Immigration, Explained with Gumballs

[Svnla]

I don't have an agenda. I'm pointing out that your stance is eugenics, supported by your own statements as well as the webster's dictionary's definition of Eugenics:

Now, I cannot force you to use logic or reason to examine your own statements, and there's no 'link to web sources' which points out that on 10APR2017, Svnla made a statement supporting the usage of eugenics for furthering the united states. That doesn't change the fact that it did indeed happen. There's no 'picking and choosing' going on here, you made a statement, singular, which had a single, very specific meaning. Still not seeing how you can attempt to defend that by re-interpreting what your own statement said.

What you said so far is "your own opinion" of my statement. Because you still haven't quote anything in my own words that support your allegation. Keep spinning and using that big brush.

No pick and choose from you? Oh really? This is what I said..."pick and choose the best for the future of the US, ie. smart ones such as"

Yet you ONLY picked the part of "smart ones" because it fits better to your agenda and allegation. LOL.

Wanna try again?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What you said so far is "your own opinion" of my statement. Because you still haven't quote anything in my own words that support your allegation. Keep spinning and using that big brush.

My opinion? We went through this already. Your statement is describing eugenics. This one right here:

I am all for LEGAL immigration as long as we pick and choose the best for the future of the US, ie. smart ones such as Elon Mush (LEGAL immigrant), Andy Groove (LEGAL immigrant), Sergey Brin (LEGAL immigrant).

That is choosing to take in the genetically superior persons and rejecting the inferior ones, even within the legal bounds of our immigration system. This isn't an opinion, or an interpretation, that's what you specifically said, right there.

If that is not what you meant, you should have either a) worded it differently, or b) corrected yourself later. Given that you've doubled down about 30 times in this thread, I can only presume that you don't intend to correct or clarify yourself, and thus you do support this stance as stated.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What you said so far is "your own opinion" of my statement. Because you still haven't quote anything in my own words that support your allegation. Keep spinning and using that big brush.

No pick and choose from you? Oh really? This is what I said..."pick and choose the best for the future of the US, ie. smart ones such as"

Yet you ONLY picked the part of "smart ones" because it fits better to your agenda and allegation. LOL.

Wanna try again?

You provided a single example, 'smart ones'. That implies that your primary meaning of 'pick and choose the best for the future of the US' is 'smart ones', aka the genetically superior examples. If you had said 'the talented ones' or 'the well trained ones' or even 'the well learned ones' (which is still borderline elitist but not eugenics at least), that would have been different. You stated 'smart ones', intelligence is defined by biology which is defined by genes, ergo genetics and eugenics.

 

[Svnla]

My opinion? We went through this already. Your statement is describing eugenics. This one right here:

That is choosing to take in the genetically superior persons and rejecting the inferior ones, even within the legal bounds of our immigration system. This isn't an opinion, or an interpretation, that's what you specifically said, right there.

If that is not what you meant, you should have either a) worded it differently, or b) corrected yourself later. Given that you've doubled down about 30 times in this thread, I can only presume that you don't intend to correct or clarify yourself, and thus you do support this stance as stated.

I need to word what I write so my words won't offense snowflakes like you?

Ok, I will get right on it......nah, nope. In a billion years? Nope.

I said what I need to say and I will stand by it. You can pick and choose (as you did above) to fit to your allegation. Knock yourself out.

You provided a single example, 'smart ones'. That implies that your primary meaning of 'pick and choose the best for the future of the US' is 'smart ones', aka the genetically superior examples. If you had said 'the talented ones' or 'the well trained ones' or even 'the well learned ones' (which is still borderline elitist but not eugenics at least), that would have been different. You stated 'smart ones', intelligence is defined by biology which is defined by genes, ergo genetics and eugenics.

Just like the old saying, keep digging and sooner or later, you will find something to be offense/upset by. So keep digging pardner. Oh, don't forget to bring the big brush with you. LOL.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I need to word what I write so my words won't offense snowflakes like you?

Ok, I will get right on it......nah, nope. In a billion years? Nope.

I said what I need to say and I will stand by it. You can pick and choose (as you did above) to fit to your allegation. Knock yourself out.



Just like the old saying, keep digging and sooner or later, you will find something to be offense/upset by. So keep digging pardner. Oh, don't forget to bring the big brush with you. LOL.

Glad to see you've devolved into flinging out 'snowflake' in an attempt to offend, or at minimum to discredit. You haven't offended me or, near as I can tell, anyone else. Still doesn't change what you said, still doesn't change what your message was, and still doesn't change the fact that you've totally missed the point of my posts in this thread and have chosen to interpret it as me being 'offended'. So keep on keepin' on.

 

[Svnla]

Glad to see you've devolved into flinging out 'snowflake' in an attempt to offend, or at minimum to discredit. You haven't offended me or, near as I can tell, anyone else. Still doesn't change what you said, still doesn't change what your message was, and still doesn't change the fact that you've totally missed the point of my posts in this thread and have chosen to interpret it as me being 'offended'. So keep on keepin' on.

Once again. I said what I need to say. You can pick and choose (as you did above) the bits and pieces of what I said to fit to your narrative, agenda, allegation. It does not matter because I will not change what I said because I NEVER said what you alleged that I said.

Not sure what else I can do to explain myself better.

And you were saying something about " totally missed the point"? Uh huh.

So my boss comes in and says to me... "I need you to pick out the best items in this box to they can be best use for our operation later". Darn, the boss is saying things about "eugenics". LOL. Using the big broad brush is fun indeed.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Once again. I said what I need to say. You can pick and choose (as you did above) the bits and pieces of what I said to fit to your narrative, agenda, allegation. It does not matter because I will not change what I said because I NEVER said what you alleged that I said.

Not sure what else I can do to explain myself better.

And you were saying something about " totally missed the point"? Uh huh.

My point was, that even if your message wasn't intended to be 'I support eugenics as a practice to improve my country', that is indeed what the message was to anyone who understands such things. You seemed to think that I got personally offended by it, which is silly. Instead of focusing on what I was saying, and looking at what you stated, you've instead chosen to tirade against me 'picking and choosing' (which is just another way of saying 'picking on me') what you said to fit some perceived narrative which doesn't exist. You said what I quoted, that has a definition. You don't have to see it that way, but others likely will (as others have in this thread, and no, they aren't 'snowflakes' for it). You don't care that they see it that way, you only care about a) your message, and b) your pride (or at minimum, being bullheaded).

 

[Svnla]

My point was, that even if your message wasn't intended to be 'I support eugenics as a practice to improve my country', that is indeed what the message was to anyone who understands such things. You seemed to think that I got personally offended by it, which is silly. Instead of focusing on what I was saying, and looking at what you stated, you've instead chosen to tirade against me 'picking and choosing' (which is just another way of saying 'picking on me') what you said to fit some perceived narrative which doesn't exist. You said what I quoted, that has a definition. You don't have to see it that way, but others likely will (as others have in this thread, and no, they aren't 'snowflakes' for it). You don't care that they see it that way, you only care about a) your message, and b) your pride (or at minimum, being bullheaded).

You can make any allegations/accusations as you want. It does not matter to me one bit. Why? Because I never said it (expressed or implied) and I already explained to you more than one. PERIOD.

Are we clear now or you want to rant on?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You can make any allegations/accusations as you want. It does not matter to me one bit. Why? Because I never said it (expressed or implied. PERIOD.

Are we clear now or you want to rant on?

As there's obviously nothing that can be said which can make you see this from a point of view beyond your own, yes, I would say we're as clear on each other's stance as we are going to be.

 

[Svnla]

As there's obviously nothing that can be said which can make you see this from a point of view beyond your own, yes, I would say we're as clear on each other's stance as we are going to be.

One more thing.

You said this ""'Instead of focusing on what I was saying, and looking at what you stated, you've instead chosen to tirade against me picking and choosing' (which is just another way of saying 'picking on me)'"

I do have to give you point on being full of it.

Where did I say you were picking on little poor me? When I said you picked and chose bits and pieces from my posts, I mean you did not quote the whole thing, just parts that better suite to your narrative and allegation. NOTHING about you picking on me.

That's your problem right there. You read something in my post(s) that you "THINK" I say but I never said it, expressed or implied.

Before you reply, go ahead and quote my exact words that you were "picking on me" as you stated.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

One more thing.

You said this ""'Instead of focusing on what I was saying, and looking at what you stated, you've instead chosen to tirade against me picking and choosing' (which is just another way of saying 'picking on me)'"

I do have to give you point on being full of it.

Where did I say you were picking on little poor me? When I said you picked and chose bits and pieces from my posts, I mean you did not quote the whole thing, just parts that better suite to your narrative and allegation. NOTHING about you picking on me.

That's your problem right there. You read something in my post(s) that you "THINK" I say but I never said it, expressed or implied"

Before you reply, go ahead and quote my exact words that you were "picking on me" as you stated.

You're still reaching back to a supposed narrative/stance I'm pushing. I'm not, and never was. I've only ever defined what you were stating, within the context of how you were stating it. You bounced between 'that's not what I said' and 'you're taking what I said out of context' enough that it looked, to me, very much as though you were feeling picked on and/or cornered. In the past when I've seen people act this way, it generally meant the same thing. If that's not the case, then fine.

As for quote, I'm not going to quote every instance where you brought up me 'picking and choosing' (which is what I was referencing) because there's a dozen of 'em in this thread, and it won't do anything to further this conversation. Note that this is not retreating, just not spending cycles fighting with quote tags and formatting.

 

[Svnla]

You're still reaching back to a supposed narrative/stance I'm pushing. I'm not, and never was. I've only ever defined what you were stating, within the context of how you were stating it. You bounced between 'that's not what I said' and 'you're taking what I said out of context' enough that it looked, to me, very much as though you were feeling picked on and/or cornered. In the past when I've seen people act this way, it generally meant the same thing. If that's not the case, then fine.

As for quote, I'm not going to quote every instance where you brought up me 'picking and choosing' (which is what I was referencing) because there's a dozen of 'em in this thread, and it won't do anything to further this conversation. Note that this is not retreating, just not spending cycles fighting with quote tags and formatting.

I do not have a problem to debate with you or anyone. I have a problem to debate with you (or anyone) that make allegation(s) about me that I never said, expressed or implied. You are not alone. Scroll up and see how a poster made the allegation of "sub par" as I said it and I am still waiting for him to quote my exact words that I said it. So far, no luck.

That's why I asked you and others (in other posts in this thread) that quote my exact words to support the allegation(s). Not because I want to be difficult or be a smart ass but I want to see where the heck do you guys get those allegation(s) from.

Not sure why it is so hard to understand for you guys.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I do not have a problem to debate with you or anyone. I have a problem to debate with you (or anyone) that make allegation(s) about me that I never said, expressed or implied. You are not alone. Scroll up and see how a poster made the allegation of "sub par" as I said it and I am still waiting for him to quote my exact words that I said it. So far, no luck.

That's why I asked you and others (in other posts in this thread) that quote my exact words to support the allegation(s). Not because I want to be difficult or be a smart ass but I want to see where the heck do you guys get those allegation(s) from.

Not sure why it is so hard to understand for you guys.

Assuming you're genuinely not trolling, and that this really is a matter of not understanding each other, here's how it appears to me (and potentially others, I cannot vouch for them).

I am all for LEGAL immigration as long as we pick and choose the best for the future of the US, ie. smart ones such as Elon Mush (LEGAL immigrant), Andy Groove (LEGAL immigrant), Sergey Brin (LEGAL immigrant).

In this statement, over-archingly, you're stating that you support legal immigration (and by virtue, do not support illegal immigration), something I'm sure most won't disagree with. You then state 'as long as we pick and choose the best for the future of the US', this one you might get some detractors for, as our country was founded on the principles of openness and acceptance for all. Now, there's nothing strictly wrong with that, it's more of an opinion on what's best for the US as a whole. Basically, should we let in only the best ('ivory tower' ourselves) or let in everyone (melting-pot scenario). Some support one way, some support another, whatever. Now, the definition of 'best' is where things get tricky. If you say the best as in, the best programmers from India, that likely means the most highly trained, most skilled, most experienced, whatever. Again, some may have complaints about choosing the best in this fashion as it creates a knowledge vacuum everywhere else, and makes America very insular as a result, but that's still just an opinion and navel-gazing.

The big point of contention came up with your specific example of what you feel is the 'best for our future of the US', you used 'smart' as the example, then listed some presumably smart legal immigrants (which I don't think anyone would argue). The 'smart' qualifier, specifically, indicates intelligence, which is a factor of biology/genetics. If you did not mean for it to, that should have been corrected/clarified. This, though, is the way I saw how this information and your stance was presented. Now I'm perfectly willing to accept that I don't know what you were thinking, I can only interpret what you said, but the onus is on you to present information in the way you wish for it to be interpreted. If you had said 'f those genetically inferior immigrants' then stated 'no, I meant that the US should only invite in the most highly trained', it would be a more obtuse example but look just as absurd (to me).

Again, I can only speak for myself in these matters, and it'd be good if the previous poster who attempted to call you out on this to elaborate further so more than two points of view could be seen here, but this is how the information came across to me.

 

[Crumpet]

Guys... that video is old as shit.

I saw that years ago O-o

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Guys... that video is old as shit.

I saw that years ago O-o

Lol, this thread hasn't been about that video since post #3 (as per normal for P&N).

 

[Crumpet]

Lol, this thread hasn't been about that video since post #3 (as per normal for P&N).

Oh. Fair enough.

My opinion on immigration in general is pretty simple..

If we continue to go around blowing up peoples homes, or giving weapons to other people to let them blow up peoples homes, I think it only fair we give them somewhere to stay.

Don't want immigrants? Stop blowing up their #@$%*&! homes.

 

[Amused]

Guys... that video is old as shit.

I saw that years ago O-o

The discussion of the video ended in two pages.

First, it was shown the video argues against a strawman and does not address immigration policy in the U.S in the slightest.

Second, it was shown the video's creator is part of a group of anti-immigration "orgs"started and managed by a rabid racist associated with the Klan and White nationalist groups.

After that, the video became irrelevant and people started discussing their own justifications for being pro-or anti-immigration.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Oh. Fair enough.

My opinion on immigration in general is pretty simple..

If we continue to go around blowing up peoples homes, or giving weapons to other people to let them blow up peoples homes, I think it only fair we give them somewhere to stay.

Don't want immigrants? Stop blowing up their #@$%*&! homes.

Might apply if we personally threw them on a boat and rode them up to the NYC marina. As it stands most of those getting their place blown up by us end up in the EU somewhere which doesn't help our case much when we complain about 'too many immigrants', IMO.

 

[Svnla]

Assuming you're genuinely not trolling, and that this really is a matter of not understanding each other, here's how it appears to me (and potentially others, I cannot vouch for them).



In this statement, over-archingly, you're stating that you support legal immigration (and by virtue, do not support illegal immigration), something I'm sure most won't disagree with. You then state 'as long as we pick and choose the best for the future of the US', this one you might get some detractors for, as our country was founded on the principles of openness and acceptance for all. Now, there's nothing strictly wrong with that, it's more of an opinion on what's best for the US as a whole. Basically, should we let in only the best ('ivory tower' ourselves) or let in everyone (melting-pot scenario). Some support one way, some support another, whatever. Now, the definition of 'best' is where things get tricky. If you say the best as in, the best programmers from India, that likely means the most highly trained, most skilled, most experienced, whatever. Again, some may have complaints about choosing the best in this fashion as it creates a knowledge vacuum everywhere else, and makes America very insular as a result, but that's still just an opinion and navel-gazing.

The big point of contention came up with your specific example of what you feel is the 'best for our future of the US', you used 'smart' as the example, then listed some presumably smart legal immigrants (which I don't think anyone would argue). The 'smart' qualifier, specifically, indicates intelligence, which is a factor of biology/genetics. If you did not mean for it to, that should have been corrected/clarified. This, though, is the way I saw how this information and your stance was presented. Now I'm perfectly willing to accept that I don't know what you were thinking, I can only interpret what you said, but the onus is on you to present information in the way you wish for it to be interpreted. If you had said 'f those genetically inferior immigrants' then stated 'no, I meant that the US should only invite in the most highly trained', it would be a more obtuse example but look just as absurd (to me).

Again, I can only speak for myself in these matters, and it'd be good if the previous poster who attempted to call you out on this to elaborate further so more than two points of view could be seen here, but this is how the information came across to me.

I will reply to the bold/underline parts on your long post.

"The US was found"...note the word "was". What we do need now is smart and highly skilled people for the US economy (present and future). See my two articles above that support my point.

I already provided a quote what "best" mean. Not sure why it is tricky for you to understand.

I used well know LEGAL immigrants to make my points because they are well know. That's exactly my point. Not because I am "biased/discriminated" of the not well know folks. (wanna tell that upfront or someone would make allegations that I am biased of the not well know folks..LOL).

Again, you keep on dwelling about one single word of "smart" and based your whole argument of "eugenics". You don't think it is "absurd"? Really?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I will reply to the bold/underline parts on your long post.

"The US was found"...note the word "was". What we do need now is smart and highly skilled people for the US economy (present and future). See my two articles above that support my point.

I already provided a quote what "best" mean. Not sure why it is tricky for you to understand.

I used well know LEGAL immigrants to make my points because they are well know. That's exactly my point.

Again, you keep on dwelling about one single word of "smart" and based your whole argument of "eugenics". You don't think it is "absurd"? Really?

Personally, no, I don't think it's absurd because of my understanding of a) eugenics and b) biology. Greater things have hinged on a single word as well (such as like 75% of anything contentious related to religion), so these are not trivial things. Our language is how we define what our senses derive, how we interpret our world, how we think, feel, etc. A single word can mean everything.

I'm presuming that your statement of 'what "best" meant' was referencing the articles which talked about highly skilled, talented, etc people. If this is what you meant by best, I don't understand why you wouldn't clarify that but instead double-down on 'smart' to the point of arguing for ... 4? pages now with people on 'what you meant'.

Again, this is clearly not something we're going to come to a consensus on, either because we are viewing this differently, or we have extremely different opinions on the topic of immigration/integration of humanity as a whole (depending on how you're looking at this).

 

[Svnla]

Personally, no, I don't think it's absurd because of my understanding of a) eugenics and b) biology. Greater things have hinged on a single word as well (such as like 75% of anything contentious related to religion), so these are not trivial things. Our language is how we define what our senses derive, how we interpret our world, how we think, feel, etc. A single word can mean everything.

I'm presuming that your statement of 'what "best" meant' was referencing the articles which talked about highly skilled, talented, etc people. If this is what you meant by best, I don't understand why you wouldn't clarify that but instead double-down on 'smart' to the point of arguing for ... 4? pages now with people on 'what you meant'.

Again, this is clearly not something we're going to come to a consensus on, either because we are viewing this differently, or we have extremely different opinions on the topic of immigration/integration of humanity as a whole (depending on how you're looking at this).

Let me say it again, I want the best, smart, high skill, business savvy, ability to find the cure for AIDS/cancer, solving problems for human kind such as clean water, healthy foods, clean power, faster internet speed <insert more good stuffs here> (regardless of background/creed/nationality/sex/gender/sexual preference/whatever) people here in the US to help us in the present and future. Period.

Just as I said in my previous post in this thread, if you are the founder of a start up, would you want to have the "best" folks to work for you and help you to build up the company to be the best it can be?

Not sure why it has anything to do with your whole argument of "eugenics". One more thing, I do not play semantic game.

 

[Crumpet]

Might apply if we personally threw them on a boat and rode them up to the NYC marina. As it stands most of those getting their place blown up by us end up in the EU somewhere which doesn't help our case much when we complain about 'too many immigrants', IMO.

I'm in the EU somewhere hahahaa.

Hey I don't mind.. A lot of these people coming in from Syria and other such places have doctorates, or are skilled dentists, or are simply hardworking etc.

Yeah apparently a couple of them are deluded rapists and thieves.. But they're moving to countries that already have those in the droves so.. Big woop.

My country has over 610,000 empty houses, many of them have been empty for years. But hey lets not have facts get in the way of a good news headline.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm in the EU somewhere hahahaa.

Hey I don't mind.. A lot of these people coming in from Syria and other such places have doctorates, or are skilled dentists, or are simply hardworking etc.

Yeah apparently a couple of them are deluded rapists and thieves.. But they're moving to countries that already have those in the droves so.. Big woop.

My country has over 610,000 empty houses, many of them have been empty for years. But hey lets not have facts get in the way of a good news headline.

Fair enough, that was me being an asshat US centrist clearly, since I couldn't fathom that you might not be from the US

I remember a story a while back of somewhere in Spain? Italy? that was paying people to come to the village or some such. Kind of like a 'old west ghost town' scenario. Seems like there should be plenty of land to go around.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let me say it again, I want the best, smart, high skill, business savvy, ability to find the cure for AIDS/cancer <insert more good stuffs here> (regardless of background/creed/nationality/sex/gender/sexual preference/whatever) people here in the US to help us in the present and future. Period.

Just as I said in my previous post in this thread, if you are the founder of a start up, would you want to have the "best" folks to work for you and help you to build up the company to be the best it can be?

Not sure why it has anything to do with your whole argument of "eugenics". One more thing, I do not play semantic game.

Just the 'smart' part. If delving into that single word is pushing too far into semantics for you, I understand. Just understand that as clearly as I saw that, and read 'preference for specific genetic makeup', others can and will as well.

 

[Crumpet]

Fair enough, that was me being an asshat US centrist clearly, since I couldn't fathom that you might not be from the US

I remember a story a while back of somewhere in Spain? Italy? that was paying people to come to the village or some such. Kind of like a 'old west ghost town' scenario. Seems like there should be plenty of land to go around.

Spain is dreadful for it, whole towns full of finished houses and hotels etc, completely empty.. Abandoned.

The news all across the EU seems to be the same though.. "We're too damn full, we can't handle this many refugees".

Er.. Well, yes, we can. I mean it would be a lot easier if you hadn't shut down all the factories and tried selling off our national health services etcetera, but we have plenty of space.

But hey, most of the complaints about all of these "freeloading immigrants" coming in and sitting on our benefits because they are too lazy to work come from politicians who get paid several hundred thousand a year doing 6 hours work a week....Who all have free cars and free second houses and have all their fuel paid for by our taxes etc.