Then that's all here : https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-6a-the-points-based-system

From what I can decipher, UK immigration will prioritize requests by three categories, Highly Skilled Workers, Work Permit Holders and Family Members. Pretty sure that's self-explanatory. Otherwise you just fall under General and your request goes through the legal process. Once accepted you are allowed to settle for 5 years until you get probationary citizenship, then you can earn full citizenship through on a point-based system which rewards civic works. (Borders, Citizenship and Immigration 2009)

From what I can see there is nothing there to deny entry to someone based solely on his country of origin. You'll have to prove that the person has a criminal background.

What do you mean by that? — Posty McPostface

That to a certain electorate, it doesn't matter how bad the person is or does, as long as he is definitly not Obama, or like Obama.

Yeah, that's the Fox News cool aid — Posty McPostface

I don't think this is something Fox News did to the americans. I think it's something the Dem have driven themselves into. They had a decade or two to shape the political discourse, and wasted it on focusing on the same things that had worked for them in the 90s.

That depends entirely on the Democrat candidate, really. Everyone who voted against him knew how bad Trump would turn out to be. Everyone who voted for him were and likely somewhat still are convinced he is doing a good job*. The Dems have already shown a willingness to give the country over to a second-rate crook who happened to make it to the big times, simply because they didn't have a candidate politicaly sexy enough.

One ought to turn one's back on the U.S. entirely and call the whole place a political wasteland.

* relatively to Obama.

What is the mind without its contents? What is the mind when it is vacant of thought, perceptions, ideas and concepts? Is it still in existence or is non existent without these properties? — Fumani

A hazy concept either wrongfully co-opted from a "common psychology" in current philosophy, or condoned by by a refusal to move to the newer paradigm of animal cognition.

The use of 'mind' is excusable in phenomenology, epistemology and ontology as a shorthand for 'all the cognitive functions of the brain relevant to the conversation', but otherwise, in proper theory of the mind, or cognitive science, it has no place anymore.

We're all responsible for our own actions, and can easily choose to go against the "norms" if we want to. — JustSomeGuy

Not if we aren't predisposed to it. Ever since I turned 18, the question 'what do I want' has been followed by 'why do I want what I want'. Not to pat myself on the back, but this level of critical introspection, while probably common to most philosopher-types, doesn't seem to be generalised. A hell of a lot of people seems to be comfortable at stopping themselves at the first line of motive inquiry : 'what do I want', 'what should I do', 'what is good', etc...

Even the ones who end up going against the norms rarely seem to do so out of a conscious choice, but rather through a process of internalized and perhaps inversed values. Changing yourself truly demand clarity of introspection, something which I would be quick to add I do not have... Perhaps once I get in the habit of asking myself consistently "why do I think that this is why I think that this is what I want?". I'll give myself at least another decade.

Fun fact :

Because of the clause "arrived via the Canada-United States border." which makes you unable to claim refugee status from the Canada-United States border, and because it is not a crime to enter undeclared into Canada if you have the intent to claim refugee status, it is much more profitable to sneak your way across the border, present yourself at an immigration office once in Montreal, and then claim refugee status. They will not be able to deny your claim on the basis of the US Border clause.

So how is it determined which immigrants to accept and which to reject? First come, first served? Most plausible sounding sob story? Parts missing? What? — Bitter Crank

You realize that there is a legal framework for refugee acceptance, right?

"The IRB decides who is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Convention refugees are outside their home country or the country they normally live in. They are not able to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:

race
religion
political opinion
nationality, or
membership in a social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.

A person in need of protection is a person in Canada who cannot return to their home country safely. This is because if they return, they would be subject to a:

danger of torture
risk to their life, or
risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Your refugee claim may not be eligible to be referred to the IRB if you:

have been recognized as a Convention refugee by another country that you can return to.
have already been granted protected person status in Canada.
arrived via the Canada-United States border.
are not admissible to Canada on security grounds, or because of criminal activity or human rights violations.
made a previous refugee claim that was not found eligible.
made a previous refugee claim that was rejected by the IRB.
abandoned or withdrew a previous refugee claim.
"

I'm listening to conservative talk radio and they're saying that Trump is not racist because he was only referring to the country not the people. — Purple Pond

Is it not enough that it is a perfect proof of the fact, fact that has been screamed across all media platforms imaginable, possible and in existence since the beginning of this travesty, that Trump is unfit for presidency? Unfit for public service of any kind, really?

Learning Latin wouldn't have helped. They speak Spanish, Portuguese, and an assortment of Amerindian languages. Some even speak English without an Australian accent--always a plus. — Bitter Crank

That was, quite clearly, the joke.

