‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 > 
 
   
 

BBC says the country of Hungary is Xenophobic

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 November 2018 08:07
 

Jan, I added numbers to your questions:

#1 - Would you please explain how you think people can be helped ‘in place’ in a war zone.

#2 - And what is your definition of a ‘few’? I.e.  are the 58,266 Syrians given refuge in Canada a few?  (In my opinion, we could have taken in more.)

#3 - Is your inability to recognize the emergency nature of the situation related to the fact that the victims of this crisis are predominantly Muslim?

Below I provided a link to an article discussing 10 current humanitarian crisis. There are more than 10, but 10 is fine for this discussion.

Answer #`1 - We have some finite amount of money we can use to provide aid around the world. So for the sake of discussion, let’s say that you are correct and that there is no way to provide aid in place in a war zone. In that case, aid dollars would be better spent in other parts of the world where they can do more good.

Answer #2 - Already answered. There are a BILLION impoverished people in the world. Yemen for example is in some stage of mass famine. 8 million Yemens(sp?) are on the verge of starvation and 400,000 Yemen children are severely malnourished. The money Canada spent bringing 58k Syrians to Canada could probably have fed 3,000,000 (that’s THREE MILLION), starving children around the world.

So for every Syrian Canada brought in, they left 50 children to starve somewhere else in the world.

(My crude math is: 60,000 immigrants x $5000 to fly each to Canada and process them = 290 million dollars. It costs 25 cents a day to feed a starving child in the third world, so let’s say $100 / yr / child. So 290 million / $100 = 2.9 MILLION children fed.)

Answer #3 - This question explains a lot. After all of our debates, you think I hate Muslims? You still don’t get the distinction between hating an idea and hating a person? Let me make this clear, I hope for once and for all: I don’t hate Muslims, I hate most of the ideas preached by Islam. Earlier in this thread I mentioned Ugandans. 15% of Ugandans are Muslim. I just mentioned the crisis in Yemen. Yemen is basically all Muslim. Get real Jan.

10 crisis

(This kind of stuff is easy to find, I just linked to one of the first articles I found.)

[ Edited: 08 November 2018 08:12 by icehorse]
 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2623
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
08 November 2018 09:45
 
icehorse - 08 November 2018 08:07 AM

Jan, I added numbers to your questions:

#1 - Would you please explain how you think people can be helped ‘in place’ in a war zone.

#2 - And what is your definition of a ‘few’? I.e.  are the 58,266 Syrians given refuge in Canada a few?  (In my opinion, we could have taken in more.)

#3 - Is your inability to recognize the emergency nature of the situation related to the fact that the victims of this crisis are predominantly Muslim?

Below I provided a link to an article discussing 10 current humanitarian crisis. There are more than 10, but 10 is fine for this discussion.

Answer #`1 - We have some finite amount of money we can use to provide aid around the world. So for the sake of discussion, let’s say that you are correct and that there is no way to provide aid in place in a war zone. In that case, aid dollars would be better spent in other parts of the world where they can do more good.

Answer #2 - Already answered. There are a BILLION impoverished people in the world. Yemen for example is in some stage of mass famine. 8 million Yemens(sp?) are on the verge of starvation and 400,000 Yemen children are severely malnourished. The money Canada spent bringing 58k Syrians to Canada could probably have fed 3,000,000 (that’s THREE MILLION), starving children around the world.

So for every Syrian Canada brought in, they left 50 children to starve somewhere else in the world.

(My crude math is: 60,000 immigrants x $5000 to fly each to Canada and process them = 290 million dollars. It costs 25 cents a day to feed a starving child in the third world, so let’s say $100 / yr / child. So 290 million / $100 = 2.9 MILLION children fed.)

Answer #3 - This question explains a lot. After all of our debates, you think I hate Muslims? You still don’t get the distinction between hating an idea and hating a person? Let me make this clear, I hope for once and for all: I don’t hate Muslims, I hate most of the ideas preached by Islam. Earlier in this thread I mentioned Ugandans. 15% of Ugandans are Muslim. I just mentioned the crisis in Yemen. Yemen is basically all Muslim. Get real Jan.

10 crisis

(This kind of stuff is easy to find, I just linked to one of the first articles I found.)

#1.  You have basically answered by saying that nothing should be done in response to the huge Syrian humanitarian crisis.  That wasn’t even an option for many countries without turning back many thousands from borders to die at sea or otherwise.  North Americans didn’t have to face the same immediacy, but were in a position to offer refuge to many thousands without the necessity of dealing with the strain caused by huge numbers.

