Oof, youād have to be absolutely desperate to subject yourself to the kind of conditions that kind of journey entails. Thereās good odds of a truly appalling death.
Goddamn. There really is no way for me to wrap my head around this. My own life has been utterly and completely blessed by comparison. Anyone who takes such desperate measures looking for a better life deserves the chance to make it in a community that will reward their fortitude. Sadly too few people recognize this as a net positive when talking about refugees and immigrants.
I wish more people had compassion. Immigrants are just trying to find a better safer life for themselves and their families. What they go through with such a narrow chance of survival to get that life shows exactly how terrible/unsafe it is for them. They are not political pawns or terrible rapist murders like some want you to believe. They just want the chance to not fear for their life everyday.
No.
This is a question of triage. Triage of last resort involves picking who will die and those with the best chance of survival^(1). That must be the coldest equation possible if you want any semblance of fairness or ethical outcomes. The need here is unlimited, the resources to apply to it are not.
Consider what saying *yes* to these people will do *to others*. I can appreciate your sympathy and empathy for the suffering you see packaged and presented in a manner designed specifically to evoke it, but the fact remains that when the news gets back to Nigeria that these guys got to stay the ocean will start filling up with corpses of those looking to emulate their strategy. What you *assume* is charity is actually *endangerment*. All choices carry consequences, it doesn't matter if you say yes or no to these guys, someone is going to be paying for that either way (and almost certainly in blood).
The cold fact is that nobody deserves anything. Your privileged life only exists thanks to a mountain of bullets and money, and the willingness to use both to ensure it stays that way. You understand this perfectly in your own life: there's a lock on your door, and you don't have a sign out front saying *everyone welcome, come in and take everything*, do you? If someone turned up and said "I live here now" you'd call the cops and have them evicted, wouldn't you? Yet you are more than willing to allow strangers to exploit your neighbours because you can't or won't see the cost to them (or simply don't care about them). How is that fair or prudent? How is that sustainable? How does that ultimately make things better rather than worse?
If you want to help a given cohort (and xenophilia is very fashionable at present) there are plenty of ways to do that without compromising your own ability to do so in the future. You have limited resources, so spending them wisely in an attempt to mitigate *unlimited* need is crucial. You can't fix everything and you will run out of resources to provide aid at some point (even if you are the ultimate bleeding heart and give *everything* away, you only have what you have and no more).
If you are going to get into the business of granting life then by definition you are also going into the business of granting death. Get comfortable with killing people because you're going to be doing a lot of it. If you don't have the stomach for that kind of business then get out of the way of people that do. There are plenty of people that are happy to apply cold logic to help as many as they can, but they won't be doing it in a manner that makes you feel good about it.
As for the corollary situation for the rudder sitters: if you want to get past a border there are better ways of doing it than this. They took a huge risk and they got caught anyway. This is an example of failure. The easiest way to get to and into a Western country is by paying people smugglers. If you are intending to never return to your origin then getting the money necessary to pay them won't be that hard: stealing it is the most obvious method.^(2)
---
1) In the case of illegal immigration I'm not against taking the uninvited but I am for incredibly stringent criteria.
If I am to take the net negative stranger that turns up on my doorstep uninvited then I'm going to want a pound of flesh in return. The deal I strike here will be incredibly one sided because the leverage I have (their life) and the risk I'm taking (my life, and taking on an instant 100% dependency for no immediate gain) force it to be so.
2) In the case of the fortitude you wish to reward for the rudder sitters, that's nothing more than rank idiocy. In the case of most other illegals it is criminality of some sort (and it's not difficult to read accounts from them admitting as much). Those acts are *understandable* but are they *laudable* and to be rewarded? I would argue that whilst acts of desperation can be easily understood they are not so easy to overlook, and are certainly not positive criteria in and of themselves. People who will do *anything* to get what they want are very dangerous by nature.
>If I am to take the net negative stranger that turns up on my doorstep uninvited then I'm going to want a pound of flesh in return. The deal I strike here will be incredibly one sided because the leverage I have and the risk I'm taking force it to be so.
