Except for the bit where this industry's providers IS the society. If this industry is not profitable ALL industries fail because without this industry being profitable no industry has any customers. The vast majority of people will never be able to sell anything other than labour. If labour isn't paid well - nobody has money to buy anything else with.
The only way a society can survive without a profitable labour industry is to remove the (utterly arbitrary) idea that a living must be EARNED.
Hillary wouldn't do it. Not because I think she is in any way morally above it - because she is utterly dependent on black votes. Even the Clintons aren't dumb enough to disenfranchise people they need to win elections.
I wasn't the one who associated extinctions with climate change - I just refuted the idea that they are a minor problem.
Climate change if anything will mostly cause problems for humans in the opposite way - not by causing many extinctions but by letting creatures thrive which harm us. The survival ranges of pests that destroy our crops and spread disease are likely to expand massively and that will kills lots of humans.
The naturalist answer is: our species invented the idea of things mattering so we get to choose which things matter and damn near all of us have chosen survival to be on that list.
On another measure: what counts as a rational motivation is not actually all that well defined. Libertarians and objectivists consider only self serving behavior for personal gain to be rational just about all other philosophies have different definitions but unversally agree that "self interest only" is not rational motivation. The problem is that no motivations are ever rational. A rational motivation is a contradiction in terms. Motivation is an emotion. It can be influenced by other emotions but it can never be rational. Objectivism's mistake is to fail to realise that and so elevate the emotions of greed and envy to the rank of rational thought so they can claim that motivations based on those emotions are rational and dismiss as irational motivations like love, empathy or fear.
In the end survival instinct is another emotion. Its as valid and rational a motivation as any other. There are no rational justifications. For anything. Rational thought is fantastic for achieving a goal. Its the perfect tool for finding the best way of reaching a goal but its absolutely useless for choosing goals. You can use rational thought to work out how to impress your lover but not choose who you love. Motivations are emotions. Desire to survive is an emotion. Its no less valid a motivation for that. Rationalitys job starts after you identify the emotional need to fullfill. It does not and cannot define the need.
I think most people would consider the risk of our own extinction a negative. Is this entirely rational ? Perhaps not, but the inverse is entirely insane. Nihilism has never been anything but thinly masked insanity.
One of the mainstay's of evolution is that as soon as a resource exist, the stage is set for something to show up that eats it. It can take a very long time, but once the stage is set the event becomes inevitable. Once something started laying eggs - the evolution of egg-eaters was guaranteed.
According to the link you shared that was a transvestite. It's clear from the article that the guilty person has been out as transgender for a long time.
Ergo - this rapist was not a man, it was in no way related to the supposed threat you're using it as an example off. This was a rape by a transgender person - which, in fact, would make it an example of lesbian rape.
Now I'm sure some transgender people can be rapists, they are far more likely to be rape victims - but it's obviously possible - you get assholes in every gender and sex, but it does absolutely nothing to support the baseless fears that was used to justify horrifying injustice of a law.
>Climate science is the same science that puts out the weather predictions every morning.
Actually, that's selling it short: climate science is a lot better than weather reporting (meteorology) because it's a LOT simpler and a LOT less affected by chaos theory. The reason is that climate is an average - and both the prediction and studying of averages is massively easier than of the data they are averages off. This sounds counter-intuitive but it's really not. Let's use an unrelated example to clarify. Say I gave you the name of a random final year high-school kid and asked you to predict his end-of-year results. The odds of you getting them right is about a billion to one. Getting even one symbol would be seriously lucky. That's about the level of "science" the deniers are at. Now say I give you the kids entire academic record up to this point. Your predictions will get a lot better. 8/10 maybe even 9/10 times you'll probably get it right or very close to right. Sure you'll miss the occasional rare person who has been slacking for years and suddenly gets scared in the last year and works his butt of raising his GPA by 3 points - but those are rare enough that even though you'll get them wrong the results are useful. Useful, but occasionally dead wrong. That's meteorology. Our ability to predict weather is about there and even in best case scenarios the prediction horizon imposed by chaos theory is only about 3 days in the future.
