Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

It's pretty racist to imply that lots of "illegal immigrants" are "rapists". In reality, human beings are animals, and unfortunately "rape" (some form of sexual assault, which is basically just forced sexual activity) is a pretty common behavior. More common than I think any of us are comfortable knowing about.

When apes do it, or lions do it, it's just procreation or generally considered "animals being animals". Of course, we're intelligent and civilized so when humans do it we consider it immoral and horrible (rightfully so). Of course, it's probably also pretty unpleasant for animals, but we just don't care about them because they aren't as intelligent as we are (though science is still trying to understand just how intelligent they are, and we've been wrong about several species').

There are an awful lot of American rapists too. Way, way more than you or I are aware of. Probably way more than the justice system is aware of. So let's not pretend that "illegal immigrants" are especially terrible people compared to say Americans. They're just people. Like the rest of us. Arguably the harsher struggle they have to endure may breed more deviant behavior than in a relatively more comfortable population, but you can't very well blame the individuals for that. It's basically an unfortunate natural occurrence. Life is messy.

Of course, I have no doubt that politicians on all sides abuse certain angles of this and every other story for personal gain. Politicians are generally horrible people. Or at least that's how I understand them. They effectively deal in lies. Politics, as we know and understand it, is basically bullshitting to get your way. Dress nice, smile pretty, talk confidently, and convince the audience to side with you, even if you're outright lying or what you're selling is actually bad for them. That's basically what politics is.

So sure, they're going to twist this story to suit certain angles, but that doesn't mean that the angles they're using are necessarily unimportant. Maybe in the grand scheme of things the number of assaults from government staff is insignificant compared to the total number of assaults that immigrants experience during their journey for so called "freedom". However, what's important about it is probably that we theoretically have some control over those assaults, whereas the assaults that occur between the illegal immigrants (many of which happen in the desert far from civilization) are pretty much unknown to us. There's no real way to address those.

Well, there is a way.. Solve the social issues in Central America and Mexico that make it possible. Americans are unlikely to want that though. There's nothing directly in it for them. ::)

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Well you can't just give those countries' governments money, it would just be embezzled until it was gone with little to show for it. It's also not our government's job to meddle with and rebuild yet another country. Nothing is stopping civilians from serving humanitarian missions, but the people of those countries are going to have to be willing to overthrow the corrupt politicians, dictators and gangs that rule them or they'll never be as prosperous as they want to be.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

It's pretty racist to imply that lots of "illegal immigrants" are "rapists".

I didn't imply they were rapists. They literally got caught raping.

You can call me whatever you want and throw me into whatever bad category you want. But if it's racist to want children to stop being raped, feel free to call me racist.

I don't care what uncomfortable conversations we have to have. I don't care what taboo topics need to be undressed.

I want kids to stop being raped no matter who is doing it, and if it's a "oh, those poor people" doing the raping, then screw those "poor people" (and ONLY the specific "poor people" doing the raping).

You don't get a pass from me for raping kids just because you're apart of some "victim group" that was oppressed historically by some sort of super villain oppressors. There is no valid excuse to rape a kid and if we can't talk about something, or can't do something, that gets in the way of preventing child rape... then that "something" needs to go away.

I don't care if it's the Catholic Church, Islamic Hadiths, government employees (like !@$!@'ing the UN officers literally raping kids for food), or fellow illegal immigrants. Anyone who does it needs to be held accountable and we need to, as a society, discuss and understand why it keeps happening so it doesn't happen again.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

Well you can't just give those countries' governments money, it would just be embezzled until it was gone with little to show for it. It's also not our government's job to meddle with and rebuild yet another country. Nothing is stopping civilians from serving humanitarian missions, but the people of those countries are going to have to be willing to overthrow the corrupt politicians, dictators and gangs that rule them or they'll never be as prosperous as they want to be.