Can the cooperation care if the cleaning lady did not make any complaints (whereas it sounds likely the man made a complaint)? — TimeLine

As far as I know, she did make a complaint. And her boss too. I figured that since it's a cleaning service footed by the building in which we rent our office space, that it was taking its sweet time to resolve because of the go-between of both HR departements, and technically, the police. Maybe that was the case, and the pat on the ass just allowed my boss a good excuse to put an early end to it? I'll hope that was the case.

mostly by her way of using methods where she would not get caught like intentionally spilling drink - which is what bullies do. — TimeLine

Yeah. She was something. We once had a fire alarm at work, and she refused to leave work. I was alone with her as her supervisor, it was late at night, and she was convinced it was fake. So I waited by her for half an hour until her shift was over, and the second we exited our office, we started smelling smoke. I directed her to the fire exit stairs, and once we were both down a bit, I ran down to make sure that the whole stairwell was clear of fire, which is was. I then ran back up 16 floors to get to her, bring her down to the exit, where we met the firemen and the building security which were completely furious at us. I explained it all to them, took me about 3 hours of filing paperworks, she left immediatly.

The next day, I came into work to get pulled by my boss for a complaint that I had abandonned worker A in the stairway shaft, endangering her, and that I was lucky that I wasn't facing disciplinary measures and possibly legal damages. I was absolutely furious. Luckily, for some other reason, both of my bosses got fired that very same day, so when the new boss came in weeks later, I had a chance to explain my point.

Whew. Once again, oddly therapeutic. Sorry about being so off-topic.
And the worse... I have literally dozens of such stories.

That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though justified the initial comment. — TimeLine

I've been very clear in my use of conditionals. "Tend". "Generally". "Most of the time".

. It does not change the nature of your generalisation by simply adding everyone into the equation. — TimeLine

It does however change that you can't claim that I disrespect women when I specifically do not say anything about women, but about people.

That is like someone saying a racist comment to culture A and then claiming they have friends from culture A as though justified the initial comment. — TimeLine

I really doubt the validity of this analogy. If you wanted to push it, it could be "guy from culture A claims racist thing about culture A but says it's fine because he's from culture A".

This is tangentially off-topic, but then again it isn't. Remember worker A's story? The one who assaulted the cleaning lady in the bus?

Just learned she wasn't fired because of that. In fact the corporation didn't care at all. She was fired because she slapped a newly hired dude on the bum. I mean, I'm just glad she's gone, and slapping dudes on the ass is unacceptable... But no one cared that she assaulted a coworker???

I never claimed that.

Carry on. — JustSomeGuy

That's not at all what I claimed. What I said was that women cannot want men to make the first move spontaneously,while simultaneously wanting them to ask consent first. — JustSomeGuy

I've been saying (all along >:o ) that, in general, statements like "women like assertive men who act and do not talk" are meaningless by ways of being trite. Most people, men or women, do not like unassertive individuals. And contrarily to what JustSomeGuy claimed previously, the "assertive move" doesn't have to be made physically, blind of any verbal consent.

The suggestions that you have been making, the generalisations against women and the lack of respect is what I would consider 'aggressive' — TimeLine

Again, just to be clear, the lack of respect comes from my claiming that women, in the same way as men, tend not to value weakness in partners. This is what you claim amount to disrespect.

This is the type of behaviour and aggressivity that is tolerated in a Mod here?

My point isn't to use pick-up lines. I have never seen them work, and wouldn't really want a girl on who they would work.
My point is to place the blame squarely where it is deserved. You are responsible for engaging women in a manner that doesn't portray you as a creep. Engaging in polite conversation, having clear goals and mostly being good-humoured is, imho, the best policy.

The one thing that I do know all women like and that is respect. — TimeLine

By your own standard, this very statement is a hasty generalisation. Still, I guess you won't be willing to see my point, so I'll leave you to your indignation.

You need to come to Montreal. :D

And you say: — TimeLine

Hadn't seen your answer yet, and I wasn't replying to you anyhow... so... Care to dial down the aggressivity? :s

In any case, do you really find so insulting "women generally don't want weak undecisive partners, just like man"? As far as hasty generalisation goes, I feel it's a fairly well balanced one.

