If you're not interested in those questions people would naturally ask in relation to your topic, I suppose you'd be better off consulting a lawbook.

Considering the amount of harm done to children and their environment by bad parenting, I don't think it stands to reason that every one should be having children as they desire. It's reasonable for a society to ask for healthy and functional individuals to be put into this world, and that some indication should be given beforehand as to the capability of the parents to create such individuals.

However, forbidding people from reproducing is just a horribly impractical thing, and enforcing such regulations would almost inevitably end with some draconian methods.

All these people have an opinion and because of the freedom of speech “it seems” that we have to learn to absorb all this information. — Roel

If one is trying to absorb all the nonsense that is daily shared, then it is poor judgement that is the culprit here, not freedom of speech.

Nowadays people seem to value every opinion equally, and they cannot stand it when another's opinion, no matter how ridiculous, does not rhyme with their own. That, to me, is an indication that they have no confidence in their own beliefs. And how could they, in an age of atheism and moral relativism?

What you are describing is a consequence of human ignorance, not of freedom of speech.

I think it's perfectly fine for physically and mentally healthy persons to have children, though a high standard should be maintained as to what is considered healthy in these regards.

Furthermore, I don't see having children as a strictly personal matter. The wellness of the child should be at the front of all things to consider before having children. If the wellness of the child is somehow (within reason) at odds, it is unethical to let one's own desires make one decide to have children anyway.

Lastly, I believe the climate-change narrative is way overblown. People have been predicting the end of days for thousands of years. They have always been wrong. Apparently some individuals just like to play pretend that the world is coming to an end. Very well, I say, let them not have children then, because they do not qualify for the 'mentally healthy' part anyway.

This whole "I don't have children because I care about the environment"-spiel is rather idiotic. One is living in the most prosperous time (materially speaking) in history, living in debaucherous luxury every day, but one will not have children because one cares about the environment? Puh-lease.

Every once in a while this game pops back into my head and I have an inescapable urge to write about it. This morning I came up with a theory about one of the riddles in the Talos Principle, and I have come to a very interesting hypothesis. This idea is quite fresh, so it may lack some structure, but I am going to do my best.

I believe the world in which the Talos Principle is taking place, is actually inverted.

Intuitively, it looks like this:

Level 1 (upper) : Earth, the material world. Ascension-ending.
Level 2 (middle): The simulation; the Garden of Eden, Paradise, the immaterial world. Transcendence-ending.
Level 3 (lower) : The "basement" (the elevator takes you to the "basement" of Elohim's Garden), Transformation-ending.

What I am suggesting is that we are looking at things upside down, so that actually it should look like this:

Level 1 (upper) : The "basement", though the "attic" or "summit" may be a more fitting term now. Transformation-ending.
Level 2 (middle): The simulation; the Garden of Eden, Paradise, an immaterial world. Transcendence-ending.
Level 3 (lower) : Earth, a material world. Ascension-ending. (though Descension would become a more fitting term)

So why do I think this?

Several reasons;
- In Hellenic mythology and wisdom literature, the material world is often associated with Hades. A descent into Hades symbolizes the soul losing its connection to its spiritual nature and worshipping material existence instead. The myth of Persephone and her abduction into the underworld by Hades is an example of this.

- Throughout the Talos Principle we are being coaxed by the Serpent (Milton) to climb the tower and "ascend". It is also hinted at, that this figure is trying to deceive us somehow, even being nicknamed "The Deceiver". My theory is that we are being coaxed by the Deceiver to descend into the material world, Hades.

- This explains why the hardest ending, Transformation, is located in such a strange place, namely the basement of the simulation. In this ending we quite literally take our place alongside the Gods, as angels. This, in many ancient philosophies, is synonymous for reaching enlightenment or the highest form of experience.

Let me know what you think.

Hmmm, well first, desire is an emotion (correct me if wrong). Do all living things have emotion? I don't know...it seems it depends on definitions, but I would lean toward needing a certain level of mental complexity before it seems like the same type of emotion we humans understand? Does a dog experience some emotions similar to humans...seems VERY likely. Fish don't demonstrate behaviors that make their emotions obvious, but I can imagine they exist. As I keep moving down the food chain toward less complex organisms, it seems I am less convinced of their emotional capacity. — ZhouBoTong

Human psychology is complicated and veiled enough as it is, so I don't see a point in involving animal psychology in this discussion, since we know even less about that. What I do know is, that most, if not all, living things show some form of desire to continue material existence, which is why they will avoid a fire rather than get burned by it.

Colloquially, I also feel that 'desire' STRONGLY implies "more than need". I get that by definition, we can desire the things we need...but we don't usually say things like "I desire to breath". In this sense, an ant and a fish would not (seemingly) have desires. — ZhouBoTong

This "more than need" would need some elaboration. How does the act of breathing not involve some desire to continue living? Breathing and similar processes, like pain reception, are cemented very thoroughly in our brain, but a person with no desire to breathe or feel pain can condition their brain to stop doing those things. So I would say, all these things are desire, however some are rooted deeper in our brains than others.

In the same way (to try to get back to thread topic, haha), I am not sure a human desires life. We live life. So I would struggle to follow that slave owners get their power from slaves desire to live? Their power comes from guns, germs and steel (so to speak) right? — ZhouBoTong

If a slave had no desire to continue living, what power would the slave owner have over him? He would run away, or resist; the slave owner may take his life but it has no value for him. When nothing of value can be given or taken away, power ceases to exist, thus even in this (extreme) example we can say the slave owner's power is based on the slave's preference of life over death.

Do you blame your parents for all your faults?

"Control" is just another way of saying that some aspects of our animal nature are undesirable. I guess emotions like anger, jealousy, malice, etc. would fall in this category. — TheMadFool

I don't think undesirable is the right word. As long as they are kept under control negative emotions can be very constructive. They can help one understand oneself, one's own imperfections.

This Tibetan lama gives a very clear explanation of how Buddhism looks at negative emotions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIy3bSEKGHA

Another issue is the idea of leaving behind our animal nature in our quest for what you call "higher state of being". Do we really want to give up love, sexual pleasure, happiness; these are animal instincts right? — TheMadFool

Well, depending on what philosophy one follows it is not at all necessary to leave such things behind.

It is often emphasized that the animal parts of our nature should be firmly under control by reason. Plato for example describes the soul as having three parts, a reasoning part, an emotional part and a desiring part. In what Plato calls the just soul, the reasoning part is in control and works together with the emotional part to control the desiring part.

As such it is possible to enjoy pleasurable things without, for example, desiring for more, or to envy someone who is enjoying some sort of pleasure.

Love and happiness are in most of these teachings central themes and are cultivated rather than left behind. I think it is too rash to attribute all emotion to the animal part of our being.

From your original post I got the impression that you were saying humanity was stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. Between the animal emotions and the computer-like state of reason. Now I am not so sure if that was your point.

It's an interesting duality that lies at the heart of many philosophies. Most seem to agree that a state of being where the mind is governed by reason (though not necessarily devoid of emotion, an important distinction) is, as you say it, bliss.

The Hellenes thought that those who never rise above their animal natures would dwell, forever blind and slumbering, in Hades. Those who followed the path of reason would earn their place alongside the gods. That says something about how highly they esteemed this philosophical concept.

Doesn't it then follow that the purpose of reason is to lead man to this higher state of being?

I guess humans are sitting between two possible worlds - the world of unthinking, only feeling instincts and the world of pure exclusive emotionless thinking. — TheMadFool

You make the latter sound quite bleak (emotionless, computer-like). Have you ever experienced anything that is relatable to such a state of "being"? Many of the world's religions and spiritual teachings regard it as a form of enlightenment and one of the highest experiences possible to man.

Perhaps man knows quite well of good and evil, and squabbling in ethical discussions is but an attempt to justify their failure to adhere to it.

So ants and fish have that same desire? Not sure if it counts as a desire at that point? — ZhouBoTong

Presumably they do, though I am not that familiar with the psychological machinations of insects and fish. Why wouldn't it count as desire?

If you are talking about physical coercion: the desire to continue material existence.

The source of power is the desire of those it subjugates.

I like Plato's and Marcus Aurelius's accounts stating that all men desire the Good, however that they may be misled by a great many things connected to material existence, causing them to have false conceptions of the Good, often leading to their demise.

Connected to this is a passage I recently read in a book by Manly P. Hall, concerning the Eleusinian Mysteries which represented the myth of the abduction of Persephone from her mother Demeter by the king of the underworld Hades:

"The soul of man - often called Psyche, and in the Eleusinian Mysteries symbolized by Persephone - is essentially a spiritual thing. Its true home is in the higher worlds, where, free from the bondage of material form and material concepts, it is said to be truly alive and self-expressive. The human, or physical, nature of man, according to this doctrine, is a tomb, a quagmire, false and impermanent thing, the source of all sorrow and suffering. Plato describes the body as the sepulcher of the soul; and by this he means not only the human form but also human nature.
The gloom and depression of the Lesser Mysteries represented the agony of the spiritual soul unable to express itself because it has accepted the limitations and illusions of the human environment. The crux of the Eleusinian argument was that man is neither better nor wiser after death than during life. If he does not rise above ignorance during his sojourn here, man goes at death into eternity to wander about forever, making the same mistakes which he made here. If he does not outgrow the desire for material possession here, he will carry it with him into the invisible world, where, because he can never gratify the desire, he will continue in endless agony. Dante's Inferno is symbolically descriptive of the sufferings of those who never freed their spiritual natures from the cravings, habits, viewpoints, and limitations of their Plutonic personalities. Those who made no endeavor to improve themselves (whose souls have slept) during their physical lives, passed at death into Hades, where, lying in rows, they slept through all eternity as they had slept through life."

I much prefer such an outlook over a misanthropic view, for what is left for the misanthrope but to sulk?

I don't think the two are comparable. Ancient philosophy, religion and spirituality were, mostly, genuine attempts to understand reality. "Super hero/pop idol worship" has no such intentions, and, as far as I am concerned, does little good to the minds of our young.

But advocation of violence and rallies to violence are not ambiguous in their intent, are they? — Shamshir

In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. As such, let the instigators instigate. When they resort to violence, they break the law and should be dealt with as such.

So with safety being an inherent right of all living things, that they try so desperately to preserve, is it to be traded for the luxury of abrasive contention that is more aligned with as you put it - the 'insecure ego', rather than freedom from contention altogether? — Shamshir

People can have heated debate about anything. The fragile ego will find ways to express itself. If people were to desire freedom from contention, then perhaps everyone should lose their tongue at birth. No, in order for free speech to be worth anything, we must risk contention and offense, and deal with it like adults, instead of like children.

In the words of Descartes: "Whenever anybody has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it."

The safety of the people may be safeguarded by an effective police force and justice system.

I find the idea of abrasive speech constituting freedom of speech, quite misaligned, as it actually inhibits freedom of speech — Shamshir

How?

Though it be true that harming a person will bring them pain, there is nothing in the intellect that prohibits this. No, this is merely an observation. — Shamshir

I will rephrase my point;

If one's intellect propels one to violent action, one may not be as wise as they think they are.

Perhaps it is one's own insecure ego that hurts, like an open wound being smothered with salt - in this case, words.

If that wound was not there in the first place, the salt would not hurt. Yet is it fair to rub the salt in? Should it be done, just because it may be done?

What about bandaging it up? Perhaps there are other words that could be used to that effect?
In which case, why use the hurtful ones, over the mending ones?

Though what may be said, may be true - a violent demonstration will only feed feed the insecure ego.
Neither party will gain from this, both will lessen. — Shamshir

Firstly, I do not like the comparison between physical and psychological pain. Physical pain is, for most, an involuntary response that physiologically bypasses the intellect. Offense is a voluntary response.

As to your question; why allow people to rub proverbial salt?

Humanity is imperfect, and as such it is only expected that some will make sub-optimal use of their freedoms.

But the real question here is, how come someone perceives words as being so powerful as to be like salt upon wounds?

Again, whatever is being said can be true, in which case it should be accepted no matter how much it hurts and one should be grateful instead of offended.

If it is false or opinion, then what is there to be offended about? The disposition of the other? If one thinks the offender is so totally wrong in their beliefs, wouldn't pity be a much more appropriate emotion rather than indignation? Seek to make him see the error of his ways rather than silence him.

If some offender is being purposefully hurtful, why put any value in his words? Much like with a high-school bully, ask oneself how his situation came to be, and soon enough one will find pity or compassion more suitable emotions than anger and indignation.

Finally, when one feels offended, it should cause a moment of self-reflection, because apparently one is not as confident about their beliefs as they tell themselves they are. Wouldn't one's response be otherwise to laugh? When someone tells me the earth is flat, I do not get offended, for I know it to be wrong. So why do I get offended now?

How much of free speech is being sacrificed with the removal of violent speech, as opposed to its preservation? Would you weigh the attrition of each for me? — Shamshir

The problem is, as is being demonstrated by contemporary politics, "violence" can be interpreted in many ways. Such ambiguity should never be brought into contact with fundamental human rights, because it will inevitably be used to undermine them.

As for aiming to educate folk, that is indeed a step forward - but what would you educate them in?
Perhaps merely empowering the intellect would add to the tension? — Shamshir

True intellect never degenerates into violence.
A statement can be true, in which case an intellectual should be the first to accept it as such.
It can be false, in which case the intellectual may try to show the person the error of his ways. If he fails, he may pity the fool for his ignorance.
If it is an opinion it is no better or worse than blind faith, and an intellectual should put little value in it to begin with.

And may I ask, also, what and why is it pitiful that an adult may be hurt by a stranger's words?
How different do you see it as opposed to an adult being spat in their face by a stranger? — Shamshir

Nothing happens when someone insults you. It's one's own insecure ego that hurts, not another's words. After all, if the man has a point one should be grateful for the information. If it is false, one should carry on with their business and pay no mind. If it is opinion, well what is opinion but blind faith?

They may not be compensated monetarily but woul be rewarded for their merits in so far that it would be in keeping with free and equal society to do so. I don't think that people necessarily need something like a profit incentive in order to motivated to achieve great things. Because an ideal society would be, well, ideal, people would actually want to partake and contribute to it. — thewonder

Whatever their compensation would be, if it is not given to everyone it would lead to inequality. And what about those freedoms that would unavoidably take freedom of others? For example, a strong individual intimidating or overpowering a weak individual? Forbidding such things would inevitably impede the freedoms of the strong.

I could imagine a hypothetical ideal society, with an ideal and enlightened humanity, in which the strong would not require compensation, but unless this sacrifice is voluntary and never forced through the perpetuated norms of the society, it would still be an impediment on the freedoms of the strong.

Maybe not impossible, but, given humanity's present and past state, definitely belonging to the realm of fantasy, as far as I am concerned.

Suggesting that Anarchism fails because it never went anywhere is like suggesting that because the Gnostics were never able to overcome that most of the Christian faith regarded them as being heretics that they must've been wrong. — thewonder

I do not like this comparison, since anarchy is a lifestyle that can be and has been practically implemented. Gnosticism as a spiritual or religious movement cannot so easily be put to the test, if at all.

