Depends on your age. Mental progression, rather. Which is succinct from intelligence or capacity for it.

As purposefully inflammatory as this topic may be, it can extend to many thought provoking avenues. Just because "New Age" or let's be honest if I spent $50 and registered a brand new religion with my government revolving around say.. the idea that every toy we once owned and played with but discarded is now a god and keeper of our original soul and must be worshiped (and perhaps marked up 300% tax free)... what makes that any different from discriminating against a major religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism? Because there's more people and therefore for that simple "nothing to do with anything truly divine" reason, it must be paid attention to to avoid backlash? Is that right? Is that moral? Is that what religion has devolved to now a days, closet atheism that only has any meaning because of the humans that follow it? Or perhaps was that all it ever was? These are valid questions I believe OP, if not unintentionally, asks us and forces us to ask ourselves.

And then what?

I can respect that and see where you're coming from. It's a very popular and very old government mind control tactic. A combination of diffusion and obfuscation. Kinda hard to wrap your head around if you're not a deceptive piece of work, or at least familiar with people who are but it's I suppose at base comparable to The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Let's take two fictional groups, Group A a majority who oppresses, often violently when they can, Group B.

A hangs B from a tree, for no reason. That's bad. People from both groups can see and decide this for themself with simple introspection and self-reflection.

A uses the advantages they gained from oppressing B to get ahead and gain more advantages. This is an up in the air debate that still seems kind of "iffy" to put it lightly.

Note: Keep in mind what I'm talking about has nothing to do with what A does first, rather how A responds to what B does to "neutralize" or make their actions irrelevant or otherwise less powerful. Kind of like how 10,000 people from Group A show up to a rally organized by 1,000 of Group B and essentially mimic them so as to invalidate or otherwise greatly dull if not nullify their point entirely.

Continuing however, A slowly begins to turn use the argument of B in a way that (again slowly and gradually if not insidiously) becomes humorous and comical but most importantly, unconvincing and even crazy. Let's take race for example. You can work your way to saying, let's take a fictional purple race, "purple people who drive purple cars are racist" or let's assume we live in an alternative universe where our teeth are purple when healthy "people who have purple teeth are racist". It gets to that point, sure if you come out with something like that right away it's just stupid but if you gradually work your way to that everyone from both groups begin to think to themselves "ok that's stupid" not just about that example that was stupid, but every instance or sentiment from actual grievances without realizing it.

Do you believe everything you've just pondered and written just now is "just pretend" or a child's game? If so, sounds like a personal problem. But whatever brings you joy.

So a public transport doesn't pollute the oxygen? — L'éléphant

In a region where the people work in eco-friendly jobs that offset their carbon outputs, no, it does not. In fact, it does the opposite. Fool.

I wouldn't say people hate vegans as much as people dislike other people telling them what to do. Or otherwise resulting in actions that require them to do more for what they want (rising costs of meat if production is significantly reduced). We may grow old and are our faces may age, but we're all still children in one way or another.

Can you drive oxygen to work? — L'éléphant

What is work. Something you do to live. Can you live without oxygen? It's a few dollars, sometimes less for a reasonable enough distance to walk after using public transport.

1. Cars are bad for the environment. You like oxygen right? You know that thing that lets you breathe and type this drivel?

2. Rice is cheap. Does good for a major world power.

3. You can get pretty good bargains at the right place. Even new a nice or average "first world" outfit is little more than $50 including shoes. At a thrift shop, even less.

4. Lawsuits galore! I came in for a $50 job and left with $5 million. Not too shabby.

5. Half the people who eat there wouldn't know how to grow a single potato if they ever had to. Lack of luxury = excess of knowledge. Just watch a zombie movie to discover the worth of said knowledge.

6. You face more opportunities to learn how to do things without relying on others. That's priceless.

7. A society is only as good as its most vulnerable. Perhaps we're there to help.

8. That's just you projecting. They act above you because according to your willing agreement to be part of whatever organization or service, at least for the hours of your work, they are. Grow up.

Who's to say our entire observable universe is really anything but a three inch petri dish in some alien stoner's college dorm he made for a project and forgot about because he got high. You wouldn't know. So why do some act like they do?

If you can flip a coin and call it, catch it, then throw it into a smelter, you have just defeated determinism.

Yeah, but your hippocampus is unique for every individual. — Shawn

As are many things an individual is fortunate enough to possess, if not condemned with.