Given this unsollicitated answer, I assume I could ask you the same.

but I have it on good authority from multiple women I've had relationships with that women do not want you to ask, they want you to act. — JustSomeGuy

Women generally don't want weak partners. They aren't really different from men in that regard, a lot of us would also very much dislike overly meek partners. Asking for permission can be seen as submissive, especially when it is done over and over again. It can also be seen as authoritative, as a statement of fact and a subtle, implied occasion for the other to desist. My experience is that it is well received when it is well led up to. Like Micheal said, don't ask her "can I kiss you now", tell her, "I will kiss you now, yes?". Don't say "Can we sleep together/" (lol), say, "I want to take you".

I'm curious, do you live in the U.S.? — JustSomeGuy

No. Canada, Montreal.

If not, then much of or disagreement is likely due to cultural differences. — JustSomeGuy

Possibly. Definitely doesn't make me want to go flirt in the US, tho, that's for sure.

France has a very different culture than the U.S., and especially when it comes to sexuality they seem to be much more advanced than we are here. — JustSomeGuy

That's a trope, and a very false one at that. In many regards France gender norms are still much closer to that portrayed in Mad Men than anything else.

Quick lad! (Y)

It's even more nonsense because it is predicated on the belief that the Dutch are not a completely forgettable people.

It might not be racist to say "Africa is a terrible country to live in" but it is racist to say "we don't want Africans coming here." — Michael

Calling Africa a country and lumping together the entirety of the continent as "a shithole" is what I would take to be a proof positive of racism and crass stupidity.

'd also like to point out that you are displaying another negative characteristic that is generally more prominent in men. I'll call it "macho-ness", for lack of a better term. You are implying, with everything you have said to me so far, that you are "more of a man" than I am; that I am "inadequate" in comparison to you. — JustSomeGuy

Well, that's how you are perceiving our interaction. You say women expect men to do the first move, and that they also expect this first move to be physical, and that these incompatible expectations are at the source of the negative dynamics between the sexes. You then lay an icing of "women are emotional and not rational" with the cherry of "women don't have more problems than man".

We are all free to form our own perceptions from this interaction, but you'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a frustrated MRA-type with this type of setup. And, relatively, I'll have a hard time passing as anything else than a macho.

So you're saying you tell women "I am attracted to you" and then ask women if you can touch their leg or their hand? You ask women if you can kiss them?

How romantic. — JustSomeGuy

I have a French accent. I could ask someone to pluck a chicken and it would still be more naturally romantic than all the artifice you can summon.

Are you a woman? I cannot see a man saying something like this because it's just plain inaccurate. It shows a complete lack of experience in regards to interacting with potential romantic or sexual female partners. In other words: that's just not how things work. — JustSomeGuy

This is chuckle-worthy. You only display your own inadequacies. This is how things have not worked for you in the past. It has pretty much only ever worked for me. Engaging women you are interested in verbally and leading to your attraction for them as a subject shows confidence and extroversion.

But you cannot expect to have men make the first move to initiate sexual encounters, with the requirement that it's only the men you want to have sexual encounters with. People don't know what you want until you make it explicit. Men cannot read minds, and body language is not even close to sufficient since it can be so easily misinterpreted. — JustSomeGuy

This is more than a little akward. You don't have to read minds. You can always talk to your prospective sexual partner. If you aren't a creep out to justify his creepiness, that is.

I love women, I absolutely respect women, and I consider myself a true feminist in the sense I that I believe in equality between genders. Sexism is stupid and ignorant, but that doesn't mean there aren't general differences between sexes. One difference I have personally observed to be true is that women are more irrational, and there is a biological basis for this involving hormones. — JustSomeGuy

*Doubt about creepiness intensifies*

Females are not worse off than men in society, and this movement completely ignores all of the things men deal with.
Women do not have more problems; they have different problems, but there is still plenty of overlap.
Men experience sexual assault all the time, as well. — JustSomeGuy

*Doubt about creepiness settles into sad, resignated certainty*

Leeann Tweeden wasn't a soldier. She was named the top Hooters girl of all time though, not to 'slut shame' but to point out that she's probably experienced far worse than having her chest touched while wearing a flak jacket. She should know the difference between obnoxious joke and sexual assault. — praxis

"Not to slut shame, but let's slut shame the fuck out of her anyway".
An obnoxious joke can be a sexual assault. "The court knows no humour".

Hence the accusations against Senator Franken and Garrison Keillor that they touched a woman inappropriately (on one woman's rump, on one woman's back) — Bitter Crank

Franken was photographed grabbing a sleeping soldier's boobs too.
#metoo is about denouncing sexual misconduct. By design that spectrum is very large. What unite the people that are on it is that they are all somewhat dicks and can be shielded from just retribution by their power and position. That's why Franken got burned.

Lord of the Rings has more truth when it comes to matters of friendship, loyalty, and duty, than the Bible. — charleton

(Y)

Luke Skywalker > Jesus Christ.

