Massive Muslim Immigration...

[Mountain Man]

What you are talking about is what is meant by "contellation of demands" in a particular context that you had not pointed to beforehand. I am not going to restrict my discussion of this important topic to whatever framework or definition you like to point to.

There is no way to define your way out of answering a very basic question that contains the moral challenge as to whether your focus is right or wrong as a nation when your primary concern is your own benefit when confronted with people in need. Seer points to a particular context in which many tend to focus on the negative effects and forget that quite many people are alive, living meaningful lives with hopes and dreams thanks to nations not primarily concerned with their own benefit.

You obviously didn't read the link, or try to find your own summary of what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to frame the question in any particular context, or define my way out of answering. I'm simply trying to present a framework from which the question can be meaningfully answered. Your kind of simplistic black-and-white thinking is not an asset.

[rogue06]

Well, I'm about to take my leave again so I'll just say this:

Even though you're wrong more often than not () don't be a stranger.

[Charles]

You obviously didn't read the link, or try to find your own summary of what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to frame the question in any particular context, or define my way out of answering. I'm simply trying to present a framework from which the question can be meaningfully answered. Your kind of simplistic black-and-white thinking is not an asset.

And yet though you are "trying to present a framework from which the question can be meaningfully answered" you have given no answer at all. So though you are not "trying to frame the question in any particular context, or define my way out of answering." it just so happens that no answer was given.

Prediction: No answer will be given in the following post. It is going to contain even more talk about either my understanding, the proper use of concepts or other details that will allow MM to talk about something else.

[Charles]

Ideally, you don't help others to your own detriment. Put your oxygen mask on first, then help your fellow passengers.

How is that important with regard to the question I asked?

[Sparko]

Y'all can act better and it won't be necessary.

--Sam

Or you could not be a net nanny. Or start your own web forum and have at it.

[Mountain Man]

And yet though you are "trying to present a framework from which the question can be meaningfully answered" you have given no answer at all.

I did answer. I said that it depends on your constellation of demands. If you're looking for a simplistic, one-size fits all answer then I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.

For instance:

Should I help a person who is hungry? You might be inclined to unequivocally answer yes, but what if in helping them, it causes my own children to go hungry? Suddenly, the question is not so easy to answer.

[Sparko]

Back on topic to a question that has not been answered:

Is this (the question about the benefit of a given country) the most important question to ask when confronted with people in need? Ideally you don't help others for your own benefit.

I thought you said this wasn't about personal charity? So why are you asking about personal charity?

[Charles]

I did answer. I said that it depends on your constellation of demands. If you're looking for a simplistic, one-size fits all answer then I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.

For instance:

Should I help a person who is hungry? You might be inclined to unequivocally answer yes, but what if in helping them, it causes my own children to go hungry? Suddenly, the question is not so easy to answer.

Ah, so you are building a straw man.

Here is my original question:

Is this the most important question to ask when confronted with people in need? Ideally you don't help others for your own benefit.

That does not imply that there is only one question to be asked, it does not imply it is easily asked, it does not imply the answer will always be the same. It only questions or challenges the idea that own benefit should be the first or most important concern. It is not even the main concern in the example you give since in that case you are concerned about your children and not yourself.

If you look at the posts regarding "benefits" and cheap labour and assimilation, you will find the simplicity. It is in those posts you see people forgetting the fact that very many people are alive today and live meaningful lives because of what those countries did. There was no mentioning of that at all. And yet you did not point to "constellation of demands" or point out that there was no size fits all in those cases. Interesting.

Seemingly it was only when someone tried to point out there were other or more concerns that you worried about simplifications.

[Charles]

I thought you said this wasn't about personal charity? So why are you asking about personal charity?

?

[Cow Poke]

How is that important with regard to the question I asked?

How is the question you asked important to anything?

[Sparko]

?

you keep asking (and telling us) what we should do. That's personal. as denoted by the use of "YOU"

"Is this (the question about the benefit of a given country) the most important question to ask when confronted with people in need? Ideally you don't help others for your own benefit."

[Charles]

you keep asking (and telling us) what we should do. That's personal. as denoted by the use of "YOU"

"Is this (the question about the benefit of a given country) the most important question to ask when confronted with people in need? Ideally you don't help others for your own benefit."

I see that you could read it that way. That is not the intention. The question I asked was clearly concerning countries. I understand the example given could cause a bit of confusion. "Countries don't help others for their own benefit" would have been better.

[Cow Poke]

I see that you could read it that way. That is not the intention. The question I asked was clearly concerning countries. I understand the example given could cause a bit of confusion. "Countries don't help others for their own benefit" would have been better.

But countries SHOULD help others with the health and safety of their own people and nation in mind. It's not an either/or.

[Charles]

But countries SHOULD help others with the health and safety of their own people and nation in mind. It's not an either/or.

Never said it was.

[Leonhard]

I'm looking at results like neighborhoods where Sharia law is enforced

Is that a bad thing? I seem to recall more than one baptist priest in the US talking about how certain things like spousal abuse should be brought before elders, before its brought before police officers. The Catholic Church itself maintains a religious tribunal for legislating things like divorce and remarriage cases. The hasedic jews maintain their own internal courts for deciding various disputes.

Simply saying "Sharia Law", as if its one simple homogenous thing, doesn't really make sense.

The last time we had one of these conversations I remember people here saying that a place where I went shopping quite frequently was a no-go zone. I think there's a lot of unwarranted alarmism about muslim immigrants.

There are concerns as well, and I definitely agree that the integration process has been slow going. Which means its not a good idea for Denmark to accept a huge amount of immigration like we did during the last refugee crisis.