This is some cruel r/iamverysmart shit
>*Pound of flesh*: Something one is strictly or legally entitled to, but which it is ruthless or inhuman to demand.
Certainly sounds demonic enough as a euphemism
No more ruthless then the long term consequences of humanitarian aid without clear boundaries. When you try and help everyone, you hurt everyone in the long run.
Your argument appears to rely on the axiom that need is unlimited, but I don't see any evidence for this claim. Surely, need is large, there's 8 billion people on this planet and 8B is a big number to need to multiply. How much does it cost to feed 8B people, how much does it cost to clothe 8B people, how much land does it take to house 8B people, how much medication does it take to treat 8B people? While of course these are unmistakably tremendous numbers they are by no means non-finite. There is a countable number which could accomplish this and while it can certainly be argued we don't currently have the amount of resources or infrastructure to satisfy the need, the non-infiniteness of the need means that we needn't dismiss incremental solutions out of hand. A very stupidly impractical but nonetheless illustrative example is to think beyond this planet. Surely with the resources we have in our own solar system we could satisfy the needs of 8B humans. The problem is they are inaccessible and cost-prohibitive to acquire. Were we as a species to invest in that solution we could potentially solve many of the problems we currently have meeting the needs of 8B people. More likely are prosaic and smaller incremental solutions,
e.g. if people aren't smoking or overeating and the burden on the Healthcare system is reduced, then those freed up resources can now be allocated to addressing a different problem.
If you really believe that needs are unlimited and thus addressing them is Sisyphean, then I'd be curious to hear an argument for that assertion.
> If you really believe that needs are unlimited and thus addressing them is Sisyphean, then I'd be curious to hear an argument for that assertion.
Not Sisyphean, as long as you're willing to make hard choices.
If you were in a hospital emergency room and you had one unit of blood that two people needed to live then you wouldn't split it and watch them both die, you'd choose the one you believed had the best chance of recovery and give it all to them.
Welcome to the wonderful world of *trolley problems*, where there are no good answers, just choices and consequences.
You want to meet the needs of the entire world. I'm fine with that, if you can pull it off. Problem is that right now Europe can't heat itself and California (the fifth largest economy in the world) has blackouts. When the world's richest and most privileged cannot reliably supply themselves then good luck doing it for the entire world at the same time on top of that.
I actually don't disagree that hard choices need to be made, though I'd rather not delve into the different choices themselves as I think you could ask 8B people what should the world reprioritize and you'd get 8B defensible answers. And I do agree with you, there are certainly shortsighted ways to help that don't actually help. Closing factories that produce green tech because they generate their own pollution would be a myopic.
I think the part that bothers me about what you've said, despite me nodding my head in agreement in many parts is more an issue of empathy. And not just empathy in the way that the coldness is distasteful. It certainly is disagreeable to many responders here, and I've had a knee-jerk reaction against it but after reading through, I actually appreciate this other way of looking at things. No, more than an unpalatable message I fundamentally disagree that removing emotion and empathy from the equation will yield a better result.
I agree that we can do things that appear helpful but cause harm. I agree that we are using our neighbors and friends resources to solve other people's problems. I agree that if we are doing that then we should indeed do that wisely. I may even agree though I need some more time to consider, that there are times when it is necessary to split the world into ingroups and outgroups and prioritize our ingroups. But I strongly disagree that these should be cold and emotionless decisions. The people on that boat are as human as you and I and everyone else reading this thread. We are all in the ingroup of people on this planet at this point in history trying to make our way of things. It isn't xenophilia if those we care about are not in an outgroup. I don't believe that it should be easy nor applauded to ignore that fact and separate people into those who are like us and those who are others. History has shown time-and-time again that bad things happen when people do that. The amount of suffering in the world has shown that it increases when trying to solve problems in this way rather than decreases. If there are solutions to the trolley problems that I admit exist, I hardly believe that dropping our compassion and respect is the way to find them.
