News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Stupid cultures

Started by CountDeMoney, March 05, 2010, 06:13:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zanza

Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 03:39:06 AM
Would you accomplish Hitler's dream and get rid of beggars?  :hug:

[...] In my mountain town, every beggar that arrives at our doorsteps is immediately placed in a train and sent away.
:ph34r: Wait, where are those trains going?

Martinus

Quote from: Lucidor on March 05, 2010, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 05, 2010, 09:26:53 AM
Hey just what the flying fuck! Alex is Romanian! :ultra:
What's the difference? :D

Hungarians are too stupid to be effective beggars.

Alexandru H.

In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.

Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.

Josquius

Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 05:23:29 AM
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.

Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.

Surely 300 euros isn't worth the journey all the way to France?
██████
██████
██████

Mr.Penguin

#49
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 05:23:29 AM
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.

Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.

Surely 300 euros isn't worth the journey all the way to France?

It cost about 800 euros to fill a bus and drive it all the way to France, so with a bit of organization no problem...

And if you plan on doing a couple of "jobs" and not just admire the local food and culture, then it will worth it very fast...
Real men drag their Guns into position

Spell check is for losers

Admiral Yi

I guess all those EU bashers who think there's no labor mobility will have to shut up now.

Alexandru H.

Quote from: Mr.Penguin on March 06, 2010, 09:59:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 06, 2010, 06:32:36 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 06, 2010, 05:23:29 AM
In 2009 the French government spent 9 million euros for sending back in Romania 8,000 beggars. Things evolved like this: the French found the beggars, gave them 300 euros and sent them back by airplane (tickets paid in full by the government). At least 2/3 of them would come back to collect again the sum of money, plus do a little begging on the side.

Of course, westerners should be glad that the beggars are mostly from Romania and the Balkans. Hungarian Gypsies are better with knives and firearms.

Surely 300 euros isn't worth the journey all the way to France?

It cost about 800 euros to fill a bus and drive it all the way to France, so with a bit of organization no problem...

And if you plan on doing a couple of "jobs" and not just admire the local food and culture, then it will worth it very fast...

Yeah, people often forget that begging is not an art, but an industry.

Pat

China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?

Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.

The Brain

Why would you share your resources?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Pat

We shall have to share the earth's resources with an ever-increasing circle of people whether we like it or not (and do we, or do we not, want development in the poor world?). More people means more people competing over these resources.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?

Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
Whom is this post directed at?  If anyone criticized the one child policy I missed it. 

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?

Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
I think it's quite the opposite, having tens of millions of frustrated young men makes a society more unstable and violent, and thus more likely for them to be used in some sort of hostile endeavor.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Pat

It wasn't? Then I must admit to reacting prematurely.

Pat

Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 06, 2010, 09:56:22 PM
Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
China's one-child policy is in the interest of sustainability and regional stability. It is also a sign of pacific intentions: contrast, for example, the Hitlerite giving of medals to child-bearers. Surely you would not prefer an ever-booming Chinese population in need of lebensraum? Do you not understand that this is what you are advocating, when you speak ill of these measures?

Also, the more people we have on our earth the more we are who have to share the earth's resources. This should not be very hard to comprehend.
I think it's quite the opposite, having tens of millions of frustrated young men makes a society more unstable and violent, and thus more likely for them to be used in some sort of hostile endeavor.


Right, that is a problem, but I think it's a comparatively small problem as opposed to China's already very large population to keep on growing until there's quite literally no more room for them anymore. What you mention is a source of social friction, but not something, I think, potentially leading to war (are they going to go to war to conquer women, in this day and age?).

grumbler

Quote from: Pat on March 06, 2010, 10:09:10 PM
Right, that is a problem, but I think it's a comparatively small problem as opposed to China's already very large population to keep on growing until there's quite literally no more room for them anymore. What you mention is a source of social friction, but not something, I think, potentially leading to war (are they going to go to war to conquer women, in this day and age?).
The issue of what makes populations grow explosively (which is to say, medical applications which reduce infant mortality while the customs still act as though infant mortality is high) are pretty well understood, I would think.  China's one-child policy is a political act designed to buy time until the countervailing forces (women getting educated, and so able and desirous of having fewer children because they have other interests than just being moms) take effect.

As usual with political solutions, it has had unintended side effects. 

I think it is a fascinating problem and solution.  Every society that has undergone the industrial revolution has seen this kind of population growth, but few such societies have had a leadership that understands the dynamics and wants to shortcut the solution.   The combination of rationality and irrationality in China's leadership makes any study of that country fascinating, and this is just an example.  It is hard to say whether, in the end, their efforts will be more successful than would have been simply focusing on the long-term solution.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!