patrick.net

Dan8267 says

If anything, we should incentivize childlessness.

Without muslims in europe, they are reproducing below replacement rate.

Same for Japan and same for non-immigrant americans(with exception of non-latina,black).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/us-birth-rate_n_1779960.html

http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

Dan8267 says

You getting your genetic code in the next generation does not benefit me. So why would I buy that?

So are you a libertarian or a liberal?

Heraclitusstudent says

Just look at the Islam party in Belgium: they already stated that they want to create an Islamic state in Belgium. It is their stated goal.

the key to injecting oneself into votebank politics is ghettoization. Of course, that didn't work for Jews as well, but for muslims, it seems to be working wonders, at least for now

Quigley says

How about mandatory sterilization for all refugees? Bet they'd reconsider settling in a place that offered that sort of bargain.

We should incentivize childlessness in people who are reproducing well above the replacement rate (and can't support them), but some others probably should be incentivized to have kids (IOW people that can actually support them)

Rew says

I hope one day someone forces you into a bombed out war zone to "rebuild"

Since you feel so torn about their plight, why don't you advocate bringing refugees into your neighborhood or home?

Heraclitusstudent says

If immigrants, they should be immediately cast back into the dusty shit holes from whence they crawled.

I hope someone forces you into a bombed out war zone to "rebuild"

Heraclitusstudent says

You can't prevent people from having children without some sort of severe abuse. Look at China 1 child policy.

Some people here support this policy willy-nilly and think it should be applied in countries at or below replacement rate(people who basically hate children)

Dan8267 says

Each child should require a non-returnable prepayment of $304,480.

Like I said before, poor people never achieved anything in this world. Since the odds are already stacked, lets just add another final nail to coffin.

MMR says

Dan8267 says

Each child should require a non-returnable prepayment of $304,480.

Like I said before, poor people never achieved anything in this world. Since the odds are already stacked, lets just add another final nail to coffin.

Easier just to stop voting for people who support throwing a bone(welfare) to "keep coloreds reproducing in squalor on their side of tracks" That's your 304,480 in a neatly wrapped bow.

Dan8267 says

OK, but then I get to choose if I want to pay for your services as a parent to your offspring.

You know very well that going this way makes things intractably complicated. Are you going to select for whose services to pay on individual basis? Then how are we going to track the benefits of the individuals (the children after they have grown up) from which you have opted out?

Dan8267 says

You getting your genetic code in the next generation does not benefit me. So why would I buy that?

Actually I don't particularly care about propagating my genetic code; it rather quickly gets diluted anyway. You get the benefit of having people to run our society and taking care of all your needs that you cannot provide for on your own (including sexual :) ).

Dan8267 says

Throughout history damn few people are responsible for most advancements.

That is an illusion. Everybody had to have parents (on average average folks), had to eat, learn, receive medical care, live in relatively safe environment, be stimulated by others, use the tools and knowledge created by others, etc.

Dan8267 says

I see no benefits in increasing the population or even maintaining the existing population.

Here I agree with you. I would not mind some incentives for people to not have many children (or rather incentives to have few). However, this usually happens naturally in the developed countries for a number of reasons. What we need to fight is the notion that slightly declining population is bad, and policies that aim to fight this by encouraging immigration.

FP says

Are you going to select for whose services to pay on individual basis?

Socialization isn't an all or nothing game. There's this thing called scope. The costs of a good or service can be socialized at any scope from the individual to the entire world and everywhere in between. For example, the cost of lighthouses can be socialize over the set of boat ownerships by having a registration tax that pays for, among other things, lighthouses. People without boats don't pay this tax. However, they do indirectly occurs some of its costs by paying for goods delivered by boat. A parenting tax socializes the cost of children over the set of parents. Those who aren't parents shouldn't pay it just like those who aren't boat owners shouldn't pay for boat registration.

FP says

Actually I don't particularly care about propagating my genetic code

I understand. I was using the generic "you".

FP says

You get the benefit of having people to run our society and taking care of all your needs that you cannot provide for on your own

This can be done with a world population of less than a million. We've way gone beyond the point where we're getting additional benefits with more people. The fact is that there are limits to what populations are sustainable and are sustainable at any given quality of life. It's impossible to have an infinite number of people on Earth. Therefore, the optimal number of people on Earth, by any criteria, must be a finite number. Since there is no largest finite number, there is a point of overpopulation no matter what criteria you hold.

FP says

That is an illusion. Everybody had to have parents (on average average folks), had to eat, learn, receive medical care, live in relatively safe environment, be stimulated by others, use the tools and knowledge created by others, etc.

None of which requires a population of more than a million people world-wide.

Nonetheless, actual advancements that prolong life or improve the quality of life, are accomplished by damn few people. The vast majority of people would simply live in a stagnant society if it weren't for those other few. This is unfortunate, but true.

Perhaps it's changing a bit in the modern time with more people working in STEM, but as our economy as clearly shown, you don't need that many people in STEM to get incredible benefits. And our society is trying to purge STEM professionals as much as possible because they actually have some economic bargaining power.

Most people in America don't actually do anything worth while. Half of the people are middle men doing nothing significant but siphoning wealth. Another 10%, at least, are playing zero-sum games that drag down the economy. Then there are the politicians, lawyers, war profiteers, and owner class that actually make the economy worse off the more work they do.

www.youtube.com/embed/IFyxmdnv3qE

If we limit the population to its current levels and eliminate all the above parasitic activity, then we could easily provide a basic guaranteed income great enough for all people to live on without occurring any costs other than the income taken from those parasites.

MMR says

Dan8267 says

Throughout history damn few people are responsible for most advancements

only limit the richest 1% to have kids since all the resources and advantages for success are concentrated in one place.

Poor people never achieved anything ever.

Empirically false. Science is full of examples where the few great achievers came from all walks of life, including poverty. Leisure time and curiosity, more than resources, has been the prime reason why some people make great advancements.

Rew says

Strategist says

Best solution...Send the refugees back to their home towns to rebuild.

I hope one day someone forces you into a bombed out war zone to "rebuild".

Why can't they go to another Islamic country like Saudi Arabia. I'm sure Muslims will feel more at home in a Muslim country. Why do they need to come to the West they hate so much?

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, actual advancements that prolong life or improve the quality of life, are accomplished by damn few people. The vast majority of people would simply live in a stagnant society if it weren't for those other few. This is unfortunate, but true.

I disagree. I disagree with several other things you've written but don't have time now to write more. Perhaps we can continue later.

MMR says

the key to injecting oneself into votebank politics is ghettoization. Of course, that didn't work for Jews as well, but for muslims, it seems to be working wonders, at least for now

They will be a majority in Brussels within 15yrs. Are you calling Brussels a ghetto? It certainly wasn't before they came.

MMR says

I hope someone forces you into a bombed out war zone to "rebuild"

Look:
The #1 condition for different religions to leave peacefully together is to have a secular government that is neutral to any religion. When you don't have that, indeed you can have Shiites and Sunny fighting and destroying your country.

A necessary precondition for civilization and progress is to have free speech allowing people to criticize and reject bad ideas instead of claiming they are God speech and immutable. Shariah is a stupendously bad idea.

A necessary precondition for the well being of people in a society, is to have to open-mindedness to reject silly traditions that enforce inferior levels of well beings. Like how women are treated.

There is a relation between their beliefs and the fact they come from war zones or shit holes. The west is not rich and comfortable in spite of free-speech, secular government, and liberalism. It is rich and comfortable because of it.

Now these people come to the west and instead of accepting the local norms, institutions and traditions, they don't have a more urgent agenda than to throw away everything that makes civilization even possible.

And the confused illiberal left has no higher priority than to assist them.

Excuse me for being slightly irritated at this spectacle.

FP says

I disagree. I disagree with several other things you've written but don't have time now to write more. Perhaps we can continue later.

Fair enough, but you don't "disagree" but rather think I'm wrong. You can disagree with opinions, but facts must be right or wrong. The only subjective thing in my statements is what constitutes "few".

Heraclitusstudent says

Now these people come to the west and instead of accepting the local norms, institutions and traditions

they impose their own values and religions on others. Their goal is to turn the West into a sharia hell.

"they impose their own values and religions on others. Their goal is to turn the West into a sharia hell."

Isn't that what all religions do? (minus the suicide bombing). Abortion. same sex marriage. Is Christianity all that different in that respect?

joeyjojojunior says

"they impose their own values and religions on others. Their goal is to turn the West into a sharia hell."

Isn't that what all religions do? (minus the suicide bombing). Abortion. same sex marriage. Is Christianity all that different in that respect?

I'm an atheist. All religions do impose their values on others, but the most disgusting and scary set of values are the sharia laws. Nothing good can come from the sharia laws. We must kill the beast.

joeyjojojunior says

Isn't that what all religions do? (minus the suicide bombing). Abortion. same sex marriage. Is Christianity all that different in that respect?

No, you are confused. First the west has come up with secular governments precisely so religion could not force its dogmas onto people. Religion in the west has been contained and boxed through hundreds of years of fight against it, starting from the renaissance.
Second, in the case of Europe, this is not a melting pot: These are countries with rich traditions and cultures going back thousands of years. If you immigrate there, you must be willing to accept those cultures and abandon the part of your culture that is incompatible with it. otherwise you are not an immigrant, you are an intruder or an invader.

"No, you are confused. First the west has come up with secular governments precisely so religion could not force its dogmas onto people. Religion in the west has been contained and boxed through hundreds of years of fight against it, starting from the renaissance."

How exactly am I confused? I said all religions try to force their dogmas onto people. You seem to agree with me and rightly state that the West has come up with secular governments to combat this behavior by religions.

joeyjojojunior says

I said all religions try to force their dogmas onto people. You seem to agree with me and rightly state that the West has come up with secular governments to combat this behavior by religions.

You are confused because Christians fully accept a secular government whereas Muslims never do. These Shariah patrols are exactly that: a rejection of secular public order, to be replaced with religious one.
So saying the 2 religions are the same is totally disingenuous, and an exercise in obscurantism: trying to imply that there is no problem specific to Islam when it's obvious that there is.

"You are confused because Christians fully accept a secular government whereas Muslims never do"

Notwithstanding that you are wrong, that's beside the point. My point was very simple--all religions try to force their morality/dogma onto others. Period.

"These Shariah patrols are exactly that: a rejection of secular public order, to be replaced with religious one."

Yep. And like others have posted, it's not that different than what other religions have done, and continue to do. Going door to door preaching and handing out pamphlets. Now--the vests that say police are wrong and cross the line, IMO.

"So saying the 2 religions are the same is totally disingenuous"

Agreed-I have never, and would never say that. Please don't imply that I did.

jazz music says

Is there evidence of economic bargaining power of STEM workers?

Yes, the fact that some of us, myself included, can command high wages or rates. At least in software development, a great developer is more productive than a hundred mediocre developers. Technology amplifies the difference in output due to skills. Even more importantly, a really good developer can do things that merely good developers simply cannot do, especially when it comes to innovative solutions. Real software developers are inventors.

jazz music says

In 1970's there were efforts to assure that engineering societies didn't get the bargaining power of professional "associations like the AMA, BAR, ASCPA, etc. who have accomplished protectionist legislation of behalf of their constituencies.

Please elaborate.

joeyjojojunior says

Yep. And like others have posted, it's not that different than what other religions have done, and continue to do. Going door to door preaching and handing out pamphlets. Now--the vests that say police are wrong and cross the line, IMO.

Sorry, I don't hear of any Mormons patrols sending people homes because they are drinking and that's bad. These Shariah patrols are not there to preach they are there to enforce what they see as morality, and if they are not using force, it is implied that they could.

Christianity as a religion has no ambition to concern itself with worldly power. There are Christ quotes like "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” that pretty clearly separate the spiritual from the earthly task of enforcing laws. Even the inquisition was focused on regulating religious beliefs, rather than common crimes. This is even truer now in our secular world. And this contrast starkly with Islam, which has intrusive rules regulating every aspect of day to day life. And unfortunately they are derived from 7th century Arabia world and worse are seen as god speech and therefore above any criticism. Accepting these beliefs and rules is quite simply a civilization-ending proposition.

I don't think it's the vest that are objectionable here.

Heraclitusstudent says

they are derived from 7th century Arabia

Even worse, they were a subset of that culture. To the extent the Arabian peninsula ever achieved civilization, it consisted of three basic components: coastal fishing villages, inland agriculture and animal husbandry, and traders. Islam arose among an expressly barbaric population of marauding pirates, who attacked caravans and ships and conquered and raped and enslaved and ransomed. Islam helped these proto-mafiosi feel good about their marauding and pillaging, encouraged their aggression, and unified them into a "stronger retrograde force" even more destructive than they had been previously.

BTW, I would have Liked your comment, but couldn't because I remember Romnesia's Moronic cult coming to California crusading on behalf of Prop H8. They were shouting in San Francisco, and going door-to-door spreading lies statewide. Romnesia's Moronic cult seems modeled partly on Islam, with the polygamy and Joseph Smith's private army resembling Mohamed, and the prohibition against alcohol. Still, even the Mountain Meadows Massacre doesn't add up to anything like the genocides committed in the name of Islam, and mendacious Morons are not nearly as bad as murderous Muslims.

Heraclitusstudent says

Sorry, I don't hear of any Mormons patrols sending people homes because they are drinking and that's bad. These Shariah patrols are not there to preach they are there to enforce what they see as morality, and if they are not using force, it is implied that they could.

You keep trying to imply things that weren't said or implied by me. I never said Muslims and Mormons are the same--only that religious folks of many denominations try to convert people and spread their dogma/morality. Why do you keep trying to find a way to disagree with that simple statement?

Heraclitusstudent says

Christianity as a religion has no ambition to concern itself with worldly power.

That's pretty funny. Perhaps you've heard of the Pope?

joeyjojojunior says

That's pretty funny. Perhaps you've heard of the Pope?

Any chance the Pope had at worldly power ended in the late 14th Century with Hus, Wycliffe, and the increasing concept of Absolute Monarchical Control over temporal matters. It was already dead when Henry VIII created the Anglican Church, and confirmed when Spain utterly ignored the Pope's authority to regulate and oversee the Inquisition.

The Spaniards didn't want the Pope involved because the plan was to strip the conversos of property, whereas the Church policy was that newly converted got additional leeway for being new to the Faith. The Spaniards wanted the money, the Church didn't want potential converts thinking they'd be scrutinized rigorously for any deviations (whereas the Inquisition only had control over the converted, so by staying UNconverted you were safe from the Inquisition)

BTW, the Spanish Inquisition lasted well into the 19th Century.

http://www.everintransit.com/inquisition-museum-lima/

"You are wrong about the meaning of the Devotion of Mary, the Compassionate Queen of Heaven, Mother of Mercy. Now I hang you for another day from the ceiling, Heretic!!!"

But the statement was that Christianity as a religion has no ambition to concern itself with worldly power. I think history pretty clearly shows that to be false.

Even now, there is a voting bloc in the US called Evangelicals that vote primarily based on religion. I think Christianity, even today, strives for political power.

joeyjojojunior says

Christianity, even today, strives for political power.

Some Americans who want power use Christianity to get it, because most Americans believe in it. Pakistanis don't generally use Christianity to get power, because that wouldn't work there; they use Islam. The difference between the doctrines is that Islam says specifically to kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, conquer and plunder, etc. Human nature is the same everywhere, but different doctrines have different consequences, some worse than others. Islam is the worst of the major current doctrines, and importing it is a dreadful mistake.

joeyjojojunior says

Even now, there is a voting bloc in the US called Evangelicals that vote primarily based on religion. I think Christianity, even today, strives for political power.

There is a difference between a voting block pushing for their preferences within a democratic secular regime (and facing an opposition) and a theocracy where laws are derived from religious dogmas, and people are punished, sometime killed, for their beliefs or what they say, and there is no opposition because who is opposed to the rule written by God.
You don't seem to take that difference into account. It's not all the same.

Heraclitusstudent says

here is a difference between a voting block pushing for their preferences within a democratic secular regime (and facing an opposition) and a theocracy where laws are derived from religious dogmas, and people are punished, sometime killed, for their beliefs or what they say, and there is no opposition because who is opposed to the rule written by God.

You don't seem to take that difference into account. It's not all the same.

So, me saying this above:

joeyjojojunior says

I never said Muslims and Mormons are the same--only that religious folks of many denominations try to convert people and spread their dogma/morality

somehow makes you think that I believe they are the same? Nuance clearly isn't your strong suit, but I wasn't even being nuanced there. It's like you just ignore what I say, and answer what you want me to have said.

joeyjojojunior says

somehow makes you think that I believe they are the same? Nuance clearly isn't your strong suit, but I wasn't even being nuanced there. It's like you just ignore what I say, and answer what you want me to have said.

Joey, you did imply all religions are the same. All religions are not the same.
There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions. Islam is the ugliest of them all.

Strategist says

There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions.

No, there are no good religions, only bad and worse.

FP says

Strategist says

There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions.

No, there are no good religions, only bad and worse.

he he he

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

This town needs Baptism Battalions, mobs with water balloons filled with holy water, running around baptizing the fuck out of everyone and their pets and handing out beers and bacon sandwiches.

Yeah especially in europe

Strategist says

Joey, you did imply all religions are the same. All religions are not the same.

There are good religions, bad religions, and ugly religions. Islam is the ugliest of them all.

OK, kindly show where I implied this.

What I did, was show how almost all religions have similar traits. Which is undeniably true. FP is correct--there are no good religions.