Now imagine I ask you to predict the average scores for all high schoolers in the US this year. If you say "It will be a normal distribution" you will be right with almost 100% certainty - we're SO sure that the results MUST look like that, that if they don't that's legal evidence of cheating ! The individual cases are hard to predict, even with best information- but the average is hugely easier to predict. That's climate science. Climate is a study of averages. Averages are much easier. Climate science is millions of times simpler and more accurate than wheather reporting is - and probably always will be. The prediction horizon for climate is on the other of millions of years.
There is a longer-term risk to plastics we don't usually consider (because it's *very* long term ?) but it is worth thinking about maybe. The last time there was such an abundance of a molecule that nothing could break down it was lignin. Lignin being the key molecule that allowed plants to form wood and grow into trees. For quite some time there was nothing that could break down lignin - the era is what we now call the carboniferous. The presence of that molecule in abundance had interesting effects on nature. Firstly - a lot of carbon did not get broken down into CO2 when trees died, so it ended up being trapped and forming the fossil fuels we're now burning (interesting how the new unbreakable molecule is made from the results of the old one). In the meantime those trees produced oxygen but because they didn't decompose nothing balanced that out. The earth's oxygen content jumped to 40% - the highest it has been in it's entire history.
In that environment a lot of things that can't grow very big due to inefficient lungs grew gigantic. There was a dragonfly with a 1m wingspan, the largest known arachnid of all time - which had a jaw almost 90cm long (we have no complete fossils but it's estimated to have been well over 3m from head to tail - nothing like that could live today).
And when eventually things DID evolve that could break down lignin... in a very short time, all those creatures went extinct.
Imagine if the results of something evolving that can break down plastics - is actually worse for us than the plastic dumping was... it's entirely possible and the simple fact is that if we keep putting plastic everywhere - things WILL evolve that can eat it. Sooner or later.
If a corporation is a bunch of shareholders pooling their resources to make more money out of a business - then unions are a bunch of small businesses merging to make more money selling their product (labour) in bulk.
And like any other corporation - the labour-selling corporation has a duty and obligation to it's shareholders (who happen to also be the providers of the service it sells to other companies) to maximize profit. That means, for starters, not selling the service for less than it costs to produce.
If the price you can earn for a job is less than the cost of living - then that is, by itself, proof of a market failure. It means that the market is no longer willing to pay for the product more than the minimum cost of producing it. When the product is, coincidentally, the only one that the vast majority of people will ever be able to sell - your entire society just got fucked.
Slashdot pretty much hates unions so we should cheer the company. But slashdot pretty much hates Verizon and loves to see them get hurt so we should cheer the union...
This is worse than that time there was a supreme court case where the plaintif and the defendent were BOTH corporations and the judges couldn't figure out who should win because whoever won a corporation lost !
There are numerous similar fungi that affect various animals. One over time replaces all the cells of an infected tarantula's body yet keeps going. Its at least within the realm of possibility that one could evolve that infects mamals, kills the brain and controls the body to spread itself. Highly unlikely... but plausible.
It made sense when South Africa used it extensively in the 1980s - it provided a way to get fuel for cars when the world refused to sell it to us. We had coal, we didn't have oil - and nobody would sell it, so we made our own from the coal.
But I would not suggest the US implements vast-scale segregation and human-rights abuses in order to create a new market for coal... though if the company's asked nicely I'm sure Trump would consider it.
Basic scientific fact: all species drive the evolution of all other species, and thus form interdependent chains. Natural extinctions tend to be caused by calamities that hit very nearly *all* species at once, meaning the leftovers can start from scratch.
Taking out species one at a time however is almost entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history, and it happening repeatedly in a short space of time IS entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history. There is no way to know how the death of *any* species will end up impacting us (contrary to common belief: we are not special or any less dependent on the interdependent networks of species than any other). The cause of our own species end could be the extinction of one unknown single-celled organism we didn't even know existed. That is an entirely LIKELY scientific scenario.
