Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Be that as it may, none of what you just said makes my previous response untrue.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nothing we can do about the mass migration epidemic whilst we're EU member.
- Thread starter Ultimatum
- Start date
Be that as it may, none of what you just said makes my previous response untrue.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Be that as it may, none of what you just said makes my previous response untrue.
Certainly. It is elementary informal reasoning that even the worst, most asinine and fallacious arguments might have false conclusions. Perhaps you will get lucky.
But, suffice to say, true or not, your point was backed up by not an inkling of sensible explanation or support. In fact, your point seems to rely on the mindnumbingly idiotic point that to not be enthusiastic about mass immigration equal hating foreigners, or that having a nuanced view about the current refugee crisis - the make up of those coming to Europe, why, and why they seek to come through the routes they are - is also to hate foreigners.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Friend, to me the earth is round. And Britain is one of the worst countries on it. I believe in a borderless globe and the right of peoples to live wherever they like in whatever fashion they choose, because that's what freedom is.
I rather think that your 'them damn foreigners' rhetoric is the more asinine.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
There seem to be at least two main differences between my posts and yours in this exchange. Firstly, I made a considered and nuanced argument and you, ignoring said argument, have just rattled off a few silly slogans. Secondly, you seem intent on making downright dishonest, not to mention idiotic, imputations about my deeper views and motives, whereas I have refrained from commenting on anything but what you have actually said.
How about, instead of spewing forth bile that someone holds a different view to yours, you act like an adult, try to understand not everyone who holds a different position is either malevolent or ignorant, and discuss issues properly.
How about, instead of spewing forth bile that someone holds a different view to yours, you act like an adult, try to understand not everyone who holds a different position is either malevolent or ignorant, and discuss issues properly.
Altfish
Veteran Member
This photo and article brings home the true tragedy of this exodus of people...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-attitude-to-refugees-what-will-10482757.html
Anyone want to call that boy an immigrant. I just see a human being
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-attitude-to-refugees-what-will-10482757.html
Anyone want to call that boy an immigrant. I just see a human being
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
It is certainly tragic, though it must be said that border security is not necessarily what leads to more deaths. Sometimes being more liberal can cause more deaths. Australia in the last decade or so is a good example. Thousands died at sea when the Rudd government undid the Howard government's pacific solution and said it would allow those coming by boat to be processed in Australia. When the second Rudd government, under intense political pressure, and the Abbott government, decided to turn back the boats, as the slogans go, deaths have gone down dramatically.
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
**** me, that's horrible. A warning would have been nice.This photo and article brings home the true tragedy of this exodus of people...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-attitude-to-refugees-what-will-10482757.html
Anyone want to call that boy an immigrant. I just see a human being
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
The main difference is that I have respect for a fellow human being's right to live, and you do not.
Altfish
Veteran Member
+ 1
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. Is this how the left argues these days?
And, actually, it is often your sort who lets people die. It certainly was in Australia. The do-gooders acted according to ideology, damned everyone else as evil (as usual), and caused thousands to die.
Last edited:
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
I find myself immune to your attempts at character assassination in lieu of your tawdry Nationalism. Whichever way you try to argue it, Migrants are human beings, and most certainly welcome in Britain.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Do you speak for England now? Are you the PM or Home Secretary?
You certainly seem immune to reason. In this discussion, so far, you have simply ignored all arguments and relied on pathetic and immature rhetoric and the most disreputable slinging of accusations for those who dare to disagree (that you would whine about character assassination is the height of irony - what else have you offered in this discussion).
If you say imply people will get easy treatment if they happen to claim asylum (some are genuine, but others are not - many are economic refugees, such as those from Africa) , then lots of people will come, often in unsafe ways. Unless you are arguing for almost open borders and aid to help as many people come as want to, then a more strict border security is more humane. We need to think about who is coming, why, and what are responsibilities of all nations involved. There is an argument Britain should take some of these asylum seekers. But they should be from Syria or Iraq, and others should take there fair share. Also, asylum is supposed to be temporary. They should be expected to go back, for the most part, after the conflict.
You certainly seem immune to reason. In this discussion, so far, you have simply ignored all arguments and relied on pathetic and immature rhetoric and the most disreputable slinging of accusations for those who dare to disagree (that you would whine about character assassination is the height of irony - what else have you offered in this discussion).