There are things much less fundamental to human freedom, and much (much) more likely to bring about the end of mankind, which we accept as being part of humanity without question.

But yes, even if you believe large scale violence can be caused solely by speech (which is a questionable proposition, but also another topic altogether), such a risk should be accepted in order to uphold this freedom.

Moreover, before we start sacrificing something as fundamental as free speech, shouldn't we first aim to educate people? There is something profoundly pitiful about an adult who is hurt by a stranger's words.

Even if 'hate speech' (whatever that may be, really..) would cause an increase in violence, freedom of speech should be universal and never be impeded upon.

To thrive is not necessarily the same thing as to exploit. There will still be specialists who exceed at what they do. It would not be beneficial to society to limit the potential of specialists. — thewonder

Thriving of the strong and exploitation of the weak, while not the same, often go hand in hand.

How would these specialists be compensated for their talents? Compensating them would lead to inequality, no?

I just don't think that equality is unnatural. Creatures have been shown to have the capacity for alturism. It is social. I guess I don't necessarily see an inherent human flaw which necessarily makes for the creation of egalitarian society to be coercive. Egalitarianism is as natural as Social Darwinism, both of which only exist because of a social relationship. — thewonder

Humans behave differently in smaller groups, so perhaps in a tribal context humans are more inclined to social behavior. Though, even in tribes there's a clear hierarchy, and thus there too people are unequal.

Do you have any examples that can make me understand the type of society you envision?

When people are not created equally in their faculties, does it not stand to reason that, when given complete freedom to exploit their faculties, those individuals with greater faculties will thrive and those with lesser faculties will not?

As a result they will become unequal. Examples of this we see all over the human and animal kingdoms.

If one wishes to "correct" this inequality, the freedoms of those with greater faculties will have to be limited.

Of course, one could be in favor of liberty, but at the same time favor equality in certain aspects of society, like equality to the law. Even then some liberty is being conceded of those who would otherwise use the law in their favor.

In short, equality is not a natural state of being, and needs to be forcibly brought about somehow. In this process, freedom is taken away from "the strong", who would otherwise be free to exploit "the weak".

I think that liberty and equality aren't necessarily at odds. I think that there's a natural human preference for liberty but that equality necessarily follows from this. Unequal conditions almost invariably necessitate some form of coercion. In order for everyone to be truly free, it follows that they must also be equal. Egalitarianism complements liberty rather than hindering it, in my opinion. — thewonder

I'm not sure if I follow. Humans are not created with equal faculties, and some persons are simply smarter, stronger or more social (to name but a few criteria) than others. Doesn't it follow that in order to make people equal we'd have to impede on the freedom of those more fortunate? As such, freedom and equality seem to be at odds so long as humans are not born identically.

And what constitutes this true freedom you speak of, and how is equality a prerequisite for this kind of freedom?

It seems you are advocating for a sort of middle-ground between freedom and equality, however doesn't the necessity for a middle-ground hint at these two concepts being at odds? Also, doesn't our current form of society already seek such a middle-ground? How would anarchy bring us closer to it? Anarchy would probably create more freedom, but in all likelihood at the expensive of equality.

I interpret Anarchism as advancing some form of maximal liberty and equality. — thewonder

Out of interest, what do you mean by this?

If everyone is completely free, how would equality be maintained, and vice versa?

There are of course, reasons. Everything has reasons. That doesn't make them good. — thewonder

I would say it makes them neither good nor bad, but simply a logical consequence of circumstance.

Assumedly, you would let them wear whatever they want to in a free country. — thewonder

I don't know any "free" countries. Do you?

Those reasons being that they are a means to maintain an ostensibly illiberal and unequal society which only benefits a select few. That the governance of the Pharohs made sense does make it at all desirable. — thewonder

Alright, but there must be some reasons for the majority to accept such conditions?

I am a very particular Anarcho-Pacifist with interests and critiques of Autonomism and Communization. — thewonder

Do you believe that humans are pacifist in nature?