The main reason to preserve biodiversity is because it's utterly impossible to even begin to predict the impact of any extinction on all other species -and we're one of the species being impacted.
Extinction is part of nature, but so are we - extinction should be something we, like all other species, try to avoid - not something we fucking cause. There will never be a time when doing so is not self-defeating to the point of insanity.
Seriously "things go extinct naturally so we can cause whatever extinctions we want and it doesn't matter" has about the same effect on a biologist as you would have on a physicist if you told him you were busy banging two pieces of subcritical uranium together to keep warm.
Except for the bit where the people who pirate are mostly movie lovers and very often go to see it in the cinema as well, hell sometimes before pirating. Watch it on the big screen once with friends/a date - and download a copy to rewatch multiple times.
That is something they never factor in - the reality is that piracy has, if anything, most likely INCREASED movie profits.
And who exactly says the company bank account has to be in the US ? If the whole point is to get money out of the country to avoid taxes it makes perfect sense to create an anonymous shell company in DW or LV and use it to open an account in Lichtenstein or the Bahamas with.
I realized the ambiguity later on, but it was unintentional - and I would hope that, in the context, it would be obvious which meaning was intended. I don't think anybody would claim that women could avoid being raped by dressing as women.
Au contraire. The very idea of multiculturalism and equality fundamentally depends on not having an expectation of integration. It means letting them be a different culture and being okay with that.
Oh yes. Some westerner telling an African what my own home is like because you think you know better than the people who live here. Hint: the most corrupt companies in Africa are local subsidiaries of large multinationals. They exist solely to do their parent company's dirty work while maintaining plausible deniability. When somebody gets murdered for not wanting their ancestral land turned into a mine you can be certain of finding a large multinational mining conglomerate with a local subsidiary who wanted to mine there. Had that happen here last week.
Fair point. But when has "it worked great in Canada" ever convinced Amercans to try anything? If it ever worked America would have at least one off: universal healthcare, gun control or nice people.
>"Muslims are 'not like us' and we should just accept they will never integrate, says former racial equalities chief Trevor Phillips"
Replace "Muslims" with "Black people" and you have an exact quote from Hendrik Verwoerd. He was wrong, so is this "authority" you are appealing to now.
Ironically -even if it was true, why is it an issue ? Why does emigrating have to mean giving up your culture ? As long as you abide by the local laws, why can't you keep your culture ? Why would "not integrating" scare anybody ? I don't recall British folk showing up all over the world ever making any effort to integrate in the countries they showed up in (dominate and steal all the resources yes, integrate - nope). Compared to that, some people living there who have another culture and leaves you alone is frankly not even an inconvenience, let alone a reason to be concerned.
There are quite a lot of my fellow Afrikaners living in Britain and Australia now. They all still speak Afrikaans. Still have their weekend braais the way *we* do them (which is nothing like a barbeque), hell the import large swaths of our cultural delicacies like Biltong into those countries and are even starting to produce them locally. They sure as hell didn't fully integrate into those societies, in fact, they mostly live together in neighbourhoods where their neighbours speak their home language. I don't recall ever seeing anybody post a panicked response about the influx of hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners into those countries - and considering the vast majority of the Afrikaners who left genuinely *are* the worst of the worst our culture has to offer, the hardcore racist fucks who couldn't stand the idea of a black government (and those who left for other reasons - career related and such really are a tiny minority) - they actually deserved scrutiny, far more than some people fleeing for their lives from countries torn apart by wars which the UK helped start.
So where was your comment then ? The vast majority of all emigrants *ever* has chosen not to integrate and even where some integration happens hardly any has ever FULLY integrated. You know what ? That's okay.
You don't NEED to push integration, in a generation or two it happens all by itself. You have kids growing up in a culture thats different from the one at home, speaking a language in school other than the one their parents speak - they grow up a lot more integrated, and their kids even more so. The internal culture-clash of imigrant children does the integration for you - no need to force it, no need to even ask for it. Just sit back, relax, have a beer and let it happen automatically like it always has. And maybe you'll end up with a few of those rare enclaves where it really doesn't happen - like the small town in Argentina where Afrikaners settled who fled British rule after the war a century ago, or the towns in Southern Brazil that mostly speak German and Italian... and if that happens ? So what ? None of those groups are harming anybody. None of them are affecting the rest of the population in any negative way. Not a single one is intruding on anybody else's right to live by whatever culture THEY prefer... why should you demand the right to dictate the muslim emigrants MUST adopt western culture to live in western countries ?
You wouldn't give up YOUR heritage so easily, and white folk living in the middle east make no effort to integrate generally, they don't abandon their heritage - why do you think you have a right to demand it of these folk ?
And thats why the bank account belongs to a shell company. If there is no information on who owns the company the IRS has no way of finding out whose money it really is. In delaware you can create a shell company online in 5 minutes for a nominal fee with zero documentation. I bet half the companies registered in DW are owned by Homer J. Simpson of Springfiels Il.
I said borderline impossible. Its certainly within the realm of things not actually prohibited by the known laws of physics but so is timetravel and a zombie appocalypse. Both are more likely than this scenario though. Hell a zombie appocalypse is more scientiffically plausible than god is !
Well it makes even more sense comsidering the phrase is French in origin. Predates communism by about 2 centuries and was the original credo of classic libertarians.
The best solution is probably the one already taken by a few cities - mandate only unisex bathrooms. It's expensive, but it solves the problem - and it also means all the bathrooms get stalls. I'm a cisgender mostly-heterosexual male and even I hate the damn urinals... who the hell thought men would like to stand in a row and pee? No wonder nearly a third of men have shy bladders.
Unisex bathrooms solve the problem once and for all - one bathroom for people, with private stalls for doing your private business. What you do or do not have between your legs, what you're wearing and whether you "pass" or not simply no longer features into the conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the bit where this industry's providers IS the society. If this industry is not profitable ALL industries fail because without this industry being profitable no industry has any customers.
The vast majority of people will never be able to sell anything other than labour. If labour isn't paid well - nobody has money to buy anything else with.
The only way a society can survive without a profitable labour industry is to remove the (utterly arbitrary) idea that a living must be EARNED.
Hillary wouldn't do it. Not because I think she is in any way morally above it - because she is utterly dependent on black votes. Even the Clintons aren't dumb enough to disenfranchise people they need to win elections.
I wasn't the one who associated extinctions with climate change - I just refuted the idea that they are a minor problem.
Climate change if anything will mostly cause problems for humans in the opposite way - not by causing many extinctions but by letting creatures thrive which harm us. The survival ranges of pests that destroy our crops and spread disease are likely to expand massively and that will kills lots of humans.
The naturalist answer is: our species invented the idea of things mattering so we get to choose which things matter and damn near all of us have chosen survival to be on that list.
On another measure: what counts as a rational motivation is not actually all that well defined. Libertarians and objectivists consider only self serving behavior for personal gain to be rational just about all other philosophies have different definitions but unversally agree that "self interest only" is not rational motivation.
The problem is that no motivations are ever rational. A rational motivation is a contradiction in terms. Motivation is an emotion. It can be influenced by other emotions but it can never be rational. Objectivism's mistake is to fail to realise that and so elevate the emotions of greed and envy to the rank of rational thought so they can claim that motivations based on those emotions are rational and dismiss as irational motivations like love, empathy or fear.
In the end survival instinct is another emotion. Its as valid and rational a motivation as any other. There are no rational justifications. For anything. Rational thought is fantastic for achieving a goal. Its the perfect tool for finding the best way of reaching a goal but its absolutely useless for choosing goals.
You can use rational thought to work out how to impress your lover but not choose who you love.
Motivations are emotions. Desire to survive is an emotion. Its no less valid a motivation for that. Rationalitys job starts after you identify the emotional need to fullfill. It does not and cannot define the need.
I think most people would consider the risk of our own extinction a negative. Is this entirely rational ? Perhaps not, but the inverse is entirely insane. Nihilism has never been anything but thinly masked insanity.
One of the mainstay's of evolution is that as soon as a resource exist, the stage is set for something to show up that eats it. It can take a very long time, but once the stage is set the event becomes inevitable. Once something started laying eggs - the evolution of egg-eaters was guaranteed.
According to the link you shared that was a transvestite. It's clear from the article that the guilty person has been out as transgender for a long time.
Ergo - this rapist was not a man, it was in no way related to the supposed threat you're using it as an example off. This was a rape by a transgender person - which, in fact, would make it an example of lesbian rape.
Now I'm sure some transgender people can be rapists, they are far more likely to be rape victims - but it's obviously possible - you get assholes in every gender and sex, but it does absolutely nothing to support the baseless fears that was used to justify horrifying injustice of a law.
>Climate science is the same science that puts out the weather predictions every morning.
Actually, that's selling it short: climate science is a lot better than weather reporting (meteorology) because it's a LOT simpler and a LOT less affected by chaos theory.
The reason is that climate is an average - and both the prediction and studying of averages is massively easier than of the data they are averages off. This sounds counter-intuitive but it's really not.
Let's use an unrelated example to clarify. Say I gave you the name of a random final year high-school kid and asked you to predict his end-of-year results. The odds of you getting them right is about a billion to one. Getting even one symbol would be seriously lucky. That's about the level of "science" the deniers are at.
Now say I give you the kids entire academic record up to this point. Your predictions will get a lot better. 8/10 maybe even 9/10 times you'll probably get it right or very close to right. Sure you'll miss the occasional rare person who has been slacking for years and suddenly gets scared in the last year and works his butt of raising his GPA by 3 points - but those are rare enough that even though you'll get them wrong the results are useful. Useful, but occasionally dead wrong. That's meteorology. Our ability to predict weather is about there and even in best case scenarios the prediction horizon imposed by chaos theory is only about 3 days in the future.
Now imagine I ask you to predict the average scores for all high schoolers in the US this year. If you say "It will be a normal distribution" you will be right with almost 100% certainty - we're SO sure that the results MUST look like that, that if they don't that's legal evidence of cheating ! The individual cases are hard to predict, even with best information- but the average is hugely easier to predict. That's climate science.
Climate is a study of averages. Averages are much easier. Climate science is millions of times simpler and more accurate than wheather reporting is - and probably always will be. The prediction horizon for climate is on the other of millions of years.
There is a longer-term risk to plastics we don't usually consider (because it's *very* long term ?) but it is worth thinking about maybe. The last time there was such an abundance of a molecule that nothing could break down it was lignin. Lignin being the key molecule that allowed plants to form wood and grow into trees. For quite some time there was nothing that could break down lignin - the era is what we now call the carboniferous. The presence of that molecule in abundance had interesting effects on nature. Firstly - a lot of carbon did not get broken down into CO2 when trees died, so it ended up being trapped and forming the fossil fuels we're now burning (interesting how the new unbreakable molecule is made from the results of the old one). In the meantime those trees produced oxygen but because they didn't decompose nothing balanced that out. The earth's oxygen content jumped to 40% - the highest it has been in it's entire history.
In that environment a lot of things that can't grow very big due to inefficient lungs grew gigantic. There was a dragonfly with a 1m wingspan, the largest known arachnid of all time - which had a jaw almost 90cm long (we have no complete fossils but it's estimated to have been well over 3m from head to tail - nothing like that could live today).
And when eventually things DID evolve that could break down lignin... in a very short time, all those creatures went extinct.
Imagine if the results of something evolving that can break down plastics - is actually worse for us than the plastic dumping was... it's entirely possible and the simple fact is that if we keep putting plastic everywhere - things WILL evolve that can eat it. Sooner or later.