If you say imply people will get easy treatment if they happen to claim asylum (some are genuine, but others are not - many are economic refugees, such as those from Africa) , then lots of people will come, often in unsafe ways. Unless you are arguing for almost open borders and aid to help as many people come as want to, then a more strict border security is more humane. We need to think about who is coming, why, and what are responsibilities of all nations involved. There is an argument Britain should take some of these asylum seekers. But they should be from Syria or Iraq, and others should take there fair share. Also, asylum is supposed to be temporary. They should be expected to go back, for the most part, after the conflict.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
After WW2 there was a big push to accept refugees from countries affected by the Nazi War Machine. Everyone pulled together, including Britain, to take these people in because that was seen as the humanitarian thing to do.
The only difference this time is that a lot of these people come from Africa instead of Europe.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Britain didn't take many refugees after WWII. I'm am not against a coordinated policy to help genuine refugees, but large scale immigration has negatives and can put real strains on society. Such issues are not to be ignored or dismissed entirely.
Anyway, you are ignoring any actual arguments. You are just trolling. How are we supposed to have any sensible and nuanced discussion of issues like border security versus humanitarianism?
Look at this article from Australian conservative journalist Andrew Bolt on these issue:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...over_the_consequences_then_change_the_causes/
He shows the exact same picture as you do, then another to show how Australia saved the lives of those claiming asylum at sea:
We know this approach can save lives. It isn't necessarily the only or best approach in this situation, but your squalid and idiotic rhetoric is hardly a decent way to get to the bottom of what is. Ironically, your nonsense is simply the left-wing parallel of emotive, unintelligent nationalist grunting.
As Bolt points out, this boy had lived with his family for three year in Turkey, safely, before his father decided to take his sons on derelict boat for Europe. So the issue is complex.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I hate how the media shoves a child in our face to make us feel sorry, I just cannot stand that crap.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Stop trolling. There is no substance to your post. In Australia your approach literally led scores of such children to die at sea. That does rather suggest the issue is more complex than your idiotic rhetoric.
Feeling sorry doesn't solve the problem. Sympathy is not a policy. Ask those who died on Christmas Island five years, trying to get to Australia, how well Kevin Rudd's sympathy alone worked to help them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Christmas_Island_boat_disaster
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes I do believe in genuine love or help for others, but that stupid Rudd only used this for his political advantage.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Perhaps, but the point is the Howard Government set up a strict border security regime where there was offshore processing for those asylum seekers coming by sea. This caused the amount coming to dwindle. This was considered inhuman by many of the left, so the Rudd government got rid of it and said they would process people those coming by boat in Australia. The amount coming soared, as did the amount dying at sea - hundreds, perhaps over a thousand, died in five or six years. The second Rudd government, under intense pressure, and then the Abbott government took a much stricter line, basically stopping all boats and refusing to allow those coming by boat to settle in Australia. The amount of boats coming has dropped right off, as has the amount dying at sea. Here we an example of strict border security saving lives. In directly contradicts the implied message of some that the best and most humane idea is to be as lax and open as possible. I'm not saying the Australian example necessarily shows this is the way Britain and Europe should proceed, but its shows some of the nuances of the issues, and the idiotic rhetoric and puerile personal accusations of unhinged leftists is hardly a substitute for proper thought.
What Mycroft is trying to obscure by his asinine performance is his argument is essentially:
1) Migrants are dying and suffering trying to get to Europe.
2) We wish to prevent this.
3) We prevent this by being as welcoming and open as possible.
4) Therefore, we should be as welcoming and open as possible.
There is much that is debatable in such an argument. It is far from self-evidently correct, as the Australian example perhaps shows (it is possible, of course, that he might argue the Rudd government was not open and welcoming enough). If one doesn't accept this argument, then it is hard to see why emotive appeals to these deaths would lead one to conclude as he does.
What Mycroft is trying to obscure by his asinine performance is his argument is essentially:
1) Migrants are dying and suffering trying to get to Europe.
2) We wish to prevent this.
3) We prevent this by being as welcoming and open as possible.
4) Therefore, we should be as welcoming and open as possible.
There is much that is debatable in such an argument. It is far from self-evidently correct, as the Australian example perhaps shows (it is possible, of course, that he might argue the Rudd government was not open and welcoming enough). If one doesn't accept this argument, then it is hard to see why emotive appeals to these deaths would lead one to conclude as he does.
Last edited: