Paris: Charlie Hebdo shooting

Babun wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:No worries amigo glad you understand.

What you present is quite impractical if I think of it from a surface point of view but clearly a necessity and one that must be done sooner than later. Having closely spoken to photographer James Balog once who documents the decline of glaciers it is obvious what is occurring in such regions including the north.


Im more interested in what you see happening for original homeland in South Asia as what will occur specifically in that region, and what do you suggest as a solution for there?

Change of the timing, the amount of rainfall and its distribution are enough to cause famine for millions of people. What the deniers don't understand is the weather doesn't have to warm up all around the globe, the turbulences caused by the excess of energy (yes, there're more than warmth energy and almost all of them derive from the sunlight one way or another) can create havoc, famine, ice ages etc. all at the same time.

Being a former denier earlier in the last decade what you say really is the clinching point in what deniers need to understand, regardless of their point on things like Solar radiation and what not. Agreed.

Art Morte wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:
Genuine question for you beyond all this; What are your current apprehensions and fear for your land in the coming inevitable globalism? This is in the light assumption you may have one but what do you propose should occur within Western to Northern Europe in terms of control or balance in Multi culturalism? What is your ultimate desire of what is to occur?

I'm relaxed about Finland's situation when it comes to multiculturalism; I don't think it's going to get bad in my life time (and I don't live in Helsinki). I'm not against multiculturalism because I fear for Finland; I'm against it because of so many examples of badly failed multiculturalism globally.

Ultimately I think immigration should be based on a points system that's based on cultural & social anthropology; Universities around the world studying the cultural and social differences of nations and ethnic groups. Ideally a United Nations funded and observed continuous study that's purely scientific, i.e. independent from political and other influences. Up to each country, then, to use these anthropological results to decide what kind of immigration policy they want to implement.

Obviously this won't happen, because anything that goes against the rose-tinted thinking of our times that all groups of people should be able to co-exist with each other without problems is declared racist on the spot. So, this "eyes wide shut" pretending that multicultural and multiracial societies will come good and truly successfully integrate any time now goes on.

It is indeed vastly overplayed similar to how Communism is now pushed by college students fresh out of their pol sci hall classes.


I generally agree with your points as the long term benefits are innumerable by multiculturalism but a degree of screening and control I feel should be implemented. The world suffers from overpopulation but a recent demographics expert I spoke to spoke of how it will go down at a mild decline, but that is another point.


As sound as your points are the globalism incline is inevitable and each country will follow suit to one another and have been. Of course you to me even will be met with more ad hominem over such light points, not that I care, but multiculturalism benefits a country depending on how it is utilised, not just by free import of any demographic without any implementation of their situation.

Arquitecto wrote:

Im more interested in what you see happening for original homeland in South Asia as what will occur specifically in that region, and what do you suggest as a solution for there?

You tell me Arq, what is a "original homeland"?

What is South Asia?

It took 85 million deaths for Europe to help each other, for XX types of white people to relate as one race and maybe even look different unlike Europe? What comes under South Asia? How can every South Asian ultimately be similar?

Immigration is based on colonialism. There is a reason why Indians don't move to Poland and the same reason Algerians don't move to England. We need to understand how Colonialism has killed our nations, and why we look to you for solutions. Half of our countries are younger than your grandpapa and grandmama. This is equal to the migration flow.

So just trying to understand how "South Asia" can answer your question here, and how I can answer for 30,000 languages and different religions here. Hell I can't comfortably travel, party, take my family out within my own country without knowing 7-8 languages. I gotta speak English within India as an Indian and that works 35% for the places, oh welcome to our lives. Do you move this to South Asia now?

Maybe this is more to understand how EU start ups make money? But I am surprised if people don't know what we face within our country lol. Time to post links of Geography now on youtube.

Nish god damn amigo Im merely asking what or how should the population in South Asia and more specifically India, adapt to the global warming spectrum Nothing to do with the immigration or global population shift its a question because I know that you would know as if you're offended (somehow) I apologise.

My question is India as of course South Asia has a variable temp given North India or North East Pakistan etc.

But more specifically I mean South of India places like Rajasthan to Punjab to Maharashtra to the obvious places where it has a tropical climate and not many options.


Thats more my question.

The firm that invented the #Pfizer vaccine, Biontech, is a German medical startup founded by the children of Turkish #immigrants: Özlem Türeci (CMO) and Uğur Şahin (CEO). pic.twitter.com/KtrPjnWCTz

— Christian Odendahl (@COdendahl) November 9, 2020

For anyone looking for concrete examples of how 'multiculturalism' benefits society at large, look no further.

Tip of the hat, BC!

I'm not trying to argue for either side, but this is kinda like saying look at football teams and the diversity within them and exhibiting that as an example of multicultarism gone right. But footballers are rich/privileged people so that kinda doesnt apply. Surely if someone argues against they don't have in mind millionaires.

And again i'm just trying to play devils advocate at most, btw imo multiculturalism is of course the future regardless what anyone thinks with open borders it is inevitable and to me the only barrier should be language.

Multiculturalism and diversity has its advantages. However nobody will convince me it's a necessity.

Got the feeling it's being shoved down my throat, so i have bittersweet views on these concepts, while ultimately i support inclusion and sharing

Myesyats wrote:I'm not trying to argue for either side, but this is kinda like saying look at football teams and the diversity within them and exhibiting that as an example of multicultarism gone right. But footballers are rich/privileged people so that kinda doesnt apply. Surely if someone argues against they don't have in mind millionaires.

And again i'm just trying to play devils advocate at most, btw imo multiculturalism is of course the future regardless what anyone thinks with open borders it is inevitable and to me the only barrier should be language.

one of their parents that emigrated had a "lowly" job of working at a car factory. It's not like these founders were very privileged people. They hussled and made the most of the opportunities that Germany offered.

It's a pretty well understood fact that immigrants make up a disproportionate amount of entrepreneurs, for a wide variety of reasons, and that helps countries remain at the cutting edge of technology.

isn't that the famous "brain drain"? sure there are many immigrants who are brilliant people and their talents are not awarded accordingly in 3rd world countries so they come to US/EU.

And thats also probably why many 3rd world countries stay in the 3rd world, because the best and most intelligent people keep leaving.

It's not brain drain, their parents emigrated as low-skilled workers and they studied in Germany, and stayed in Germany.

Sure but BC's "entrepreneurs" statistic must also account for other types of cases such as skilled uni graduates migrating to get better pay, the kind of person that'd succeed anywhere. They are all lumped in together in those stats.

Eh, a lot of those would not succeed anywhere. A country needs to provide the right foundations for an idea to thrive. In Argentina (for example) the effective corporate tax rate is 110%, which is leading to an exodus of firms as they literally cannot operate at a profit. Doesn't matter how good an idea you have in this context, you won't be able to turn it into a viable business. This is an extreme example of course, but it's illustrative.

Arquitecto wrote:Nish god damn amigo Im merely asking what or how should the population in South Asia and more specifically India, adapt to the global warming spectrum Nothing to do with the immigration or global population shift its a question because I know that you would know as if you're offended (somehow) I apologise.

My question is India as of course South Asia has a variable temp given North India or North East Pakistan etc.

But more specifically I mean South of India places like Rajasthan to Punjab to Maharashtra to the obvious places where it has a tropical climate and not many options.


Thats more my question.

Sorry Arq, I haven't been eloquent enough and answering you based on what I said will only digress from the topic because of my posts before, so I again apologize. The issue at hand is how do governments solve bombings on Kabul, Baghdad and killing within Syria while making sure we don't have terrorist attacks in USA, Europe or India for that matter. Let's stick to answering this question.