If a corporation is a bunch of shareholders pooling their resources to make more money out of a business - then unions are a bunch of small businesses merging to make more money selling their product (labour) in bulk.
And like any other corporation - the labour-selling corporation has a duty and obligation to it's shareholders (who happen to also be the providers of the service it sells to other companies) to maximize profit. That means, for starters, not selling the service for less than it costs to produce.
If the price you can earn for a job is less than the cost of living - then that is, by itself, proof of a market failure. It means that the market is no longer willing to pay for the product more than the minimum cost of producing it. When the product is, coincidentally, the only one that the vast majority of people will ever be able to sell - your entire society just got fucked.
Slashdot pretty much hates unions so we should cheer the company.
But slashdot pretty much hates Verizon and loves to see them get hurt so we should cheer the union...
This is worse than that time there was a supreme court case where the plaintif and the defendent were BOTH corporations and the judges couldn't figure out who should win because whoever won a corporation lost !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
There are numerous similar fungi that affect various animals. One over time replaces all the cells of an infected tarantula's body yet keeps going. Its at least within the realm of possibility that one could evolve that infects mamals, kills the brain and controls the body to spread itself. Highly unlikely... but plausible.
It made sense when South Africa used it extensively in the 1980s - it provided a way to get fuel for cars when the world refused to sell it to us. We had coal, we didn't have oil - and nobody would sell it, so we made our own from the coal.
But I would not suggest the US implements vast-scale segregation and human-rights abuses in order to create a new market for coal... though if the company's asked nicely I'm sure Trump would consider it.
Basic scientific fact: all species drive the evolution of all other species, and thus form interdependent chains. Natural extinctions tend to be caused by calamities that hit very nearly *all* species at once, meaning the leftovers can start from scratch.
Taking out species one at a time however is almost entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history, and it happening repeatedly in a short space of time IS entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history. There is no way to know how the death of *any* species will end up impacting us (contrary to common belief: we are not special or any less dependent on the interdependent networks of species than any other). The cause of our own species end could be the extinction of one unknown single-celled organism we didn't even know existed. That is an entirely LIKELY scientific scenario.
The main reason to preserve biodiversity is because it's utterly impossible to even begin to predict the impact of any extinction on all other species -and we're one of the species being impacted.
Extinction is part of nature, but so are we - extinction should be something we, like all other species, try to avoid - not something we fucking cause. There will never be a time when doing so is not self-defeating to the point of insanity.
Seriously "things go extinct naturally so we can cause whatever extinctions we want and it doesn't matter" has about the same effect on a biologist as you would have on a physicist if you told him you were busy banging two pieces of subcritical uranium together to keep warm.
Except for the bit where the people who pirate are mostly movie lovers and very often go to see it in the cinema as well, hell sometimes before pirating. Watch it on the big screen once with friends/a date - and download a copy to rewatch multiple times.
That is something they never factor in - the reality is that piracy has, if anything, most likely INCREASED movie profits.
And who exactly says the company bank account has to be in the US ? If the whole point is to get money out of the country to avoid taxes it makes perfect sense to create an anonymous shell company in DW or LV and use it to open an account in Lichtenstein or the Bahamas with.
I realized the ambiguity later on, but it was unintentional - and I would hope that, in the context, it would be obvious which meaning was intended. I don't think anybody would claim that women could avoid being raped by dressing as women.
Au contraire. The very idea of multiculturalism and equality fundamentally depends on not having an expectation of integration. It means letting them be a different culture and being okay with that.
Oh yes. Some westerner telling an African what my own home is like because you think you know better than the people who live here.
Hint: the most corrupt companies in Africa are local subsidiaries of large multinationals. They exist solely to do their parent company's dirty work while maintaining plausible deniability. When somebody gets murdered for not wanting their ancestral land turned into a mine you can be certain of finding a large multinational mining conglomerate with a local subsidiary who wanted to mine there. Had that happen here last week.
Fair point. But when has "it worked great in Canada" ever convinced Amercans to try anything? If it ever worked America would have at least one off: universal healthcare, gun control or nice people.
