy, when society should exist to provide for the common good.

Sure, that's a fair argument, but from what I understand from your posts, it seems to me you're trying to judge the success of our society by the degree of disparity between the classes, not by the actual standard of living available to the poor.

The terms "rich" and "poor" only have meaning in relative terms. So yes, the poor today are poorer than those 50 years ago when the wealth distribution in the usa wasn't as wide. It makes absolutely no sense to me to compare people today to people 50 years ago. Next you'll be telling me that, despite being shorter than the current average height, a Japanese woman who is 155cm is "tall" because she's taller than women were in Japan 50 or 100 years ago.

Well, if you were to say the "the tall get taller while the short shorter," as you did with wealth, I would indeed tell you that you're wrong. The short have not gotten shorter, in fact, thanks to the abundance of food that evil capitalism has brought to the world, the shorter are actually taller than they were 50-100 years ago. Although, I can't speak for the shorties in communists countries like North Korea, where an irrational aversion to disparity has brought starvation en masse. I guess that's a small price to pay to ensure no one is exploited for their labor. ]
But just so you know, the USA actually reached their peak in things like life expectancy, literacy, and child mortality rates and the like a while back and have now started going back down again. So the gains you speak of are now being erased. [/quote]
Well, if they have just now peaked and are on the decline, then I guess the system was working just fine until very recently. I wonder by which drastic change this was caused. Regardless, the way literacy and mortality rates are measured make those numbers virtually meaningless. What is literacy, the ability to read and write in English? Likewise, what is infant mortality, the death of a healthy child or one who is premature? All of this is moot anyway, because adequate nutrition, education, and healthcare is available to all who seek it in this country...more so than it has ever been. Show me an Asian immigrant to this country who was unable to educate their child despite their best efforts. Show me an impovershed person who is malnurished for any reason other than his own bad choices. One of the greatest myths perpetuated in this country is that poor people don't receive free healthcare. I think we are confusing the driving force behind these measurements. If you want to make the argument that we are failing as a society to promote the pursuit of these things, I'd completely agree. But it is not a failure in their availibility.

So...do you believe it is possible for every American to have a middle class standard of living? (and by that I mean, the have levels of housing, health care, education, etc. that are, say, at least 1/4 as good as the best available? would that be a decent definition of "middle" class?) Or do you admit that the "success" (for the rich) of the American economic system requires a certain percentage of the population remain poor and be denied a decent (by comparrison) standard of living?

Your post deserves a more thorough response, but I'm running out of steam. I think we fundamentally see success differently, and that will prevent us from ever agreeing on the level of it that the U.S. has attained. I don't see poverty in terms of how much less a person earns than the most wealthy individuals. Likewise, I don't see stratification as possible only through deprivation. Humans have a tendency to stratify naturally. What is important to me in a society is not that there be no underclass, but that individuals are free to escape it, and that those who remain have an adequate standard of living. As someone born and raised in the underclass, I see this as being the case, and I see much of what bad there is as being the result of poor personal choices rather than any diabolical scheme.

[kusai Jijii]

Yeah.

It's like this though. If you took 1000 Japanese and 1000 Americans and put them in a room together. The smartest and richest dude would be an American.

There you go again. You should do standup.

[AssKissinger]

There you go again. You should do standup.

Now I see you got a chip on your shoulder about America. Fuck it.

[kusai Jijii]

Now I see you got a chip on your shoulder about America. Fuck it.

Oh sorry Precious. Maybe you should try some other forum.
http://www.thankgodforamerica.com

[kusai Jijii]

Oh sorry Precious. Maybe you should try some other forum.
http://www.thankgodforamerica.com

Fuck me!
its actually a real website! I just tried it. Who would'a thought?
its a funny old world.

[Adhesive]

Fuck me!
its actually a real website! I just tried it. Who would'a thought?
its a funny old world.

I think it's just a domain name for sale, kinda like this:

http://www.australiancock.com/

[Samurai_Jerk]

are there militant Shintoists?

Hmmm, I wonder ...

[Mock Cockpit]

Yeah all you round eyes fuck off......actually I keep hoping for the new dawn when the Japanese drive us all out, otherwise the only way I'm getting out of here is through cancer or North Korea.

[Korrito]

I will enlighten all of you.

Never chew on tin foil. Aluminum foil for everyone born post 1973.

Never stick a fresh 9 volt battery on your tongue.

Never *ever* stick your tongue on a lit light saber, no matter the color.

Also, brush after every meal. Floss if you have to get those stringy cow bits from betwixt your teeth.

Don't jump on rusty nails when you are seven years old.

Don't take rides from strangers when you are six years old.

And, finally, be home before midnight.

[kusai Jijii]

I think it's just a domain name for sale, kinda like this:

http://www.australiancock.com/

There's no point having one leg in the closet (again, not that there is anything wrong with being homosexual). Did you hook up any Ozzie beef online?

[ttjereth]

Hmmm, I wonder ...

Not exactly what I meant, but point taken anyway.

[2triky]

If Chinese theatre has taught me anything it's don't mess with asian monks in orange robes or else they'll start flying around and kicking you in the back of the head.

I'll bring the popcorn I hope they televise it so we can watch it in HiVision.

[Iraira]

Never stick a fresh 9 volt battery on your tongue.

How am I supposed to know whether the battery is good or not without tongue testing it? I gotta stop buying stuff in bulk.

[Adhesive]

Did you hook up any Ozzie beef online?

Only because he lied and told me he was from New Zealand.

[sublight]

One more thing that I find incredibly ironic is the fact that many immigrants that insist on imposing their value systems on their host countries are the same ones who just fled from a country where those very same value-systems have failed so spectacularly.

True, I frequently catch myself saying "you know, in America, we'd do it this way..."

[Iraira]

True, I frequently catch myself saying "you know, in America, we'd do it this way..."

I tried that with a hooker once, but she wouldn't lower the price or engage in lewd conduct with a hakusai.

[Ptyx]

It's funny to see so much people in the west pissing their pants because of a couple of terror attacks.
Let's open our eyes for a minute, we, the western world, own this planet.
It's been our property for a looong while now. There's no way, a couple of bearded fanatics with no money, no weapons, not even united, are going to change that.
The truth is, we love having enemies.

Since a couple of hairy dudes hidden in a cave doesn't make much of a threat we invented AL Quaeda. A criminal organisation that was unknown and became overnight the most terrifying thing since the USSR.
It's all a lie, it's still a couple of bearded guys in a cave.
Then we created a war that we can't win, the war on terror, it's like the war on drugs except it's even more ridiculous. Let's have a war on sadness next time.
It's all bullshit and fearmongering. There's no radical muslim power, it just doesn't exist. Those guys have been trying to create a radical sunni state since the 60's and they can't pull it off in their own turf.
Now they're going to take on Europe ?
Get a clue...

[Samurai_Jerk]

It's funny to see so much people in the west pissing their pants because of a couple of terror attacks.
Let's open our eyes for a minute, we, the western world, own this planet.
It's been our property for a looong while now. There's no way, a couple of bearded fanatics with no money, no weapons, not even united, are going to change that.
The truth is, we love having enemies.

Since a couple of hairy dudes hidden in a cave doesn't make much of a threat we invented AL Quaeda. A criminal organisation that was unknown and became overnight the most terrifying thing since the USSR.
It's all a lie, it's still a couple of bearded guys in a cave.
Then we created a war that we can't win, the war on terror, it's like the war on drugs except it's even more ridiculous. Let's have a war on sadness next time.
It's all bullshit and fearmongering. There's no radical muslim power, it just doesn't exist. Those guys have been trying to create a radical sunni state since the 60's and they can't pull it off in their own turf.
Now they're going to take on Europe ?
Get a clue...

Reasonable people don't think that there's going to be a caliphate established in Europe anytime soon. However, a larger group of oppressed (whether they really are or just think they are) people who have trouble finding jobs, are living in relative poverty, and refuse to adopt the mores of their host culture is a problem. Something has to be done about it.

[ttjereth]

If Chinese theatre has taught me anything it's don't mess with asian monks in orange robes or else they'll start flying around and kicking you in the back of the head.

I'll bring the popcorn I hope they televise it so we can watch it in HiVision.

[2triky]

A candid moment.