#2.  Of course aid should also be provided to places such as Yemen facing mass famine.  A country does not necessarily reduce aid to one country because another crisis develops.  Your equations appear to be a rationalization to not provide aid to Syrians.  (Perhaps the U.S. could divert 1% of its military funding to additional international aid?  How many people could be fed for the cost of the soldiers sitting on your southern border?)
http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/humanitarian_assistance-aide_humanitaire.aspx?lang=eng

#3.  Yes, you mentioned providing aid to other Muslim countries, but only if ‘in place’, not if that aid would require providing for them in your country.  I’ve never said that you hate Muslims.  However, it appears to me that you do hold a prejudice against Muslims because of their religion and that you have had difficulty separating ideas from people.  I do understand, to some extent, this difficulty because I share a fear and dislike of certain aspects of Islam.  However, it is important to hold onto our humanity in spite of these concerns.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 November 2018 09:56
 

Jan:

A country does not necessarily reduce aid to one country because another crisis develops.  Your equations appear to be a rationalization to not provide aid to Syrians.  (Perhaps the U.S. could divert 1% of its military funding to additional international aid?  How many people could be fed for the cost of the soldiers sitting on your southern border?)

If I was in charge we’d slash military spending by maybe 80%, and I’d push for lots of that money to go to aid. So on that much, we’re agreed.

But that said, there would still be a finite amount of money to work with. My equations are not anti-Syrian or anti-any-specific-group. My only point here is that we ought to help as many people as possible with whatever dollars we do have to work with. And perhaps the ancillary point is that it’s not necessarily the victims who make the news who should get the aid. Put yet another way, what rationale did Canada use to throw all of those millions of dollars at Syrians? I have to say that given the math, it strikes me as political gesturing more than as true compassion. So again, given that Canada could have fed 50 starving children for a year for every Syrian they imported, what was their logic?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2623
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
08 November 2018 10:22
 
icehorse - 08 November 2018 09:56 AM

Jan:

A country does not necessarily reduce aid to one country because another crisis develops.  Your equations appear to be a rationalization to not provide aid to Syrians.  (Perhaps the U.S. could divert 1% of its military funding to additional international aid?  How many people could be fed for the cost of the soldiers sitting on your southern border?)

If I was in charge we’d slash military spending by maybe 80%, and I’d push for lots of that money to go to aid. So on that much, we’re agreed.

But that said, there would still be a finite amount of money to work with. My equations are not anti-Syrian or anti-any-specific-group. My only point here is that we ought to help as many people as possible with whatever dollars we do have to work with. And perhaps the ancillary point is that it’s not necessarily the victims who make the news who should get the aid. Put yet another way, what rationale did Canada use to throw all of those millions of dollars at Syrians? I have to say that given the math, it strikes me as political gesturing more than as true compassion. So again, given that Canada could have fed 50 starving children for a year for every Syrian they imported, what was their logic?

Whew ... you’re accusing Canada of “political gesturing” rather than true compassion?  Is this an indictment of the Canadian government or all of us?

I think you’ve become jaded by your current administration and are unable to recognize when a government does do the right thing.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 November 2018 10:31
 
Jan_CAN - 08 November 2018 10:22 AM
icehorse - 08 November 2018 09:56 AM

Jan:

A country does not necessarily reduce aid to one country because another crisis develops.  Your equations appear to be a rationalization to not provide aid to Syrians.  (Perhaps the U.S. could divert 1% of its military funding to additional international aid?  How many people could be fed for the cost of the soldiers sitting on your southern border?)

If I was in charge we’d slash military spending by maybe 80%, and I’d push for lots of that money to go to aid. So on that much, we’re agreed.

But that said, there would still be a finite amount of money to work with. My equations are not anti-Syrian or anti-any-specific-group. My only point here is that we ought to help as many people as possible with whatever dollars we do have to work with. And perhaps the ancillary point is that it’s not necessarily the victims who make the news who should get the aid. Put yet another way, what rationale did Canada use to throw all of those millions of dollars at Syrians? I have to say that given the math, it strikes me as political gesturing more than as true compassion. So again, given that Canada could have fed 50 starving children for a year for every Syrian they imported, what was their logic?

Whew ... you’re accusing Canada of “political gesturing” rather than true compassion?  Is this an indictment of the Canadian government or all of us?

I think you’ve become jaded by your current administration and are unable to recognize when a government does do the right thing.