I agree, if you just send money it will go to gangs and corrupt politicians and nothing will be done. Just like sending money to Africa to "save the children". Money doesn't fix problems. Money creates problems. Even uneducated New York rappers have understood that for decades. :P

I won't pretend to have the answers, or even know 2 things about Mexico or Central America. I'm ignorant, and I'm guessing you are too.

My knee-jerk go-to solution would be to get approval from the respective governments, and send military forces to effectively slaughter gangs. Thinking harder about it I don't think that would solve anything though. Those gangs will be tightly associated with the civilians. In fact, it would probably be hard to differentiate civilians from gangs. And every gangster will have 10s if not 100s of civilian family members that will hate the oppressive forces that killed someone they care about, which will further provoke violence and inspire gang recruitment.

I think the solutions have to come from a deep analysis of how this state of affairs came to be, and it will probably be a very slow process. I doubt our governments are all that surprised by it. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a hand in creating this situation.

Just throwing ideas out there for conversation at this point: Erasing borders might be something to consider. If the civilians can easily escape the gangs then it will be easier to tell them apart. Though I suppose the gangs would just cross the would-be borders too (albeit, they already have for all intents and purposes; the US has no shortage of drug gangs from Mexico and Central America). Maybe it would help. Maybe it would just messy the clean water North of the existing border. I don't know.

I think these problems are difficult to solve. I don't think there's a simple or clear answer. I think it will take decades if not centuries to solve. Ultimately, sharing wealth is probably at the core of the solution though. Gangs exist to empower weak people. If people could instead live a happy, easy, safe life why would they want to associate with gangs? That may be key to disassembling the gangs in general. It's way easier said than done though. And it remains to be seen exactly how to do it.

It is my current believe that we have the resources to provide for everyone on the planet. We waste vast quantities of resources out of greed and selfishness. And if we were to better organize their distribution we could probably put them to better use, and in the process neuter the foothold that gangs and terrorist organizations have. It's a huge undertaking, and exploitation will have to be curtailed along the way because it's human nature. In any case, ... I think it's worth pursuing.

I didn't imply they were rapists. They literally got caught raping.

Rape is a very dirty word. In our society, it's the worst possible offense. I think it's fair to say it's considered worse than murder. Think about that. Killing somebody is perhaps better than sexually abusing them. Does that even make sense?

You can call me whatever you want and throw me into whatever bad category you want. But if it's racist to want children to stop being raped, feel free to call me racist.

My intention is not to label people bad names, or even categorize them. That said, I think that emotions run very high when we contemplate sexual abuse of children. It's generally impossible to have a rational discussion at all about it. And if we cannot have a rational discussion about it then there's no possible way to effectively solve it. Hopefully we can all agree that emotion does not bring out the best in us. It may bring out the best of intentions, some of the time, but then "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

I don't care what taboo topics need to be undressed.

What colorful language for the subject matter. :P

I want kids to stop being raped no matter who is doing it, and if it's a "oh, those poor people" doing the raping, then screw those "poor people" (and ONLY the specific "poor people" doing the raping).

I think it's generally well known that many sexual abusers were sexually abused themselves. Effectively, the perpetrator is also a victim. That's not always the case, but it's a well established pattern.

I think that the subject matter triggers an emotional response that clouds your judgement somewhat. See "think of the children!"

You don't get a pass from me for raping kids just because you're apart of some "victim group" that was oppressed historically by some sort of super villain oppressors. There is no valid excuse to rape a kid and if we can't talk about something, or can't do something, that gets in the way of preventing child rape... then that "something" needs to go away.

I'm not trying to excuse the sexual abuse of children. That said, I think that to broaden our horizons it might help to emphasize that we are animals, and morality is subjective. In the West, sexuality and children is completely taboo (to the point that parents are uncomfortable educating their children about sex).

