Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[San Lumen]

In my opinion, Multiculturalism is not necessarily a bad thing, only so long as different Cultures of the different people in a country do not get into fights. (For example, many countries have more than one culture in them, not even counting the refugees. Northern Iran, Western Iran, and Iranian Kurdistan don't have the similar culture, and they're all "iranian")
but, in the matter of Immigrants and Refugees...
well, for one thing, Refugees/Asylum Seekers should be forced to at the very least respect the host culture. it doesn't make sense for a middle eastern person to escape Middle east to France, and then expect France to conform to his home culture.

Respecting the host culture is something i agree with but how are you going to force them?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Quebec is basically bribed by the rest of Canada to not secede (which isn't illegal in Canada!), and by the "rest of Canada" I mean "Alberta."

[El-Amin Caliphate]

In my opinion, Multiculturalism is not necessarily a bad thing, only so long as different Cultures of the different people in a country do not get into fights. (For example, many countries have more than one culture in them, not even counting the refugees. Northern Iran, Western Iran, and Iranian Kurdistan don't have the similar culture, and they're all "iranian")
but, in the matter of Immigrants and Refugees...
well, for one thing, Refugees/Asylum Seekers should be forced to at the very least respect the host culture. it doesn't make sense for a middle eastern person to escape Middle east to France, and then expect France to conform to his home culture.

Respecting the host culture is something i agree with but how are you going to force them?

If by 'respect the host culture' he/she means 'not breaking host country's laws', then forcing them would be putting them in jail for breaking the law.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

(which isn't illegal in Canada!)

and by the "rest of Canada" I mean "Alberta."

Why? Is Alberta the influential powerhouse of Canada?

[San Lumen]

Respecting the host culture is something i agree with but how are you going to force them?

If by 'respect the host culture' he/she means 'not breaking host country's laws', then forcing them would be putting them in jail for breaking the law.

Well I don't disagree with that if that's what Pilarcraft means

[Taihei Tengoku]

(which isn't illegal in Canada!)

:shock:

and by the "rest of Canada" I mean "Alberta."

Why? Is Alberta the influential powerhouse of Canada?

Well it's "Alberta and BC" but Alberta has oil money like you wouldn't believe and is the wealthiest Canadian province. There are other net contributors like Sask and N&L but they're tiny. The first two provinces provide the equalization payments to the great mass of Canada, of which Quebec gets the majority.

[Pilarcraft]

If by 'respect the host culture' he/she means 'not breaking host country's laws', then forcing them would be putting them in jail for breaking the law.

Well I don't disagree with that if that's what Pilarcraft means

well, for certain if they break a law, it's off to the jail for them (For specific crimes I think you should just boot them out. I mean, if they're committing a crime that horrible the host nation shouldn't be forced to waste tax money to keep them in jail.)

[Socialist Czechia]

So a muslim dude attacks people with hammer or knife, but it's totally not a terrorist attack: they're all mentally ill

Brilliant. Now it's a brand new level of denial.

[Kubumba Tribe]

So a muslim dude attacks people with hammer or knife, but it's totally not a terrorist attack: they're all mentally ill

Brilliant. Now it's a brand new level of denial.

They do that for white people who do mess like this, why not Muslims? /s

Also, hammer and knife attacks aren't terroristic, that's just a killing spree.

[Socialist Czechia]

Not when you are yelling 'Allah akbar' or similar stuff. Of course, terrorism demands always some level of madness, but it's still a terrorism.

We should just perhaps redefy what is 'terrorism', precisely: being lone wolf without any direct connection is still a 'legit' terrorist.
Was Breivik also a terrorist? Yes. Is he mad? Yes, he is.

Madness is no excuse, in any case.

[New haven america]

Not when you are yelling 'Allah akbar' or similar stuff. Of course, terrorism demands always some level of madness, but it's still a terrorism.

We should just perhaps redefy what is 'terrorism', precisely: being lone wolf without any direct connection is still a 'legit' terrorist.
Was Breivik also a terrorist? Yes. Is he mad? Yes, he is.

Madness is no excuse, in any case.

The amount of times I've heard/read people make this mistake is getting too ridiculous.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Not when you are yelling 'Allah akbar' or similar stuff.

Lol didn't say it right

We should just perhaps redefy what is 'terrorism', precisely: being lone wolf without any direct connection is still a 'legit' terrorist.

Lone wolf terrorists are still terrorists, but they have to do it for a political, religious, both, or similar reason

[The of Japan]

Not when you are yelling 'Allah akbar' or similar stuff.

Lol didn't say it right

We should just perhaps redefy what is 'terrorism', precisely: being lone wolf without any direct connection is still a 'legit' terrorist.

Lone wolf terrorists are still terrorists, but they have to do it for a political, religious, both, or similar reason

one of the first "lone wolves" was timothy McVeigh.

[Farnhamia]

Lol didn't say it right

Lone wolf terrorists are still terrorists, but they have to do it for a political, religious, both, or similar reason

one of the first "lone wolves" was timothy McVeigh.

Who worked with Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier.

[The of Japan]

one of the first "lone wolves" was timothy McVeigh.

Who worked with Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier.

they weren't being supplied and trained by any significant group.

[San Lumen]

Who worked with Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier.

they weren't being supplied and trained by any significant group.

What are you talking about?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Studies which all ignore the NPV of future entitlements. You can make a profit out of immigrants when they're all young and other countries paid to educate them. Just as you can get fat eating seed corn.

This is a case against having children, with their expensive educations and ever-lengthening retirements.

Against having low value children, yes. It's not an argument against net taxpayers having children. Who is having most of the children in the US?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

low value children

That's dehumanizing

Who is having most of the children in the US?

I think this'll help

[San Lumen]

This is a case against having children, with their expensive educations and ever-lengthening retirements.

Against having low value children, yes. It's not an argument against net taxpayers having children. Who is having most of the children in the US?

What are you talking about?

[Soton Seas]

Against having low value children, yes. It's not an argument against net taxpayers having children. Who is having most of the children in the US?

What are you talking about?

How can you have a difficulty seeing his point?

He says that net taxpayers will generally produce a net positive effect on the treasury should they have children, whereas quite obviously negative or margin taxpayers will not have the same effect, and hence they will produce low value children. Children in the US disproportionately come from the latter groups' households.

Moreover all studies showing immigrants are generally positive on the treasury ignore net present value regarding the rest of their life and focus on the short to medium term, or at most their remaining working life.

[Zakuvia]

To build on Soton's clarification, the idea is that children of low-income parents will typically not become high earners themselves, or that so few will that their net gains will be swallowed up by the losses that large amounts of low-income earning children will accrue.

It's the market outcome nightmare. You can't just walk up to poor people and tell them to stop having babies, but it's also nearly impossible to magic income out of nowhere for them and their children to not be a drain on tax revenue. The cycle continues until the nation is broke and either becomes insolvent, is annexed, or goes to war.

(My money's on the latter.)

[The Sauganash Union]

In my opinion, Multiculturalism is not necessarily a bad thing, only so long as different Cultures of the different people in a country do not get into fights. (For example, many countries have more than one culture in them, not even counting the refugees. Northern Iran, Western Iran, and Iranian Kurdistan don't have the similar culture, and they're all "iranian")
but, in the matter of Immigrants and Refugees...
well, for one thing, Refugees/Asylum Seekers should be forced to at the very least respect the host culture. it doesn't make sense for a middle eastern person to escape Middle east to France, and then expect France to conform to his home culture.

Respecting the host culture is something i agree with but how are you going to force them?

By telling them they'll be deported if they don't play ball.

[The Sauganash Union]

What are you talking about?

How can you have a difficulty seeing his point?

He says that net taxpayers will generally produce a net positive effect on the treasury should they have children, whereas quite obviously negative or margin taxpayers will not have the same effect, and hence they will produce low value children. Children in the US disproportionately come from the latter groups' households.

Moreover all studies showing immigrants are generally positive on the treasury ignore net present value regarding the rest of their life and focus on the short to medium term, or at most their remaining working life.

Run a DCF on the PV of all future tax payments of the children of immigrants, losers, and bums.

[Infected Mushroom]

Maintaining a homogenous society is generally good for law and order.

Diversity can lead to higher crime rates from the conflicts and the influx of refugees and the poor from such policies.

[The Sauganash Union]

Maintaining a homogenous society is generally good for law and order.

Diversity can lead to higher crime rates from the conflicts and the influx of refugees and the poor from such policies.

This. Also increasing the amount of poor people does not help with wealth inequality.