I'd assume it'd be like living the life of immortal plankton in a world that is all ocean, but with no whales. You live, at least you can stimulate all senses to the fullest, more often than not at least, though perhaps this limitation is done purposely by wiser plankton as to fabricate a sense of purpose or perhaps.. individuality? So, if by change you mean eradicate, it's likely.

You atheists never cease to amuse. You've never died, at least not anytime in recorded history. Just moved around some, mentally and physically. :wink:

It is also irrelevant whether you use logic ... or rational argument in whatever you want to say here. As I will explain below, it is about society, the majority, and the individual (the private individual) components of morality. — L'éléphant

That's.. interesting. Logically a democratic society is based on the logic of the majority, however unrefined, base, or simply counterproductive it is to said majority's own wants and needs. You say people do things not because they think they're the best course of action but simply because the guy next to them seems to think so. Kind of a "if all your friends jumped off a cliff" approach to society. It's a fair claim though one might (mistakenly) assume you state that an educated person would refuse to use that education (again no matter how poor, misguided, counterproductive or diametrically opposed to the advancement or placation of wants and needs. both personal and collective) .. even if one fully plans to expand and utilize on it later but simply can't at the moment due to again, being outvoted, and so to remain "in the game" as it were has to "just say OK" again simply for that moment. Is that right?

Or perhaps that people often use their emotions or their personal sense of "what feels right" or even just feels good, more so than what (they know?) logically is best, ie. smoking cigarettes or drinking regularly? A society of myopia, basically. Fair points either way. Plenty of evidence to back it up.

Reality is simply what pattern of actions and choice of mind can best placate the needs of your five senses based on an extremely limited period of observation (your life) and what said period entails you to believe happened before said life and what will after. Nothing more. Though nothing less.

Because you refuse to ask why are you not who you aren't. In most cases this is based on circumstances you did not decide nor have any control over so it renders both questions moot. Or does it? This is for you to decide, and perhaps, just perhaps in this process gain a sliver, just a sliver, of a true sense of identity.

Of course it is. For what else is what you talk of other than (if not temporary) suspension of reality. We find this every day in performing arts, public radio and television, and even in the unexpected smile or wink of a random stranger. We are the magicians! Why we fail to cultivate our own talents is nothing short of abysmal.

Aside from that it's nothing that can't be likened to a debate on firearms or being really tall. Sure there's an argument but good luck enforcing that.

To be silent. Or a pariah. An outsider looking in as far as this world and society goes. A very lonely existence or a very disingenuous one. Take your pick. Few alternate options remain. Besides, enlightenment has long been overrated since the CD player and some would argue color TV.

And anyway, philosophers often don't end up living very long.

Because. When an absolute fact is legislated and condemned to be relative opinion, truth dies and its only mourners are curiosity and wonder.

No I'll admit there's a thousand things wrong with the current capitalist system, most of which have at least some form of remedy or at least attention paid to but, this premise of greater effort =/= greater gain is kinda.. I dunno man without getting into too grizzly detail, simply put it didn't sit well with most folks.

it’s more important not to force more workers than to gain some kind of utility from the shitty system — schopenhauer1

So, did a magical pelican fly into your window one day and teach you how to read, speak, and use logic? I'll admit as an individual you make a good argument as far as your case but, many people enjoy what society has brought them to achieve. Literally every word or thought you express is a result of this "system" you speak of. Though for myself it's a fair case, wouldn't you agree to at least assign value or purpose to your own thoughts or actions? See. Painted into a corner. Yes or no the answer is yes. So chill out man.

All we can do is make work look like a virtue so some people can buy into it — schopenhauer1

How do you eat lol. Seriously. Who guards your crops and provides a sense of security so random passers by don't just pick what they can carry in the dead of night and leave you starving and empty during harvest time? These are important questions people ask themselves. And have answered. Like it or not the person who can at least plant a crop they have to eat to live, gets to stay compared to someone who just eats it and tries to convince they're of equal value to the other guy.

I may be mistaken but this OP sounds like a classic case of failure to separate the art from the artist. The ability or possibility for things to occur that are tragic or undesirable be it a simple loss at a friendly game of pool or a terrible tragedy that brings a community together is a world away from people who make the conscious choice to create havoc, discord, and loss of life. This is not a matter of good and evil (perhaps it is but can be more universally accepted as) rather a simple mindset, behavior, or patterns of behavior that have been again universally deemed unproductive to a peaceful and modern society and so must be restricted and perhaps punished according to local laws and customs.

Depending on who you ask, there is no organism alive on this planet that is anything but. Survival of the fittest, they say. Would you be willing to jump into the ocean during shark feeding time or go toe-to-toe with a gorilla? We don't have to, of course. Allegedly from this very process we now tout as divine law. After all, we have tools and neat little appendages we call thumbs. Innocent? Perhaps but according to who's court? So long as we remain in our own jurisdiction of understanding, perhaps you're right.

If you want to play guitar all day rather than build something "productive" — schopenhauer1

Where would you get the guitar from. Who would repair it for you if the need would arise. Who would power your electricity (assuming it would be needed) and why would they do so. Where would you play it, on the street? In a house? Who would teach you how to build one and where would you get the materials from or otherwise why would they build one for you? Why would they not just take it later? How will you defend it? With your guitar? A weapon? Who would make it for you or provide you for one or the knowledge of how to create one and learn to use it properly? Why would they do so for you when they could do so for someone else who maybe has something to offer even if that something is but a simple thanks.

Who told you what a guitar is? How did you hear it? From another person? Or through a technological medium? Who created that medium and who maintains it? Why would they do so for free when they can instead hold your favorite forms of entertainment hostage until you pony up something of use for their time.

Maybe I want your guitar and I happen to be larger than you. Who's going to stop me from taking it? The police? Why would they risk their lives for random ass greedy you when they could just sit at home and play their own guitar that perhaps they built and learned how to play through actually giving a damn and at least attempting to improve the world around them.

It just goes on and on. Eventually you reach a piper that has to be paid, even after swindling, dodging, or doing worse to those before.

Is no secret that groups of Faith have been victims of extremist views. — TheQuestion

So cavemen just never existed huh. Or if so they were an enlightened and peaceful society far beyond anything we have today then.

And just think, they have the nerve to call us crazy. :smirk:

“In the darkness you could hear the crying of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men. Some prayed for help. Others wished for death. But still more imagined that there were no Gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness.” — Joshua Jones

Heh, sounds like a typical day of marriage. Really though, horror and tragedy is no laughing matter. Though neither is it so esoteric or rare it warrants some odd obsession. The greater horror would be a life without the possibility of any of these things, for at least with possibility of tragedy and loss comes appreciation of peace and gain.

When worlds end, worldviews go with them — Joshua Jones

They seem to be alive and quite well thanks to you. Perhaps you mean the unspoken intentions that are left up to interpretation of any who would come across them. In either case it would seem all bases are covered.

So, while it's day, shouldn't we be collecting, testing, and distilling durable meaning, instead of arguing over whether or not we believe it will ever get dark? — Joshua Jones

I don't think anyone would disagree, in fact this is how society (at times begrudgingly) works. That's why horror movies and roller coasters aren't boring, and in fact are some of the most exciting things we can view or experience without the actual presence of impending death.

It's a common belief that some of the "best" or most enthralling writings, creations, and acts are when one is forced to confront one's own mortality. You pose the question of why must the "swan song" outperform the dance of life, not an automatically mundane and uneventful one just a consistent and stable one. It's a fair question. I'm sure there's a fair answer. What makes you believe there isn't?

I take it back. This is good policy. In fact it should be stricter. Perhaps though with a notice in bold included in the "Site Guidelines" topic. That way everybody's happy.

Then again.. they say first impressions dictate the assumed nature of an unfamiliar person. That's how people end up hacked to death in pieces in separate boxes floating down the river by a "charming" stranger. I've signed up to many sites and met many people in a less than sober state. That doesn't mean what was offered then and there is the crux of what could be. It's a meritorious question.

Have you notified people about that? If so, where? How can a newcomer know that? Not even older members know about it! — Alkis Piskas

It would be nice for the "Blog" link to have a purpose for existing other than filling out the header bar. That or some new pinned topics for once, even temporarily.

I am inspired by many thinkers who found themselves really tormented by the Fall of their Empires — Joshua Jones

They all knew what all wise men know. The nature of change. Castles and fortresses turn to rubble, borders, names, and languages change and are inevitably buried by the sands of time, as is the flesh. Good. That is to say as their true empires were not of sand and flesh but knowledge of heart and mind, I see no fall. Only longevity. Why don't you?

we automatically assert certain humans to be more purposeful or precious than others, e.g who would you rather save, a stranger or a family member? — john27

That or a simple case of "better the devil you know".

Beyond that however you seem to come into a catch-22 of sorts. Though I generally loathe the "me hit you, you hit me less hard, i good, you bad, you die now" cavemen-esque philosophy that those without any purpose that can't be replaced by a fallen tree perched on a rock seem to gravitate to almost religiously.. it does beg a very apt question. Is the man who can lift 10 fallen trees per hour used to shelter a society and can bag 5 wild boars to feed said society the same as another who can only lift 3 and bag 2, on a good day? How does this compare to the one born with a condition that makes such feats impossible, or better yet for kicks, what of the man who can lift 20 and bag 10 who suddenly becomes injured?

Without religion, rather belief that humans are profoundly separated from the animals, there is only one answer, and that is a resounding no. Some people find this depressing, especially if and when they become older and of little physical use or simply become injured or perhaps born with a disability. This is not what modern society is about, because again the work of a dozen of the strongest men can now be replaced by a machine that costs 2 cents an hour operated by someone who lost 3 limbs.

Society evolves. Some people in it however do not.

What good is a man who can lift an oak tree compared to a brilliant albeit handicapped poet who can spin legends and tales of magnificent entertainment in a society that has plenty of wood but not enough things to occupy their time?

Perhaps.. it's as simple as being able to question what it is to be unenlightened? And no, not @unenlightened, not necessarily that is. Simply to have knowledge of the existence of both states and ability to ponder their respective differences and similarities, while most importantly resisting the temptation to cast yourself as one or the other based on what has historically been a consistently changing reality or "goal post". The smartest men of each century were in fact the smartest men, until they weren't. It's ironic really, by acknowledging one's own intelligence you inadvertently discredit everything responsible for it. This is the trap that subdues many men who seek what they do not have, be it for reasons of piety or degeneracy. Perhaps this is a good thing, all considered.

That's some nationalistic values you have there: the grandeur of the state's legacy over the well being of the people? — frank

Better to starve to death with a sword in your hand than to simultaneously eat morsels fertilized by brethren's corpses with said sword placed firmly up your, oh never mind.

The "legacy" of a state is the well being of the people. Defeated enemies (of the state) who claim to have been "the state" and were able to act as such simply add to the legitimacy of said state and relevant people. It's not that complicated really.

Our Universe is supposed be an example of a closed system with a finite amount of energy in existence. — TheQuestion

Perhaps it is. That doesn't mean it corresponds to any microcosmic understanding or "law" of energy or finity as we know it. Let's say black/white hole theory is correct. That would make black holes God's/the Universe's "recycling bins" though perhaps there's a more poignant term. Say a planet somewhere far away doesn't happen to end up gravitating around a massive star and so/or otherwise isn't able to produce conditions to sustain life. Or say it does and said life becomes so heh "advanced" they end up wiping out all chances for life intelligent and otherwise through warfare. Both hypothetical planets would eventually end up in one of these black holes and every single element, atom, and everything in between would for lack of better words be chewed up and spit back out in it's most base form thus continuing existence. Who knows. Perhaps this has happened countless times before and us humans are little more than one of the worst outcomes of this process and beings unfathomably more advanced than us lived for eons. Before again, this inevitable process consumed them. Maybe some even managed to escape. We'll never know.

"Capital E" Enlightenment is manifesting whatever desirable and useful truths a specific doctrine is able to produce be it contentedness during hardship, solid faith in life (or afterlife) and its rewards, just living a good life independent of stature, etc. Simple enlightenment is simply discovering something unknown. For example learning how to ride a bike or tie your shoes.

The "Age of Enlightenment" commonly referred to as "The Enlightenment" was, allegedly, the idea that prevailing religious systems and beliefs caused men to grow intellectually feeble and too easily domineered by alleged "men of God" who may easily become corrupt and act against the best interests and advancement of a given society or nationhood. They saw the wonders and scientific advancements, at least the drive toward these things that perhaps men or societies with a little less dogma produced and possessed. They thought, perhaps, we're in the wrong boat, so to speak. That's one theory at least. Sapere aude.

"Enlightenment thinkers sought to curtail the political power of organized religion, and thereby prevent another age of intolerant religious war."

Of course, this could merely have been just another political party aimed in changing very little other than who controls the reigns. Nothing has changed much in political philosophy since its inception. "You're missing out on this, here's why. Other people will surpass us and we will miss opportunity and/or possibly suffer and/or perish, here's how we can fix it." Etc. It's cookie-cutter psychology. Not calling it ineffective. People like simple ideas that trigger parts of their brain they can't simply understand, at least "it sticks".

