Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I do not think anyone has the right to make other people worse off in order to perform some act of charity.
    I believe that we're obligated to increase net well-being, even if it means that some people have to become worse off. So, yeah, we have a massive philosophical disagreement here.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    On the other hand the mainstream position is that forced charity to other countries should be 0.7% of GDP, which is not that far from zero. Our population is already much more than 0.7% muslim, so I consider any charitable commitment in this regard already fulfilled.
    Well, it doesn't all go to Muslim countries, and we should be looking to do the most good that we can do as a country. In my view, our foreign aid budget should be much higher, if it makes well-directed contributions to aid in the sector of global health, which has a lot more evidence behind it than economic aid.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    My interest in immigration policy is to benefit our own country; I doubt that your formulation would defeat mine at the ballot box, if your side were to phrase its motivation so clearly and honestly in public.
    Universal and equal consideration for the interests of all sentient beings almost certainly wouldn't defeat a nation-centric proposition in a national ballot box, no.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I believe that we're obligated to increase net well-being, even if it means that some people have to become worse off. So, yeah, we have a massive philosophical disagreement here.

    ...and we should be looking to do the most good that we can do as a country. In my view, our foreign aid budget should be much higher, if it makes well-directed contributions to aid in the sector of global health, which has a lot more evidence behind it than economic aid.
    Yet you probably do not believe that we should have a welfare system that treaty everyone in the world equally, complete with collapse in benefits, healthcare, etc. provision for British citizens down to third world levels. Or maybe you do, in which case I admire your consistency, but I'm afraid such ideas are even more ephemeral.

    The other issue you have to consider is how much all of this will damage Britain and thus, even in your own terms, its future capacity for charitable activity. It is great to feed a starving multitude but maybe not the best idea to let them eat all your seed corn.

    Well, it doesn't all go to Muslim countries
    Good point. We should take even fewer than 0.7% of population, as we already satisfy much of this charitable obligation by permitting immigration of other groups, such as African Christians.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    OP, 'TELL YOUR LEADERS TO STOP FUNDING "JIHADISTS" AND TERRORIST FACTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST THEN. THAT MAY HELP'.

    Saw this on Twitter. Couldn't have put it better myself
    another conspiracy theory with no credible evidence to back it up. Let me give you a quick history lesson:

    ISIS, formally known as the Al-Qaeda of iraq/syria was already around years before ISIS actually turned into a formidable fighting force.

    When president assad started going against his civilians, there was a massive outcry from muslims all across the world, for the west to intervene and help the civilians take down the brutal dictator. The west responded, by arming and funding the civilians and defected soildiers, creating the free syrian army. Very generous of them i think.

    Now instead of using this funding and weaponry to fight assad, the civilians decide to join the Al-Qaeda of iraq/syria, creating what we know as ISIS now.

    essentially here is how it went:
    Muslims cry for help - west comes to help by funding and providing weapons - the free Syrian army members either defect to isis, get radicalised or simple sell the weapons of for a profit - isis arises - Muslims suddenly turn around and blame the west for creating isis.

    this happened with the Taliban as well:
    Russia invade northern Afghanistan - Muslims cry for help - west comes to help, by funding and giving weapons - the fighters led by Osama bin laden fight the war against russia and win - instead of thanking the west, use the training and funding to wage war on the west
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Yet you probably do not believe that we should have a welfare system that treaty everyone in the world equally, complete with collapse in benefits, healthcare, etc. provision for British citizens down to third world levels. Or maybe you do, in which case I admire your consistency, but I'm afraid such ideas are even more ephemeral.
    Well, I don't think that provision for British people should go down to third world levels; provision for people in developing countries should be raised up. Some form of world government or at least an open borders system that paid out an unconditional basic income may be preferable.

    It would not be feasible in the current world for Britain itself to provide economic benefits to citizens of other countries: this would almost certainly have negative economic consequences. In terms of healthcare, we already do research into global health, and there may be a case for diverting a lot of our funding away from Britain and into funding, say, distributing anti-malarial bed nets or funding treatments for Neglected Tropical Diseases, both of which are extremely cost-effective investments.

    As you note, though, we would eventually reach the point at which we would damage Britain's capacity for charitable activity. Perhaps one advantage of my worldview is its simplicity: maximise total well-being whichever way works best. If we reach the point at which we are giving too much abroad to allow for future giving, then we should obviously give a bit less.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    do you think muslims in the uk will start getting attacked on the street now because of what has happened
    This may well happen.

    There have been a number of incidents in the past year, where Muslims have been abused and been victims of Islamaphobia, such as this last month.

    The hatred whipped up following the attack in Paris can already be seen on social media sites.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Well, I don't think that provision for British people should go down to third world levels; provision for people in developing countries should be raised up.
    Fine, just as I'd love to have totally open borders with all countries after all countries consist only of prosperous, peaceful, individualistic, cultured persons. And in the real world, where trade-offs must be made...?