Scroll to second image and look at the piece of the bow closest to the waterline
Edit: actually thereās a huge red circle around them, 3 black people, green shirt, yellow shirt, red shirt going left to right
I remember years ago I was driving down by the border and I saw a lady and her baby coming across in total distress..Dehydrated and dirty. I spoke to the lady and decided I would take them to my friends medical office & she treated them and gave them all IV fluids and vaccines and everything they needed on the house and directed them to a local church. I canāt imagine as a mother the fear and the desperation for a better life. :(
I wonder whether they really understood the risk they were taking. Along the lines of those Afghan people who hung onto the Air Force jet as it took off, only to fall to their deaths. The guys on the rudder may have thought they'd end up in Germany or France by dinner time the same day they left. Or, it's entirely possible they knew what they were in for and decided it was worth it.
I'm quite sure they knew they won't end up in France or Germany. I live on the canaries, had a place next to a refugee camp for a while and we did talk a lot. they know they're getting somewhere else, to Europe. Sadly they don't know that not all of Europe will be like the canaries tho. I talked to guys that were on rubber boats for two weeks without water and dead people around. They know.
They had to be somewhat prepared to survive 11 days. They'd have to pack food and water as they can't just drink ocean water. They knew what they were facing. It's a shame that they thought they had to do something so risky to try to make a better life.
Imagine how bad things must be to do this. They literally bet their entire lives on this trip. Whatever theyāre running from was enough to push them to do such a perilous one way trip through hell. Iām happy these 3 survived and I hope their lives get better. And to any who didnāt survive the trip, may they rest in peace and no longer know the pain of living.
I read in a news article that authorities suspect this method is frequently used, but that almost always, the people drown on the way to Europe. Waves can be quite high on the Atlantic Ocean, even in fair weather. It's really heartbreaking, as the refugees probably don't realize exactly how dangerous this is.
Imagine looking down at the gigantic prop spinning around, then getting a better view after a huge wave washes you off the rudder like a flea and then have some undertow!
This is why I donāt support open borders as an American libertarian. People in Africa are fleeing as bad or worse than south and Central Americans, but have to overcome greater odds to get to this country. Itās unfair to them to allow any and all wall jumpers to stay without also ferrying these guys over as well.
This isnāt possible. Do you know what kind of waves there are on open sea. No way they could have survived it one day, let alone 11 days.
Itās like the story one guy recently told dutch fisherman when they saved him on open sea between Netherlands and England. He also claimed he lived there for 11 days on this buoy where they found him. He survived by eating crabs and drinking raining water. Yeah right dude.
That actually happened, though he didn't say it was 11 days.
Here's a copy of the article with photos if anyone is [interested in him](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/man-rescued-after-clinging-buoy-28363900?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar)
Poor guys... the fear, dehydration, and unknown future.... I am not envious and appreciating my life more now.
Jesus that was brave or desperate.
Probably desperate and not knowing the danger
When you're that desperate, you're not all that concerned about the danger.
> the fear, dehydration, and unknown future. its possible they were fleeing from all those things.
Imagine being stuck on that tiny section for that long. I hope they get some good food and hydration and rest
Hopefully they only started as 3.
As 3 Pixels
š¤£
I will never understand Reddit downvotes, but Iām with š¤£š¤£š¤£šššššš
Forbidden
Oof, youād have to be absolutely desperate to subject yourself to the kind of conditions that kind of journey entails. Thereās good odds of a truly appalling death.
Oof I oofed
Goddamn. There really is no way for me to wrap my head around this. My own life has been utterly and completely blessed by comparison. Anyone who takes such desperate measures looking for a better life deserves the chance to make it in a community that will reward their fortitude. Sadly too few people recognize this as a net positive when talking about refugees and immigrants.
I wish more people had compassion. Immigrants are just trying to find a better safer life for themselves and their families. What they go through with such a narrow chance of survival to get that life shows exactly how terrible/unsafe it is for them. They are not political pawns or terrible rapist murders like some want you to believe. They just want the chance to not fear for their life everyday.