My sense is that Canada is probably less cynical than many other countries. But yes, I think that on this topic, most governments do a lot of gesturing. I think think this gesturing has been going on for a long time now, long before trump was spreading his swamp.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  497
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
08 November 2018 14:43
 

Ice,
Your simple dollars and cents moral calculus seems problematic to me, at least in the practical sense.  By this logic we shouldn’t feed ourselves or our families since so many more people in less developed nations could be fed on our (or at least my) food budget.  I don’t know the details of how effective altruism or other related frameworks address this, so it might provide a way to backstop this.  In any event I’m left with the suspicion that your numbers oversimplify the true moral situation in some significant way and/or we have to accept a lot of inefficiencies in how we go about doing things while still considering them moral.  In the end, we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good and ignore the benefits that have been and are being provided even if there are, in theory, many more who could be helped in an ideal world.

Another point strikes me about this thread.  Your initial points seemed much more focused on national sovereignty and the deleterious effect of migrants.  Now your slant on the conversation seems to be on what is most effective.  If you had opened with the latter point, or included it in the mix initially, my interpretation of your position would have been significantly different.

[ Edited: 08 November 2018 16:19 by mapadofu]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 November 2018 16:23
 
mapadofu - 08 November 2018 02:43 PM

Ice,
Your simple dollars and cents moral calculus seems problematic to me, at least in the practical sense.  By this logic we shouldn’t feed ourselves or our families since so many more people in less developed nations could be fed on our (or at least my) food budget.  I don’t know the details of how effective altruism or other related frameworks address this, so it might provide a way to backstop this.  In any event I’m left with the suspicion that your numbers oversimplify the true moral situation in some significant way and/or we have to accept a lot of inefficiencies in how we go about doing things while still considering them moral.  In the end, we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good and ignore the benefits that have been and are being provided even if there are, in theory, many more who could be helped in an ideal world.

Another point strikes me about this thread.  Your initial points seemed much more focused on national sovereignty and the deleterious effect of migrants.  Now your slant on the conversation seems to be on what is most effective.  If you had owned with the latter point, or included it in the mix initially, my interpretation of your position would have been significantly different.

All I’ve been doing is providing a different perspective. Of course the math isn’t as simple as I’ve posted here. That said, I’ll stand by my claim that we often end up doing “feel good” aid when in fact the same dollars could help an order of magnitude or two more people. So we’re talking about orders of magnitude, I’m not claiming any degree of precision in my math, and I don’t think it’s necessary for the discussion.

As for how the thread has meandered. I’d agree, this one has meandered (as most threads do), but I’m happy to address the initial thoughts with you…

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  497
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
09 November 2018 18:11
 

My sense is that if asylum seekers show up at your borders then you need to take care of them, i.e. treat them compassionately as you work towards their final disposition, in Hungary or wherever.  Maybe I’m over weighing the importance of proximity and immediacy, but that seems like a closer, tractable problem than going out to the disrupted nations and trying to set up some new distant support structure.  Sort of a “let’s make sure we do a good job on the more easily handlable humanitarian problems while we see how far we can get on the more difficult ones.”

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 November 2018 09:07
 
mapadofu - 09 November 2018 06:11 PM

My sense is that if asylum seekers show up at your borders then you need to take care of them, i.e. treat them compassionately as you work towards their final disposition, in Hungary or wherever.  Maybe I’m over weighing the importance of proximity and immediacy, but that seems like a closer, tractable problem than going out to the disrupted nations and trying to set up some new distant support structure.  Sort of a “let’s make sure we do a good job on the more easily handlable humanitarian problems while we see how far we can get on the more difficult ones.”

I think your sense sounds reasonable - until you do the math. Many in Europe are observing that healthy European societies are near or past the breaking point already.
I think your sense sounds reasonable - until you really think through the ethics. Why is the immobile starving child less worthy than the healthier, mobile migrant?

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  497
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 November 2018 10:01
 

The remote starving child is harder to help.  To put it in dollars and cents terms, aiding the person at your doorstep is more efficient.  As I said before, I’m not convinced that even if that kind of calculus represents the true moral ideals, that in practice we can effectively implement it.

The number of asylum seekers is a token trickle.  I don’t see it as an insoluble problem, or that they are at a critical breaking point,  That’s the root of where our perspectives diverge.  I see the rhetoric around a demise of liberal societies, let alone an /imminent/ demise, as overblown (irrational) fear mongering; and that is what I see as being behind Hungary’s positions.

[ Edited: 10 November 2018 10:39 by mapadofu]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 November 2018 11:13
 
mapadofu - 10 November 2018 10:01 AM

The remote starving child is harder to help.  To put it in dollars and cents terms, aiding the person at your doorstep is more efficient.  As I said before, I’m not convinced that even if that kind of calculus represents the true moral ideals, that in practice we can effectively implement it.