    Some form of world government or at least an open borders system that paid out an unconditional basic income may be preferable.
    The GDP per capita of the world is $15,000. Assuming this basic income isn't going to also be the only income, let's halve it, and convert to GBP. That's 5k/year. From which of course you must also pay for your health insurance, fully private pension and unemployment insurance, etc. - otherwise it will be still less.

    It would not be feasible in the current world for Britain itself to provide economic benefits to citizens of other countries: this would almost certainly have negative economic consequences.
    In that case you are not really disagreeing with me. When third world economic interests conflict with British economics interests in this sphere, British interests win, even though it's regressive. So when third world economic interests conflict with British social interests, why do third world economic interests win?

    As you note, though, we would eventually reach the point at which we would damage Britain's capacity for charitable activity. Perhaps one advantage of my worldview is its simplicity: maximise total well-being whichever way works best. If we reach the point at which we are giving too much abroad to allow for future giving, then we should obviously give a bit less.
    It seems to me to be very difficult to estimate this point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As for OP, this proposal would not make a difference for a number of reasons.

    Banning Muslim immigration ignores the fact that homegrown terrorism exists (and this ridiculous idea would actually just radicalise people further), and indeed ignores that indigenous citizens people can convert and then become radicalised. Aspects of society (such as the healthcare) rely on Muslim immigration. Besides, people [including potential terrorists] would just lie about their religion just to get into the country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    After yet more terrible terror attacks in France is it time that Europe faces reality and bans Islam & muslim immigration to Europe, muslim attacks seems never ending, 9/11, 7/7, Lee Rigby, Madrid Bombings, Belgium attacks, Rotherham Abuse, Charlie Hebdo & now more attacks in Paris.
    Will nothing be done to stop the next inevitable muslim attack on UK or France
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Thoughts?

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    In that case you are not really disagreeing with me. When third world economic interests conflict with British economics interests in this sphere, British interests win, even though it's regressive. So when third world economic interests conflict with British social interests, why do third world economic interests win?
    It's not about British economic interests winning, it's that there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of foreign aid on the economies of developing countries - many argue that economic foreign aid has not only failed to help developing countries, but has done damage to them. I suspect that simply pumping lots of money into developing countries will have negative consequences for them, which is why I would oppose it.

    The benefits in terms of well-being for immigrants far outweigh the supposed negatives for some British people. The people who support the idea in the thread title, if they were asked which is worse: not being able to migrate to a country and enjoy a considerable improvement in well-being; or not having their wish of "no Muslim immigrants" satisfied, they'd obviously say that not being able to migrate is worse.

    The strength of their preference not to have Muslim immigrants is minimal compared to the preference of Muslim immigrants to migrate to Britain and enjoy better living standards.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    It seems to me to be very difficult to estimate this point.
    It might be, but we could probably ascertain a reasonable range of figures.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thats an absolutely absurd heading for a TSR forum as ISIS has in fact killed more muslims than non-muslims!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The acts of this group are purely political not religious. If it was religious then 1.6 billion humans would have been part of ISIS
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If people can be radicalised on-line then inter-boarder movement is not necessary for the expansion of this terror group.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Quran states in many Surahs that if a muslim kills another muslim, the muslim who commited the murder will not even see the gates of heaven. How can we justify ISIS as Islamic knowing that they have even killed one muslim - let alone more muslims than what they call 'khufars' ; being non-believers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diffusion)
    This may well happen.

    There have been a number of incidents in the past year, where Muslims have been abused and been victims of Islamaphobia, such as this last month.

    The hatred whipped up following the attack in Paris can already be seen on social media sites.
    yeah saw this

    really hope people are more sensible but going by forums and twitter...i doubt it. The women wearing hijab's are going to be under threat the most compared to the men as it is easier to tell from women than men.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Are you able to wait until the motives of the perpetrators are identified or is that too much to ask? It may very well turn out to be an Islamic group that's behind the attacks, but until then, let's keep the baseless finger-pointing to a minimum.

    It astonishes me how willing people are to simply assume that it's an Islamic attack and then start debating the implications of that assumption as if it's fact.
    Too right, it was probably the CIA.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If we follow the forum creators logic ... Then we should say that only Muslims should use computers because a Muslim created algorithms (which are the foundations of the systems in computers we today). IKR it sounds absurd!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The version of Islam most widely practiced interprets the Quran violently. If you read any of the modern english translations (written by people from that interpretation) it will be quite obvious to you.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You need to read it with context. When it was written, heretics were executed so that's where those quotes come from. In Ecclesiasticus it states homosexuality is wrong so are all Christians homophobes?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivy.98)
    You can't bring immigrants into your country with the premise that they will eventually become just like everybody else. People come from their continents with their own country which they have no intention of giving up on.
    What an absurd statement to make. Many immigrants have integrated perfectly well, and are 'just like everybody else'. People will not give up on some of their culture because it's a part of their identity, there is nothing wrong with that. As long as they have integrated and respect the British culture, then they are just like everybody else.

    Yes because that would make everything better OP. I dislike Islam, but we cannot just taint people with same brush and discriminate over a billion people. It would only make things worse.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.