Since 1958 we have focused on preparing our young to be products for industry. — Athena

If you don't do it, somebody else will. As a self-proclaimed religious person I naturally cast doubt on the value, rather prominence of what we believe to be (success in this) life as compared to some arbitrary (in my limited understanding) absolute nature. Even still, life, whatever it is, has at least fleeting moments worthy enough to call it "worth living", does it not? These moments are either yours for the taking through training end education, or missed opportunities others will indulge in. And possess full control over any experience, good or bad, free or restricted, democratic, or autocratic, you or any of your own will ever experience here, if given the chance. I suppose, if you trust others to follow the golden rule, there isn't much to worry and you can prepare as you see fit. Though, when has that ever been the case, for very long?

You think a skateboard to the head cant kill someone? wow. let me use a skateboard to your head then. — Miller

Let me see if I can.. be an ambassador of rationality here. Sure, a skateboard has hard metal parts, "trucks" I believe they're called. That if violently swung at a person have a reasonably high chance to result in serious injury, sure as can a fist, or a random rock or bottle found on the ground. So an item created for leisure and recreation is not quite equatable to an item created to be a weapon, a weapon some say is for war and mass casualty. Let's be honest, say you're told to kill as many as possible, would you grab the plaintiff's skateboard or Kyle's rifle?

Had they done their fucking job there would not have been any shooting. There were only three people shot that night. — James Riley

The job of the police is to provide security for citizens in that anyone, regardless of race or religion or any other nonsense we've come to distinguish and identify ourselves with has freedom of movement across any national territory, unimpeded and free from threat of bodily harm or other grievance per specific constitution. Sometimes the police do their job, and it results in grievous bodily harm whether it be being pelted with rocks, frozen water bottles, or bottles filled with volatile bodily fluids. If the local police force cannot perform this duty due to civil unrest the state is to call a "state of emergency" and send in the "national guard" which is actually a misnomer as it is a state agency to enforce law and order. They are essentially trained using the same mindset of the national military. Only in the event several states and their enforcers cannot maintain order is when they call "martial law" which suspends every citizen's constitutional rights entirely and essentially is civil war which means, nothing is accounted for or "on the books" as it were. As to why a minority group would wish this to occur seeing as there is absolutely zero chance of coming out on top is not only a mystery to me but frankly makes me think there's something else afoot. As in, those who wish for the destruction of minority groups want them to push for this seeing as, like i said, absolutely zero chance of coming out on top. It would be a purge or ethnic cleansing if enough people are indoctrinated to believe this "ghetto mentality" of, despite the law codifying you as equal, and yes many others who are actually simply in violation of this law and subject to removal and/or prosecution, stand in your way and abuse this law, your sole solution is to fight law and equality itself when in fact it's what you seek. It's sad. So many fall victim to this trap.

So basically, had "they done their fucking job" lots of people may have been harmed or killed. Believe me, there would have been plenty of shooting. Assault is threatening another citizen. Battery is striking one with your fists or an object. That's illegal. If you assault a cop, you are going down. If you have friends who also pose a threat, so are they. In no light mood or sentiment, that's a lot of bullets and a tremendous waste of life. Capital murder usually carries the death penalty, attempted (which is what they usually try to spin battering a cop as, or shooting, which is understandable) doesn't come far behind.

And for the record I'm the first to admit there are plenty of pieces of shite that wear the uniform, traitorously take the oath (the punishment for treason is still death btw, that has never changed), then hide behind the badge. And even more who look the other way. But there are also plenty of citizens and non-officers who do the same, those who kill and wreck havoc on the lives of law-abiding citizens. There's no easy solution. Not really, anyway.

he had a swaggery, self-important personality that is common in boys his age who are anxious to prove themselves and want to be a hero. He wanted to become a cop and he probably just couldn't wait to get out there with a gun and intimidate quell people willing to harm other citizens and property as is all citizens oaths in the Constitution, to combat enemies foreign and domestic, so he went LARPing across town, where there was a riot and he could be a badass. — _db

Up until the probably, nowhere is any law violated. Yet, if you continue reading between the lines and the italicized text, nowhere is any law violated.

It's important to analyze all events and the timeline of events through a color-blind and non-sensationalized lens. This is not a trial to determine if racial biases are present in court or one or more systems that make up the justice system, that is an independent issue that must be addressed later. The key item at hand was which (if any) discharging of a firearm by a citizen towards another citizen with intent were justified at the time of discharge.

You got a young kid openly carrying an assault weapon, barely legally, at an American demonstration. This is not illegal per local laws. Nor is this a privilege restricted to any one group of people, all 17 year old citizens present could, as a result, have done the same and perhaps outnumbered him and told their own version of events. That's what people don't understand about this case, you don't have to be a certain color to open carry an assault weapon at a protest. Do I think this is wise? Not necessarily. Nevertheless, this is codified law. You can change the law, but to do so you first must abide by it and allow others to.

Before getting to the "first" physically aggressive action, the assault and attempted battery on Rittenhouse by the first deceased person, you must recognize there are two states a weapon can be in when one carries one on their person. Rest state and "ready state". A rifle slung on your back or pointed downward is not "ready state". Carrying it with both hands and your finger on or near the trigger, and obviously as well as pointing the barrel at a person where if fired would either strike them or nearby them, is "ready state". This is a very important factor in determining if one is reasonable in assuming they would soon be shot in an environment where guns are present and therefore not automatically a threat to life and limb.

You have two "groups" (though what's important to realize is the individual nature of offenses) utilizing their right to protest and publicly assemble, while yes, being armed. Free speech and provocative speech is generally allowed but there are exceptions that are (usually) made on a case-by-case basis. Inciting a riot, fire in a theater, etc. these are all vaguely defined and largely depend on the circumstances and reasonably assumable intentions of the defendant. If, and only if the Kyle Rittenhouse did not engage in assault (threatening, menacing, etc.) before himself becoming assaulted and nearly battered, the discharge of a weapon on a person who literally just got done assaulting and attempting to batter you before chasing you is not such a stretch from a justified homicide in an inherently chaotic and violent setting. Not one to speak ill of the dead but the guy shot has a record, not just criminally but mental health concerns as well. That doesn't look good for character or legal defense. I'm not saying it's right that he's no longer here or that he decided to fire upon him I'm saying a 17 year old does not have the ability to perform a mental health analysis and diagnosis whilst being attacked by unknown projectiles in an unfamiliar environment. When attacked, it is not a citizen's job to play psychiatrist or doctor in the heat of a moment assault when your life is threatened. It's a tragedy, perhaps a failure of the mental health or criminal justice system, nothing more. It's not so much about the degradation of the deceased's character more so about the circumstances and environment both men created leading up to the moment the weapon was discharged. Sure you could say since the guy was hospitalized for trying to kill himself, it only makes sense that if he doesn't value his own life, how could or why would he value the life of others, basically suggesting he tried to cause severe bodily harm to Rittenhouse by throwing a plastic bag of unknown items which could have been anything. Rocks, frozen water bottles, etc. if you're struck at the right spot at the right velocity you could end up unconscious, perhaps in a coma, fatal bleeding, TBI if you fall and your head stikes a rock, etc.

Huber's is a lot more complicated. Will expand on him and the third later but essentially it's like if a mob of people says an undercover/plain clothes cop just shot someone and he's a "mass shooter" with a fake badge. Who's really at fault. The people who believe they are acting in the scope of the law and the interests of the nation who fatally subdue him, or those who in turn let him go when he turns out to actually be a mass shooter and 50 people get killed at a nearby school. None of this is simple really.

In short, mistakes were made.

monarchs — baker

That's the other thing. One great man, a man of compassion, duty, bravery, power, all only used when appropriate.. one you wish to rule forever, never will. For such would be a hell in and of itself. There is no guarantee, in fact perhaps as some argue an inverse guarantee, that the successor (biological kid) would not be, in less adept terms, a shit. How can one have time to father a nation and his own child without neglecting one or the other. Man cannot serve two masters.

It's complicated. It doesn't take much effort to see both sides.

What if you were a non-criminally inclined third-world person, never hurt a man, always there to help, who was just sitting there in his shack only to have it blown up and his only child fatally wounded. The idea of this "better life" is a promise every nation makes. Sure perhaps to one-up each other and then be able to call the other out.

Then of course, if you send not just a person but tens of thousands of persons who don't speak your language, know nothing of your rules, laws, and customs, and perhaps have a few what many call "backwards customs" ie. arranged marriage, honor killings (not too dissimilar to duels in early America), what some say is oppression of women, etc. when the host nation does not have sufficient and most importantly successful "cultural integration procedures" (which due to Covid-19 is quite impossible) then of course the citizens will not take to that. Neither will the refugees feel comfortable nor will they be safe as the law is applied equally. So nobody actually benefits from this, except as you say, these potential external and malevolent forces acting in the interest of their own nation who are allegedly purposely sewing chaos in the lands of potential adversaries.

It's tough man. Real tough. Better than how it was before though, who can (appear to) be the kindest nation vs. who can really be the cruelest. We've come along way. Don't you agree?