At the end of everyday, seconds after I've snuggled into my bed, my cat comes and spoons me, right under my armpit. In the last five years of cohabitation, she has perhaps failed to do so 2 or 3 times.

Please do not allow this. Upvote serves little purpose. We all know I'd upvote nearly everything SLX writes. We all know Buxtebudda would upvote nearly everything Agustino would write. And of course TimeLine would sheepishly upvote everything by Hanover, despite denying it all.

How can you say that survival is not a value? — MonfortS26

Well, that was because I was using your terms. I my own, I would say that survival is the only value by which a trait is selected. Sociopaths, people who buckle quickly under pressure and resort to violence, those aren't people "who value survival first", not anymore at least then the people who band together and try to progress morally despite the conditions. They are just people who value different methods of survival.

Shit hits the fan, you'll find more people trying to rebuild society than people trying to abuse the lack of authority. They are all trying to survive. It's just that being generally polite, mostly good-tempered and sometimes altruistic is a better long-run survival strategy than being a dick.

The fact that they present in low percentages doesn't change the fact that they are present. To say that our desire to band together is as strong as our desire to survive is ignoring the fact that anti-social behavior exists, no matter how small their population. — MonfortS26

No it is not. I have specifically acknowledged the presence and offered and explanation of 'evil' people. You are ignoring the point I was making : survival is not in itself a value, it's by what every acquired value is tested. Possibly, an overall population of 90% dogooders to 10% sociopaths is sufficiently balanced so that both dogooders and sociopaths have a decent chance of passing on their traits to the next generation. I find it very doubtful that humanity could prolong its existence much further if these numbers were reversed.

If you'll notice earlier, I said the deepest root value is survival. "When the chips are down, these 'civilized people' will eat each other". We have an innate instinct to not die, when people feel their life is threatened, they do monstrous things. — MonfortS26

This attitude right there is what annoys me the most out of every depiction of post-apocalyptic scenarios. When the chips are down, the vast majority of people, civilised or not, do the same thing they do when the chips aren't down : they band together and try to make the most out of it. A group will always be stronger than an individual.

Saying that the deepest rooted value is survival is also somewhat faulty by tautology. Every value that is selected for is selected for survival enhancement. The general tendency of humans to band together is a value as "strongly rooted" as survival, because it was selected for it's benefit toward survival. It's likely that the remaining anti-social traits that we also find, like the sociopathy displayed by joker-types, were also selected for because, if they are present in very low percentages, they also have a positive influence on survival.

You missed my point. If there were 200 people who shop at a store each day, without cameras, do you think more than 100 of those people would steal? — MonfortS26

I have worked at stores which didn't have security cameras, and while we might not have had 200 people every day, we certainly didn't have 50% of our walk-ins steal our stuff. This also doesn't represent properly how morals and moral action takes place.

Shoplifting is small fries. Those that do it are mainly teenagers or poor people to whom it doesn't even strike out as a moral dilemma, just a cheap thrill with barely any consequences for the workers, or even the company they steal from. Even if someone admitted to me that they were an unrepentant shoplifter, I wouldn't consider them 'evil'.

How many people would resort to violence if they knew they wouldn't get caught? And, perhaps more importantly, how many people would close their eyes and act as if nothing was wrong if they saw someone else being victimised, and they had nothing to gain or lose by helping?

I think very few people would act out in a Purge-type thing, unless it was profoundly ingrained in the cultural fabric of the people who would do it. On the other hand, sadly, I think the default setting of most individual is to bury their head in the sand when they see an injustice that doesn't touch them. If we, as a specie, are 'evil', it's in my opinion more because of this propensity than because of war, of survival or because of capitalism and power.

It was sold when someone made a ridiculous offer.
The people who bought it had no intention to maintain it or keep it running, just declaring it as a loss.
You can log-in but your posts are swallowed whole in the nether and the site doesn't update the threads.

A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying, — Bitter Crank

Jesus fucking Christ what the hell is wrong with you that you think this is an acceptable statement to ever make? Of course it could be worse than annoying.

For fuck's sake what the hell is wrong with this fucking planet that this is even in question?

Lingua Franca (died some time back) and Quillette are very similar magazines. They are not right wing, they are merely critical of extremes in academic BS. — Bitter Crank

A good 50 % of their pieces in the last month were nothing more than postmodernism bashing or feminism bashing.

And if you think wsws.org is anything else than a cesspool of conspirationist degenerates, than I cannot accept your judgement as valid. So I guess there it goes. :s