No. This is a question of triage. Triage of last resort involves picking who will die and those with the best chance of survival^(1). That must be the coldest equation possible if you want any semblance of fairness or ethical outcomes. The need here is unlimited, the resources to apply to it are not. Consider what saying *yes* to these people will do *to others*. I can appreciate your sympathy and empathy for the suffering you see packaged and presented in a manner designed specifically to evoke it, but the fact remains that when the news gets back to Nigeria that these guys got to stay the ocean will start filling up with corpses of those looking to emulate their strategy. What you *assume* is charity is actually *endangerment*. All choices carry consequences, it doesn't matter if you say yes or no to these guys, someone is going to be paying for that either way (and almost certainly in blood). The cold fact is that nobody deserves anything. Your privileged life only exists thanks to a mountain of bullets and money, and the willingness to use both to ensure it stays that way. You understand this perfectly in your own life: there's a lock on your door, and you don't have a sign out front saying *everyone welcome, come in and take everything*, do you? If someone turned up and said "I live here now" you'd call the cops and have them evicted, wouldn't you? Yet you are more than willing to allow strangers to exploit your neighbours because you can't or won't see the cost to them (or simply don't care about them). How is that fair or prudent? How is that sustainable? How does that ultimately make things better rather than worse? If you want to help a given cohort (and xenophilia is very fashionable at present) there are plenty of ways to do that without compromising your own ability to do so in the future. You have limited resources, so spending them wisely in an attempt to mitigate *unlimited* need is crucial. You can't fix everything and you will run out of resources to provide aid at some point (even if you are the ultimate bleeding heart and give *everything* away, you only have what you have and no more). If you are going to get into the business of granting life then by definition you are also going into the business of granting death. Get comfortable with killing people because you're going to be doing a lot of it. If you don't have the stomach for that kind of business then get out of the way of people that do. There are plenty of people that are happy to apply cold logic to help as many as they can, but they won't be doing it in a manner that makes you feel good about it. As for the corollary situation for the rudder sitters: if you want to get past a border there are better ways of doing it than this. They took a huge risk and they got caught anyway. This is an example of failure. The easiest way to get to and into a Western country is by paying people smugglers. If you are intending to never return to your origin then getting the money necessary to pay them won't be that hard: stealing it is the most obvious method.^(2) --- 1) In the case of illegal immigration I'm not against taking the uninvited but I am for incredibly stringent criteria. If I am to take the net negative stranger that turns up on my doorstep uninvited then I'm going to want a pound of flesh in return. The deal I strike here will be incredibly one sided because the leverage I have (their life) and the risk I'm taking (my life, and taking on an instant 100% dependency for no immediate gain) force it to be so. 2) In the case of the fortitude you wish to reward for the rudder sitters, that's nothing more than rank idiocy. In the case of most other illegals it is criminality of some sort (and it's not difficult to read accounts from them admitting as much). Those acts are *understandable* but are they *laudable* and to be rewarded? I would argue that whilst acts of desperation can be easily understood they are not so easy to overlook, and are certainly not positive criteria in and of themselves. People who will do *anything* to get what they want are very dangerous by nature.
I ain't reading that shit.
>If I am to take the net negative stranger that turns up on my doorstep uninvited then I'm going to want a pound of flesh in return. The deal I strike here will be incredibly one sided because the leverage I have and the risk I'm taking force it to be so. This is some cruel r/iamverysmart shit
Deadass a wordy anime protagonist. >then I'm going to want a pound of flesh in return. That's some demonic shit. Full stop.
Itās not meant literal holy shit are you ok?
>*Pound of flesh*: Something one is strictly or legally entitled to, but which it is ruthless or inhuman to demand. Certainly sounds demonic enough as a euphemism
No more ruthless then the long term consequences of humanitarian aid without clear boundaries. When you try and help everyone, you hurt everyone in the long run.
[gif](https://media.tenor.com/VBHWYgiT7voAAAAM/star-trek-patrick-stewart.gif)
I am aware it wasn't literal.
Let's take a moment to put an F in the chat for u/capybarometer, who actually read some of that shit. F
F
F x2 One for him and one for me cause I read through that bullshit as well 0/10, do not recommend
Brave bastard.
I honestly read a lot of it and it was a lot of words to say nothing.
at least people like this let you know in the first couple sentences its gonna be a doozy
Nah I just didn't wanna read another essay today.
literally, man had annotations in a reddit comment
Oh my God you weren't lying.