Just because things have been the case does not mean that they should be. — thewonder

Certainly. But perhaps you will agree that when something has been the case for all of history, there must be some good reasons for it?

I am in favor of a style of living that radically differs from what exists now. — thewonder

Would you care to share that with us?

To me, there's something that's just implicitly totalitarian, and, therefore, totally undesirable, about regulating how it is that people choose to dress. — thewonder

Aren't there so many things in society that dictate the behavior of people? Regulating the behavior of people in order for them to coexist peacefully is, dare I say, a constant in history. Perhaps you find that undesirable, but then I also suppose you are in favor of a style of living that is radically different from the society we live in today.

These seem different topics. Whether citizens should be allowed to dress a certain way is an internal affair of state, whereas the situation you depicted concerns international affairs. The former deals with the "Us" and how "We" should behave, whereas the latter is deals with "Them" and how "They" should behave.

it is ultimately not really my place to say how it is that a Muslim woman should dress. — thewonder

In my view, it is a society's right to uphold those values that are fundamental to it. If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it.

Of course individual opinions on the meaning of such styles of dress may differ, but it is simply not practical for a society to judge these on a case-by-case basis.

Statesmanship is full of such concessions.

The nearest thing that Western culture had to spiritual enlightenment was Christianity — Wayfarer

I would say Hellenistic philosophy and Hermeticism make more interesting candidates for such a title.

Think about it this way, if everyone in the world mastered their desires and practiced Buddhist asceticism, then we wouldn't have made it very far as a species. — Wallows

A Buddhist would ask you, why would it matter for the species to be successful? For humanity to thrive means that the other denizens of earth (among them, also other humans) to suffer, and since all is one, why is that preferable?

And what exactly is success? A Buddhist would value spiritual and mental well-being far above material well-being, and how healthy is humanity spiritually?

Junior philosophers like to think they know what's best for others, and to that illusion socialism caters greatly.

God has the superior task of guiding humanity, much like a parent guides their child. And just like a child must sometimes be spanked, so must God sometimes discipline humanity. Not because it is desirable, but because it is necessary.

Clearly the only sensible answer is, as Tzeentch, would have it, to lock your doors and pretend that it is still 1919.

But of course we can no longer sustain that fantasy. — Fooloso4

Every sensible country in the world controls their borders and gets to decide who comes in and who doesn't. The only countries with open borders are those being forced by the European Union's inability to act, or are failed states. Your suggestion that open borders are the norm and "the way forward" are groundless. And profoundly naive. As right-wing parties are on the rise all over Europe in direct response to the EU's failure, the only fantasy that is proving unsustainable is the fantasy held by the left about multiculturalism.

I'd like to change my analogy from earlier. Open border policy and uncontrolled immigration aren't the equivalent of letting strangers into your home. It's the equivalent of removing all the locks from your doors and putting a sign out front saying "Free stuff".

For me, it's not about nationalism, an "us or them" or whatever hostile connotations are popularly ascribed to an anti-illegal immigration stance.

It's about these people not having anything to contribute to the society they seek to join. They do not speak the language, they do not have any education, they do not share the society's common values. On top of that, they negatively impact the lives of those in whose vicinity they set up camp. Crime, harassment, a general sense of insecurity. Finally, this isn't at all free. It costs boatloads of cash to provide them with "basic needs", like IPhones and Nike shoes.

It's absurd to welcome this human deadweight into societies.

Should we help refugees? Sure, I guess. Again, I believe there's plenty of people to help within any given country's borders (the homeless, the isolated, the elderly, etc), so I do not see why philanthropy must necessarily be aimed at foreigners. But if one is convinced refugees must be helped, help them in or near whatever country they fled.

It's not like all this naive idealism is without risk, either. Right-wing parties are steadily on the rise in all of Europe. A direct result of the inability of the European Union to find an effective course of action with regards to the refugee crisis. One can only hope that governments can and will keep their angry populations in check.

And do you regard your countrymen like family? — Fooloso4

In certain aspects, yes. That's the point of an analogy.

If those who live in a country allow immigrants into their country then it potentially impacts their lives. It is not squandering every opportunity to help their fellow man, it is by their actions helping their fellow man. — Fooloso4

This is nonsense. Loud words, naive idealism and paying taxes does not equal, in any way, helping one's fellow man. They are excuses for inaction. Your argument is based on the idea that one should help one's fellow man? Then why are you not spending your free time helping those in need? Why do you need to crusade for a foreign cause with which you will likely never been in real contact? Why are foreigners more important to you than the people you can actually directly help in your vicinity?

Because words are easy, actions are hard.

The funny, or maybe not so funny, thing is that everything you say has been said in places like the United States throughout its history whenever there has been a large influx of immigrants - Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jews ... — Fooloso4

I don't know about the United States, but where I come from we have always welcomed hard-working immigrants who had an intention of integrating and a sense of gratitude towards the communities they wished to become a part of.
Most immigrants from Africa and the Middle-East do not share those qualities. They have no prospects for work, have pre-historic ideas about what a society should look like and rather than integrate they seek segregation, creating further breeding grounds for extremism and radicalism.
This parallel you are drawing between different waves of immigration is not funny. It's ridiculous.

Do you know everyone in your country? No strangers? Do you allow all of them in your home? Do you have as much say in who enters your neighbor's house as your own? — Fooloso4

I don't have to. You're missing the point of the analogy.

Countrymen are to a country, like family is to a home.

Immigrants are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.

Notice the word like, implying likeness and not sameness.


You're interchanging the terms, turning it into something like,

Countrymen are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.

This makes no sense, and it is not what I wrote.

I am in favor of allowing those who seek asylum to go through an expedient process and a path to citizenship. I am also in favor of international cooperation to spread the burden. As I pointed out in an earlier post immigration can be a problem when the numbers are high. I am also in favor of helping people in their own country if possible before they are forced to leave. — Fooloso4

Excuses to justify inaction.

Words and "being in favor of things" serve as nothing but social self-gratification if such gospel is never translated into action. Don't you see the inherent hypocrisy in preaching about how other people should accept total strangers to negatively impact their lives, while at the same time these preachers don't carry any of the negative consequences and squander every opportunity to help their fellow man?

If one wishes to be a saint, there's plenty of people that need help. They're all around. Homeless people, drug-addicts, isolated elders, depressed people, I could go on. One could be actually helping these people through action. So why does one choose words? Because words make one feel fuzzy whilst not having to do anything.

You're asking others to make a sacrifice that you demonstrate not to be willing to make yourself.

I am sure that wherever you live if the situation became dire and you were forced to leave you would find a different song to sing. — Fooloso4

Doubtful. Many people stay behind in the countries from which people are supposedly "forced" to leave. The truth is, a multitude more people die yearly in car accidents in the US than in the hostilities in most of these conflicts combined.

But, if I were to hypothetically be forced to leave, I would find a refuge where I hold some ties to its inhabitants in terms of language and culture, and where I can contribute to their society to earn my keep, rather than become a leech on a successful system.

These people don't just want safety. They want free stuff. And they don't just want free stuff. They want the most free stuff. This is evidenced by the numerous safe countries they pass through on their way to the country with the highest social benefits.

Or maybe nothing like that. — Fooloso4

This.

Well, what do you want to hear from me?

I think all illegal immigrants should be returned to where they came from, and any action or legislation towards that goal is positive. Any action or legislation that undermines that goal, including human trafficking under the guise of philanthropy by NGOs, is negative.

So what should countries do? Like they always have done: enforce their borders and send anyone back who doesn't belong there. So called "NGOs" who are trying to smuggle people in should be jailed.