>"Muslims are 'not like us' and we should just accept they will never integrate, says former racial equalities chief Trevor Phillips"
Replace "Muslims" with "Black people" and you have an exact quote from Hendrik Verwoerd. He was wrong, so is this "authority" you are appealing to now.
Ironically -even if it was true, why is it an issue ? Why does emigrating have to mean giving up your culture ? As long as you abide by the local laws, why can't you keep your culture ? Why would "not integrating" scare anybody ? I don't recall British folk showing up all over the world ever making any effort to integrate in the countries they showed up in (dominate and steal all the resources yes, integrate - nope). Compared to that, some people living there who have another culture and leaves you alone is frankly not even an inconvenience, let alone a reason to be concerned.
There are quite a lot of my fellow Afrikaners living in Britain and Australia now. They all still speak Afrikaans. Still have their weekend braais the way *we* do them (which is nothing like a barbeque), hell the import large swaths of our cultural delicacies like Biltong into those countries and are even starting to produce them locally. They sure as hell didn't fully integrate into those societies, in fact, they mostly live together in neighbourhoods where their neighbours speak their home language.
I don't recall ever seeing anybody post a panicked response about the influx of hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners into those countries - and considering the vast majority of the Afrikaners who left genuinely *are* the worst of the worst our culture has to offer, the hardcore racist fucks who couldn't stand the idea of a black government (and those who left for other reasons - career related and such really are a tiny minority) - they actually deserved scrutiny, far more than some people fleeing for their lives from countries torn apart by wars which the UK helped start.
So where was your comment then ? The vast majority of all emigrants *ever* has chosen not to integrate and even where some integration happens hardly any has ever FULLY integrated. You know what ? That's okay.
You don't NEED to push integration, in a generation or two it happens all by itself. You have kids growing up in a culture thats different from the one at home, speaking a language in school other than the one their parents speak - they grow up a lot more integrated, and their kids even more so. The internal culture-clash of imigrant children does the integration for you - no need to force it, no need to even ask for it. Just sit back, relax, have a beer and let it happen automatically like it always has.
And maybe you'll end up with a few of those rare enclaves where it really doesn't happen - like the small town in Argentina where Afrikaners settled who fled British rule after the war a century ago, or the towns in Southern Brazil that mostly speak German and Italian... and if that happens ? So what ? None of those groups are harming anybody. None of them are affecting the rest of the population in any negative way. Not a single one is intruding on anybody else's right to live by whatever culture THEY prefer... why should you demand the right to dictate the muslim emigrants MUST adopt western culture to live in western countries ?
You wouldn't give up YOUR heritage so easily, and white folk living in the middle east make no effort to integrate generally, they don't abandon their heritage - why do you think you have a right to demand it of these folk ?
And thats why the bank account belongs to a shell company. If there is no information on who owns the company the IRS has no way of finding out whose money it really is. In delaware you can create a shell company online in 5 minutes for a nominal fee with zero documentation. I bet half the companies registered in DW are owned by Homer J. Simpson of Springfiels Il.
I said borderline impossible. Its certainly within the realm of things not actually prohibited by the known laws of physics but so is timetravel and a zombie appocalypse. Both are more likely than this scenario though. Hell a zombie appocalypse is more scientiffically plausible than god is !
Well it makes even more sense comsidering the phrase is French in origin. Predates communism by about 2 centuries and was the original credo of classic libertarians.
The best solution is probably the one already taken by a few cities - mandate only unisex bathrooms. It's expensive, but it solves the problem - and it also means all the bathrooms get stalls. I'm a cisgender mostly-heterosexual male and even I hate the damn urinals... who the hell thought men would like to stand in a row and pee? No wonder nearly a third of men have shy bladders.
Unisex bathrooms solve the problem once and for all - one bathroom for people, with private stalls for doing your private business. What you do or do not have between your legs, what you're wearing and whether you "pass" or not simply no longer features into the conversation.