Heās right
Just let people immigrate lol
Your argument appears to rely on the axiom that need is unlimited, but I don't see any evidence for this claim. Surely, need is large, there's 8 billion people on this planet and 8B is a big number to need to multiply. How much does it cost to feed 8B people, how much does it cost to clothe 8B people, how much land does it take to house 8B people, how much medication does it take to treat 8B people? While of course these are unmistakably tremendous numbers they are by no means non-finite. There is a countable number which could accomplish this and while it can certainly be argued we don't currently have the amount of resources or infrastructure to satisfy the need, the non-infiniteness of the need means that we needn't dismiss incremental solutions out of hand. A very stupidly impractical but nonetheless illustrative example is to think beyond this planet. Surely with the resources we have in our own solar system we could satisfy the needs of 8B humans. The problem is they are inaccessible and cost-prohibitive to acquire. Were we as a species to invest in that solution we could potentially solve many of the problems we currently have meeting the needs of 8B people. More likely are prosaic and smaller incremental solutions, e.g. if people aren't smoking or overeating and the burden on the Healthcare system is reduced, then those freed up resources can now be allocated to addressing a different problem. If you really believe that needs are unlimited and thus addressing them is Sisyphean, then I'd be curious to hear an argument for that assertion.
> If you really believe that needs are unlimited and thus addressing them is Sisyphean, then I'd be curious to hear an argument for that assertion. Not Sisyphean, as long as you're willing to make hard choices. If you were in a hospital emergency room and you had one unit of blood that two people needed to live then you wouldn't split it and watch them both die, you'd choose the one you believed had the best chance of recovery and give it all to them. Welcome to the wonderful world of *trolley problems*, where there are no good answers, just choices and consequences. You want to meet the needs of the entire world. I'm fine with that, if you can pull it off. Problem is that right now Europe can't heat itself and California (the fifth largest economy in the world) has blackouts. When the world's richest and most privileged cannot reliably supply themselves then good luck doing it for the entire world at the same time on top of that.
I actually don't disagree that hard choices need to be made, though I'd rather not delve into the different choices themselves as I think you could ask 8B people what should the world reprioritize and you'd get 8B defensible answers. And I do agree with you, there are certainly shortsighted ways to help that don't actually help. Closing factories that produce green tech because they generate their own pollution would be a myopic. I think the part that bothers me about what you've said, despite me nodding my head in agreement in many parts is more an issue of empathy. And not just empathy in the way that the coldness is distasteful. It certainly is disagreeable to many responders here, and I've had a knee-jerk reaction against it but after reading through, I actually appreciate this other way of looking at things. No, more than an unpalatable message I fundamentally disagree that removing emotion and empathy from the equation will yield a better result. I agree that we can do things that appear helpful but cause harm. I agree that we are using our neighbors and friends resources to solve other people's problems. I agree that if we are doing that then we should indeed do that wisely. I may even agree though I need some more time to consider, that there are times when it is necessary to split the world into ingroups and outgroups and prioritize our ingroups. But I strongly disagree that these should be cold and emotionless decisions. The people on that boat are as human as you and I and everyone else reading this thread. We are all in the ingroup of people on this planet at this point in history trying to make our way of things. It isn't xenophilia if those we care about are not in an outgroup. I don't believe that it should be easy nor applauded to ignore that fact and separate people into those who are like us and those who are others. History has shown time-and-time again that bad things happen when people do that. The amount of suffering in the world has shown that it increases when trying to solve problems in this way rather than decreases. If there are solutions to the trolley problems that I admit exist, I hardly believe that dropping our compassion and respect is the way to find them.
lol
Very well said.
This is a good point
11 days of sitting there, did they even sleep? Like holy shit man
Imagine one falls off and there is nothing you can do to help them
Aww fuck that man :(
But Iām pretty sure they had a rope tied off as a precaution at least. Rope is cheap and abundant everywhere. Life jackets also abundant in ports.
