Basic income plan clearly rejected by Swiss voters

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

Godel_unicode wrote: post #545

rbanffy wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lets be honest here, the 'minaret' issue is extremely minor one. Not at all. It violates the very idea of freedom of religion. I doubt a ban on building of churches would be approved and this shows that a more popular group can (and does) trample on fundamental human rights of other smaller groups.

I guess it's a good thing mosques aren't minarets. I see this as a good compromise between "we want to allow others to practice their religion" and "we want to preserve our own cultural heritage". Not knowing the back story of why that line is in the Constitution, I hope it's there as this type of concrete example; practice your religion, build your mosque, but meet Switzerland halfway architecturally speaking. Also,…

Post by Memph » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 6:39 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #569

Memph wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago has 1.12 million people living in census tracts above 20,000 people per square mile, the satellite cities are more in the 10-15k/sq mi range. http://swontariourbanist.blogspot.ca/2014/03/toronto-and-chi... Chicago quickly drops off past the 20k/sq-mi range too, which is basically typical rowhouse density. It only has 88,000 people living in >50k/sq-mi census tracts, mostly stretched out along the northern wat…

I think we're getting pretty close to "No True Scotsman" territory when we start designating neighborhoods --- inside the city limits of a metro statistical area with vast, sprawling suburbs --- as themselves suburbs, despite being on trunk CTA train routes, on one of the city's main drags, because "European cities would call those neighborhoods suburbs". I'm getting the impression that Europeans would "call them sub…

Post by hodwik2 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 7:21 PM UTC

gotchange wrote: post #216

hodwik2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something to be said for having been born (and as a result, raised) in a post-Enlightenment society. Migrants from pre-Englightenment societies almost always raise the general crime levels, take value that they didn't earn, and become the new underclass. Look at Irish and Italian immigrants in the US in the 1800s. We came from countries that did not have the same level of education, without the history of li…

> So far, Middle Eastern immigrants have shown little interest in assimilating at all. Do you realize that there are indigenous christians of all denominations in the ME or there's some kind of dominance hierarchy among denominations and churches of the world that I am not aware of?

Post by xyience » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

hodwik2 wrote: post #575

gotchange wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far, Middle Eastern immigrants have shown little interest in assimilating at all. Do you realize that there are indigenous christians of all denominations in the ME or there's some kind of dominance hierarchy among denominations and churches of the world that I am not aware of?

Of course. It's something like 3% of Syrian refuges, for example. No population is uniform. But if we were talking casually about, say, Hong Kong, and I said the Hong Kong-ese speak Cantonese, would you complain because some percentage do not? Or if I said Spanish people speak Spanish? It's not a useful distinction to draw unless you provide it in the context of some larger argument.

Post by swombat » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

elcapitan wrote: post #241

swombat wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no right to construct the things you damn like upon your private property in most of Europe. There are a lot of zoning laws, safety laws, standards, etc. Generally, even if fairly loose places like the UK, each locality gets to veto the construction of something if they don't like it. Also, the idea of private property, here or anywhere else, is highly tenuous. Have you looked into how much you actually own…

> "Real" in "Real estate" doesn't stand for reality, it stands for royalty. Your private property is granted by royal decree, and can be withdrawn by the same mechanism. That etymology doesn't sound very "real"? "Real estate, the exact term, is first recorded 1660s, but in Middle English real was used in law in reference to immovable property, paired with, and distinguished from, personal."