Historically it has not been so black and white, however. I recall hearing of a taboo practice in parts of Africa (I think) where as I recall it was [recently, like maybe 10 or 20 years ago at the earliest, if not still today!] allegedly considered socially acceptable for families to auction off young boys as a sort of sex slave for wealthy men. Read that again. Gay. Sex. Children. Socially acceptable. Meaning it's not behind closed doors. It's "cool". It's "in". Everybody is doing it. It's done out in the open at arranged, sanctioned, social functions. Or at least, that's how I recall it. My memory/intuition says that the rational was that the families benefited from the financial gain, and the sex avoided ... unwanted pregnancies? I really can't rationalize it myself. As I recall how I understood it, it was a long running practice, meaning that most men in the community experienced the practice as both the boy and the man.

I cannot find reference to it Googling for it. Albeit, it's a kind of awkward subject to try to Google at all... My 2 failed attempts probably just fucked my Google profile so I don't care to keep trying... :-/ In any case, I can't imagine I could ever have imagined something like that as literally none of it appeals to me... But I also cannot recall the source that I learned about it from... In fairness, the search results are very much politically charged these days. Basically LGBT rights activism in Africa... So effectively the results are unrelated to what I was attempting to find, and if what I was attempting to find does exist it might be buried beneath pages of modern day social justice shenanigans, and potentially has been literally "covered up" (i.e., "erased") by now...

I don't care if it's the Catholic Church, Islamic Hadiths, government employees (like !@$!@'ing the UN officers literally raping kids for food), or fellow illegal immigrants. Anyone who does it needs to be held accountable and we need to, as a society, discuss and understand why it keeps happening so it doesn't happen again.

Or government employees like detention center staff handling illegal immigrants. :P Glad we're on the same page.

I don't disagree. We should address the exploitation of children in all forms. Or Hell, the exploitation of all vulnerable persons, regardless of their demographics. However, to address it we need to be rational about it. We cannot afford to let our emotions get the better of us.

We are animals. We are not some superior creation of an omnipotent being. It's probably unrealistic to expect that we can completely prevent it from ever happening. At least, if we can it will be in a very, very distant utopian future where there are no mental health problems (meaning, not only are mental health disorders quarantined in treatment facilities, but literally they don't even exist). I think that understanding it will require some very uncomfortable conversations that you do not sound ready to have. Which is not surprising because I think that most people are not ready to have them. Again, it's a very triggering subject.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Erasing borders is just about the worst thing you can do for your country's own security, and it allows the criminal scourge easier means to increase their territory. Free markets have been much better at creating wealth than redistribution of money, so provide people opportunity instead of cash for better results. For escaping a bad situation, making legal immigration easier is still my suggestion, but that is useless until illegal immigration is brought under control because you can't weed out the few bad apples spoiling the rest.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

...and it allows the criminal scourge easier means to increase their territory.

Last time I checked criminals were everywhere in North America, meaning Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. They're in every city. They're in every community. Hell, gangs run the prisons so if anybody is sent to prison for any reason they'll be forced to join a gang to stay alive. They're already in. The border does nothing for that.

raynebc said:

Free markets have been much better at creating wealth than redistribution of money, so provide people opportunity instead of cash for better results.

Who has attempted redistribution of wealth without corruption? It hasn't been done so we cannot know if it works or not. It's basically untested.

Free markets have generated lots of wealth for the top 1%. It hasn't done fuck all for the middle class. The more unethical and corrupt you are the better a free market is. The good of the people be damned. There's dollars to be made lying and cheating and stealing.

And where does that so called imaginary made up wealth go once it is accumulated? Well, it sits in offshore banks, and is distributed minimally to maintain power. It sure as fuck isn't making everyone wealthy. It sure as fuck isn't providing good paying jobs for everyone. It sure as fuck isn't making the middle class bigger and more stable. The middle class shrinks, the lower class grows, and the elite run the show from the safety of their secure towers.

raynebc said:

For escaping a bad situation, making legal immigration easier is still my suggestion, but that is useless until illegal immigration is brought under control because you can't weed out the few bad apples spoiling the rest.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Erasing the border you say would allow all the baddies in and erode "national security" (which wouldn't be a thing without borders anyway). Yet, you think the solution is to make immigration easier. Well, the only way to make it easier is to reduce the checks and balances. Effectively, make it easier for both good and bad people to get in. It's the same as dropping the borders. Or, it's just a meaningless fantasy without a real world definition.

If you make immigration easier there would be less illegal immigration by definition. More people would get in legitimately and so less people would get in illegitimately. It's a meaningless idea unless you can elaborate on how to, as you put it, "get it under control" and "weed out the few bad apples".

The system is broken by design. Money and power corrupts. Any system that is built on it will encourage corruption by definition. Money isn't a very good motivator to do good work when bad work pays better.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Securing the border reduces more incoming drugs and thugs, you should be able to understand that. Reducing illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration makes sure that the people who come here are not known bad actors. The people who are really refugees can get in more easily and the others allowed in would be those that are self-sufficient and will be a net benefit to the economy. Your claim about the only way to make legal immigration easier is to ease oversight is extremely wrong. I don't know why I bother to continue this conversation. The solution that's better for the USA is to vet the people coming in BEFORE they enter. If there is no way to verify who they are, and it's not clear they are refugees (who by global standards are supposed to go to the nearest country and not half-way around the world anyway), or they have no job prospects or job skills (can't provide for themselves and would become a public burden, a standard used by other countries as I understand it) they don't get in.

The old "real socialism has never been tried" claim is not convincing, giving that history has suggested people aren't pure enough to implement it without it burning to the ground with corruption. Without the 1%, just about nobody else (except government employees) would have jobs. The US is booming with jobs now, despite the previous administration trying to get us to settle for a "new normal" that was worse. You admit money and power corrupts, that's why focusing it all into federal government hands is a bad idea.

Edit: Venezuela is a cautionary tale for any other country foolish enough to adopt Socialism:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/02/28/oh-hey-venezuela-is-so-safe-the-second-in-command-is-smuggling-his-kids-to-chin-n2542389

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Any actual or potential implementation of socialism (workers owning the means of production) was met by a coup, assassination, or embargoes courtesy of the United States resulting in the rise of civil war or dictators and authoritarians favored by the United States.

You talk about the problem of illegal immigration: America helped make it worse by interfering in South America in the name of capitalism.

And it's lovely we forget Russia went from a rural, destitute country to a superpower, then fell back into mediocrity after the dissolution of the USSR. (I'm not fond [to put it lightly] of the USSR but you can't deny they were a superpower during the Cold War).

The Paris Commune (before it was squashed by the French Army) is a good example of communism.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

I'm no historian, but I don't see 2.5 months as being long enough for the natural evolution of Socialism to play out.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Yes it didn't last long... because it was squashed by the French Army.

You see a pattern? Any legitimate communist/socialist movement is interfered with by the United States (or some other country with similar interests). You're left with either populist movements wrongly named socialists or state capitalism or any other thing.

Show me a so-called socialist country where the workers own the means of production that is failing or failed of its own devices and I'll cede my argument.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Are you saying Socialism isn't robust enough to withstand global influences?

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

There is literally no country that could stand up to the United States so I'm not sure why you're specifically calling out socialist countries.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Or his argument just isn't particularly convincing. You two are basically saying there can never be a pure Socialist country as prosperous or powerful as the USA.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

There can never be a capitalist country as prosperous or powerful as the United States unless foreign policy makes a 180, either, and even then that's not guaranteed...

No other country possesses the natural resources, economic and military power, strategic location (i.e., the entirety of central North America), and other such qualities that would allow for it.

It's not because of capitalism...

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

So, you have you guys solved world problems yet?! LMFAO.... I'll continue to eat meat because I don't change my dietary habits based on a lie like global warming.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I don't change my dietary habits based on a lie like global warming.

For all that is sacred, educate yourself.

duck duck go search on 'ipcc is global warming real' yields plenty of evidence that global warming is real.

You'll see results from both sides, but reading results like this (https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause) and this (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-reiterates-global-warming-is-real/) should give you the clear idea that there is an active consensus in the scientific community that global warming and the resulting climate change are happening right now. Open your eyes man.

And before you start whining about sources, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Thousands and thousands of climate scientists agree the earth is warmer every year, the sea levels are at at least a local record, and carbon dioxide concentration is at record levels.

And before you think eating things like meat don't affect the world, google 'secondary consumer' before you speak again.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

There are also extremely smart YouTubers that break it down for you so it's super easy. You don't even need to read. It couldn't be any easier. Being ignorant in 2019 is just sad.

Append:

And also learning is fun.

On a side note, I think the idea of eating insects is totally interesting. It seems natural that they're way more efficient to produce than the meat that we normally consume. And some of them honestly even look pretty appetizing when they've been professionally prepared.

I've reached out to a few fringe sources for raw insects, but the price is steep right now in North America. It doesn't quite make sense yet. And also, I think I want my first experiences to be professionally prepared so I'll know how good it can be rather than being turned off with my own culinary failures.

I've eaten the dehydrated ones before. Pretty bland. And also pretty nutrition-less due to the dehydration process. But most of them were easy to eat though. I look forward to them becoming an economical solution in North America, but I think it'll require significant infrastructure failure and poverty before Americans will open their mind to the idea. Which means by the time it becomes feasible it may be too late. I suppose though it's an opportunity for people in the West to pioneer. But my wife is more picky than a 5 year old so I don't think I'd ever get her on board.

It's worth noting that insects have been a staple food for thousands of years in parts of the world, and there are food markets full of them in Asia. It's already happening now. It just hasn't caught on here.

Cattle are pretty terrible for the environment, and the kicker is they're also terrible for our health. They can be damn tasty though.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

Indeed, being ignorant in 2019 is very sad. I agree... the question is, who is the ignorant ones here. You say I am... I say you have fallen for propaganda. But I won't get sucked into the debate. Believe whatever you wish, that is your right, but don't try forcing your shit onto me, I'm not buying it. And there's plenty of evidence against it as well which i am sure none of you will ever listen to.

I'll continue to eat meat. Nobody will convince me that cow farts are dangerous! LMFAO... wow... what a world. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

All evidence actually points to meat being very healthy for us. I won't quote sources because I am sure nobody in these liberal, socialist, brainwashed forums gives a damn about the truth.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Nice source Neil - did you read this part?

Quote:

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

EDIT
We need a dose of 23. https://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/135565

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Quote:

If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years

Mark Twain had something to say about that.

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

Educate yourselves from REAL scientists who have actually studied this...

video

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Mark Twain had something to say about that

Oh no, my argument has been cut in Twain!

Neil Roy said:

Educate yourselves from REAL scientists who have actually studied this...

I watched about half of your video so far.

Perhaps CO^2 isn't as major a player in global temperature as some think, but there's no arguiing that the CO^2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest levels in the last million years. The truth is we don't know what effect that will have on the temperature, the climate, and the weather.

The truth is the sea levels are rising, and so is the temperature. Perhaps the majority of the blame is on solar radiation, but that doesn't mean the atmosphere doesn't affect it. When the temperature rises, that is an increase in energy in the atmosphere, and it is reflected by an increase in storms and severe weather. The temperature of the ocean drives global weather whether you like it or not.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists (including one of the scientists interviewed in the film and one whose research was used to support the film's claims[6][7]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[7][8][9][10]

Sounds like a very trustworthy source of information. ;D

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

If we want to talk about switching from coal/oil/gas to nuclear until the favored green technologies are ready to drive the ENTIRE country's power needs 24/7, we can do that. Setting a deadline of using only green energy in a decade like the more extreme Democrats want is a pipe dream.

Post Reply


Go to: