Leftist ideologies are predisposed to consider emotion over logic. The question ceases to be "what must we do?" and becomes "how must we feel?"
As a necessary part of the human dimorphic sexuality, females are naturally more empathic towards themselves and their children, but not men. The key to misusing this natural instinct is attributing childish traits to the enemies of your nation, sympathizing with them until the extent of understanding is sympathy, with no logic to check the balance.
Bump
I just got home from an lgbt for islam rally and disagree
This manipulation of the fundamental is key to the function of democracy, which was successful when it was still men who did the majority of voting.
Your spouting bullshit, aren't you? Slide thread. Sage
You have no definite proof of this, but you believe it to be correct, don't you?
To derail the thread: and just how many of you right wingers feel the prescience of God, which confirms to you that he exists?
Policy that makes everyone happy is policy that works so your point is shit
I could go out of my way to cite peer reviewed journals on maternal instinct and various mental disorders and ideologies which have manipulated and involve that mechanism, but if you deny something so obvious it's probably a waste of time.
I do not feel the presence of God.
There is no policy which makes everyone happy.
Policy that makes the most people happy and does infringe on the fundamental rights of anybody is policy that works so your point is still shit.
I'm supposed to consider your opinion valid after you just revised it this second?
Please do go on about what you consider "fundamental" rights. Are you talking about your own nation, or do you believe someone to have the right to extend control over what universal global rights are?
The first thing I said wasn't wrong.
Policy that makes everyone happy is policy that works and policy that makes the most people happy and does infringe on the fundamental rights of anybody is policy that works.
Fundamental rights are the rights that are guaranteed to you by your government, I guess. It's not like there's any intrinsic freedom or rights that anyone actually has but in order for society to function it's best that you are guaranteed certain rights by your government. Stuff like free speech and shit.
Does a nation have the right to be majority populated by people whose origin is that nation?
Reminds me of a Sowell quote:
Why does a state owe the rest of the world?
This.
A country should have a lot of control over immigration though it's probably not in the best interest of any country to have low levels of immigration, regardless it should be up to the countries citizens to democratically decide the level of immigration.
One thing you'll find in philosophy is that all metaphysics boils down to whether you believe in Something or Nothing.
God/Truth or Nothing.
what do you mean
For example, why do people advocate for open borders for people who hate the country that saves them?
Since the dawn of time there has been conflict. Why would that end now thanks to a "solidarity" profile picture? People hate the West and want to take it over.
That's not really something I can answer. I guess some people support immigration because it helps spur economic growth in a country, and many people support taking in refugees, and if the majority of people support those things then they should happen. At the end of the day, both the good things and bad things people think will happen as a result will probably happen, so it's just assessing the costs and benefits of the situation. Also, every country is very different.
Importing uneducated, unskilled, poor 3rd worlders does not spur economic growth but instead growth in crime rates. Which is OP's point that liberals use feelings over fact - supporting people who hate them just because its the "nice" thing to do.
Well obviously the effects of immigration aren't clear-cut but immigration typically does spur economic growth, regardless of skill level. A lot of macroeconomic study and theory relies on that idea.
So taking 15 million poor Africans and sharia law middle easterners in would help our country?
'Helping our country' is a subjective term which is up to you to judge. However, if you increase the population by 15 million you'll see a large increase in consumer spending, as there will be a greater demand for goods and services across the board. There will be an increase in employment as many new businesses will start as a result.
There would definitely be many cultural effects as a result but the point I was making is that if over 51% of the population thing that accepting those 15 million people would be a good thing then they should be allowed in, though I have no idea where you got that number from as it seems very unlikely that the scenario you described would occur.
Under hillary it would 125k+ per year, and libs advocate for open borders, thats how i got the number. This is a thread about leftists using feelings to help people. I dont see anything wrong with having your own state and keeping to yourself and not bothering others. Globalists disagree based on feelings. Sharia law does not help countries, why would middle easterners all of a sudden stop fighting after being imported to another country? Importing 3rd worlders, decreasing the average IQ in a country, increasing crime, and supporting cancerous ideologies moves the country closer to being 3rd world.
Well I'm a 'leftist' and I think I've been using facts and reason throughout the thread, so that more than anything should disprove OP.
>The key to misusing this natural instinct is attributing childish traits to the enemies of your nation, sympathizing with them until the extent of understanding is sympathy, with no logic to check the balance.
yeah, that's accurate.
>However, if you increase the population by 15 million you'll see a large increase in consumer spending
The entire last 200 years were a massive fucking mistake, holy shit just fucking send an asteroid to earth
Are you suggesting what I said was wrong?