The number of asylum seekers is a token trickle.  I don’t see it as an insoluble problem, or that they are at a critical breaking point,  That’s the root of where our perspectives diverge.  I see the rhetoric around a demise of liberal societies, let alone an /imminent/ demise, as overblown (irrational) fear mongering; and that is what I see as being behind Hungary’s positions.

I’m not sure I agree. I think the math is that migration is maybe 50 or 100 fold more expensive than aid in place.

As for asylum seekers, this threat is about migrants. And even if it was about refugees, why should we absorb 10,000 Syrians when for the same money we could feed 500,000 starving Yemen children?

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  497
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 November 2018 12:03
 

If the facts presented in this article on the denial of food to asylum seekers in Hungary is accurate
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/22/hungary-asylum-seekers-denied-food

Then I’d say Hungary’s first order of business would be to fix that homegrown problem, rather then embarking on a program to distribute aid internationally.

Again, I think that the way you are trying to represent this problem is far too simplified to provide good strategies to actually implement.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 November 2018 12:26
 
mapadofu - 10 November 2018 12:03 PM

If the facts presented in this article on the denial of food to asylum seekers in Hungary is accurate
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/22/hungary-asylum-seekers-denied-food

Then I’d say Hungary’s first order of business would be to fix that homegrown problem, rather then embarking on a program to distribute aid internationally.

Again, I think that the way you are trying to represent this problem is far too simplified to provide good strategies to actually implement.

I’d say Hungary IS attempting to fix the problem that arrived unbidden on their border.

As for simplification, I’ve made offered no specific strategies or tactics, other than to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. As always, I’ll claim that the first step to solving a problem is to properly assess it. I don’t think that your Human Rights Watch article is based on a proper assessment of the problem. I think it’s too narrowly focused and too short-sighted.

[ Edited: 10 November 2018 12:30 by icehorse]
 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  497
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 November 2018 12:34
 
icehorse - 10 November 2018 12:26 PM
mapadofu - 10 November 2018 12:03 PM

If the facts presented in this article on the denial of food to asylum seekers in Hungary is accurate
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/22/hungary-asylum-seekers-denied-food

Then I’d say Hungary’s first order of business would be to fix that homegrown problem, rather then embarking on a program to distribute aid internationally.

Again, I think that the way you are trying to represent this problem is far too simplified to provide good strategies to actually implement.

I’d say Hungary IS attempting to fix the problem that arrived unbidden on their border. It would be interesting to see how the Swiss, who co-sponsored the resolution, would deal with the same problem the Hungarians are dealing with.

As for simplification, I’ve made offered no specific strategies or tactics, other than to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. As always, I’ll claim that the first step to solving a problem is to properly assess it. I don’t think that your Human Rights Watch article is based on a proper assessment of the problem. I think it’s too narrowly focused and too short-sighted.

A significant piece of the UN resolution you referred to in another thread is to better assess the situation.

The problem in the HRW article is people not being fed in Hungary due to due to a government policy to deny them food.  You think Hungary should undertake a more expansive long term international program to fix the multifaceted sources of large scale hunger and migration in lieu of addressing this problem of their own making within their borders?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6889
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 November 2018 13:05
 
mapadofu - 10 November 2018 12:34 PM
icehorse - 10 November 2018 12:26 PM
mapadofu - 10 November 2018 12:03 PM

If the facts presented in this article on the denial of food to asylum seekers in Hungary is accurate
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/22/hungary-asylum-seekers-denied-food

Then I’d say Hungary’s first order of business would be to fix that homegrown problem, rather then embarking on a program to distribute aid internationally.

Again, I think that the way you are trying to represent this problem is far too simplified to provide good strategies to actually implement.

I’d say Hungary IS attempting to fix the problem that arrived unbidden on their border. It would be interesting to see how the Swiss, who co-sponsored the resolution, would deal with the same problem the Hungarians are dealing with.

As for simplification, I’ve made offered no specific strategies or tactics, other than to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. As always, I’ll claim that the first step to solving a problem is to properly assess it. I don’t think that your Human Rights Watch article is based on a proper assessment of the problem. I think it’s too narrowly focused and too short-sighted.

A significant piece of the UN resolution you referred to in another thread is to better assess the situation.

The problem in the HRW article is people not being fed in Hungary due to due to a government policy to deny them food.  You think Hungary should undertake a more expansive long term international program to fix the multifaceted sources of large scale hunger and migration in lieu of addressing this problem of their own making within their borders?

No, I think Hungary’s immediate problem is a tiny subset of the worldwide problem. What the world should do and what Hungary should do are most likely different.

One question, how is Hungary’s problem one of their own making?

 
 
‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 >