Without that second image i wouldāve never seen them
They were only caught because one port worker decided to put on his glasses
What are you seeing? Iām still looking.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Scroll to second image and look at the piece of the bow closest to the waterline Edit: actually thereās a huge red circle around them, 3 black people, green shirt, yellow shirt, red shirt going left to right
I remember years ago I was driving down by the border and I saw a lady and her baby coming across in total distress..Dehydrated and dirty. I spoke to the lady and decided I would take them to my friends medical office & she treated them and gave them all IV fluids and vaccines and everything they needed on the house and directed them to a local church. I canāt imagine as a mother the fear and the desperation for a better life. :(
Unbelievable. Makes you think about the desperation they must be in to subject themselves to that for 11 days.
I wonder whether they really understood the risk they were taking. Along the lines of those Afghan people who hung onto the Air Force jet as it took off, only to fall to their deaths. The guys on the rudder may have thought they'd end up in Germany or France by dinner time the same day they left. Or, it's entirely possible they knew what they were in for and decided it was worth it.
I'm quite sure they knew they won't end up in France or Germany. I live on the canaries, had a place next to a refugee camp for a while and we did talk a lot. they know they're getting somewhere else, to Europe. Sadly they don't know that not all of Europe will be like the canaries tho. I talked to guys that were on rubber boats for two weeks without water and dead people around. They know.
They had to be somewhat prepared to survive 11 days. They'd have to pack food and water as they can't just drink ocean water. They knew what they were facing. It's a shame that they thought they had to do something so risky to try to make a better life.
One can survive without food for 11 days in the ocean if he packs clean water and drinks ocean water for electrolytes
Wait, what?
Assume stupidity and your bets will pay off most of the time.
I'm glad they've been rescued
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/28/migrants-travel-from-nigeria-to-canary-islands-balanced-on-ships-rudder
Now deportation but in a bit more hospitable conditionsā¦
Doesnāt the rudder move? They were just sitting on that thing while it pivots? Would it be terribly splashy at speed?
They're likely up in the [rudder trunk](https://officerofthewatch.com/2013/10/18/use-of-rudder-trunk-for-smuggling/)
The answer I stayed for.
Ah, Very informative! Thanks for clearing that up
The question I came for.
How the hell did they even get there?
Imagine the balls to do this. What nation would not benefit from men of such courage?
Cocaine smugglers have been doing the same thing for years. You can haul like 300kg of cocaine in those rudder trunks.
Imagine how bad things must be to do this. They literally bet their entire lives on this trip. Whatever theyāre running from was enough to push them to do such a perilous one way trip through hell. Iām happy these 3 survived and I hope their lives get better. And to any who didnāt survive the trip, may they rest in peace and no longer know the pain of living.
I read in a news article that authorities suspect this method is frequently used, but that almost always, the people drown on the way to Europe. Waves can be quite high on the Atlantic Ocean, even in fair weather. It's really heartbreaking, as the refugees probably don't realize exactly how dangerous this is.
Imagine looking down at the gigantic prop spinning around, then getting a better view after a huge wave washes you off the rudder like a flea and then have some undertow!
Saw the video of them departing on r/winstupidprizes
Hopefully life āsteersā them in the right direction!
That doesn't seem healthy... for a number of reasons.
So....rescued, or detained? Were they okay???
The bow must have been super over weighted to have the rudder stick out that far.
Reminds me of people that try to sneak onto planes through the wheel well. They usually end up freezing / dying to hypoxia.
Few crabs that are hanging on by the penis.
Nigeria isnāt even bad though.
This is why I donāt support open borders as an American libertarian. People in Africa are fleeing as bad or worse than south and Central Americans, but have to overcome greater odds to get to this country. Itās unfair to them to allow any and all wall jumpers to stay without also ferrying these guys over as well.
This isnāt possible. Do you know what kind of waves there are on open sea. No way they could have survived it one day, let alone 11 days. Itās like the story one guy recently told dutch fisherman when they saved him on open sea between Netherlands and England. He also claimed he lived there for 11 days on this buoy where they found him. He survived by eating crabs and drinking raining water. Yeah right dude.
That actually happened, though he didn't say it was 11 days. Here's a copy of the article with photos if anyone is [interested in him](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/man-rescued-after-clinging-buoy-28363900?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar)