|
Laserface posted:Im glad you guys are continuing to try and convince Negligent to change his lovely opinion! you are so close now! I can feel it in my water.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
For example, we should be taking a more active role in accepting people through the proper UN channels from UNHCR camps near conflict zones. This would be a far more effective way than locking people in torture camps because it would send the message that the established means actually loving work. Whereas now people spend years waiting in limbo in UNHCR camps because we don't take an active role in greasing the wheels of that system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
I now have "Don't pay the ferry man" running through my head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Graic Gabtar posted:So why support an activity that drives it home? It doesn't increase inequality, so we're no worse off than we would be otherwise, and in many ways we're better off. Not locking people up in prison camps must score us a few morality points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:They're Doing It For The Lurkers I've always thought this was a weak excuse, and I still do. I'm doing it for my own amusement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Basically, the whole thing is super hosed up, and the only solution is for us to take a proper role on the frontline of the refugee crisis. Australia needs to grow the gently caress up and take some responsibility for the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Endman posted:Basically, the whole thing is super hosed up, and the only solution is for us to take a proper role on the frontline of the refugee crisis. Who are we invading first then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Graic Gabtar posted:Yes, the whle thing is super hosed up. UNHCR camps in Syria. Grab your food-aid packages and your Australian citizenship application forms, soldier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Endman posted:Let's apply the same moral objectivism that Negligent is displaying to its logical conclusion shall we? good laws attempt to reflect the norms of a society, including moral norms, and breaching those norms should have negative moral connotations, rather than the "I'm fleeing persecution and am really desperate so anything goes" approach. which is just another normative judgement backed by only by a belief in natural law: it is okay to break the law if the law itself is wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Endman posted:I'm sorry. *clicks quote on a Negligent post* *clicks quote on a pissdrinker post* *proudly resettles crown on head*
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Save us Raptorfag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Negligent posted:good laws attempt to reflect the norms of a society, including moral norms, and breaching those norms should have negative moral connotations,
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Negligent posted:breaching those norms should have negative moral connotations  So racism in 1960s America was okay because white people were the majority and thus the "norm" in American society. And breaching those norms by say, not sitting at the back of the bus, was morally wrong and deserved negative connotations? Okay Negligent. Sure. Whatever. I hope you never have to live in a society where you're not considered normal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:He falsified identification documents of people to get them to places they otherwise wouldn't have been taken, took public money under false pretences and arguably commited treason by actively undermining his countries war production efforts. He was a Nazi after all
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
firstly I said good laws and secondly you are still adopting a dumb natural law approach which simply applies some other moral norm to the law than the one the law was seeking to codify
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Negligent posted:firstly I said good laws and secondly you are still adopting a dumb natural law approach which simply applies some other moral norm to the law than the one the law was seeking to codify So there are good laws... and bad laws? So you're applying an outside idea of morality, separate from the law, to criticise the law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Also the underground railroad to help black people during slavery era america was just flooded with law breaking and criminal activity. Also slavery was legal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Could it be, Negligent... and forgive me if I blow your loving mind here... but could it be that prosecuting people for escaping persecution by purchasing the services of a people smuggler is, in fact, an example of... and here it comes... a bad law?????
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:International students are anything but a monolithic bloc. Many are essentially forced to go overseas to study things they'd rather not without even being remotely equipped beforehand. But many still are lazy shitbags who feel entitled to a degree cause they're acutely aware of how highly valued they are by universities and will consciously exploit our tertiary education system's reliance on their fees to the fullest extent they can. Some international students can be blamed for how badly they suck at uni (if they do, and most probably don't) and others can't. Sometimes unis can be blamed for preying on international students, but other times it's the other way around. University administrations aren't exactly delighted with the state of their funding, and generally wish they didn't have to accept so many international students to make ends meet. Is there a list of international student intake by each university somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Endman posted:UNHCR camps in Syria. Grab your food-aid packages and your Australian citizenship application forms, soldier. I'd much rather support something interventionist to tell you the honest truth. For example, last century Africa struggled for independence, this century they are screaming for asylum. You could roll in there, try to stop conflict and protect the populace. However, you would just be called racist and imperialist. In your words it is all hosed up. I can't see it changing any time soon. You can hand out application forms until the cows come home. Even if you run wth that 90% figure it still leaves poo poo loads of people essentially hosed and it doesn't solve the underlying problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Graic Gabtar posted:I'd much rather support something interventionist to tell you the honest truth. The underlying problem is violence and conflict in general. I don't trust our ability to "fix" other nations in a way that wouldn't just result in yet another post-imperialist shitfest, but at the same time you're right that by treating the symptoms of conflict isn't tackling the core issue as well as we might. There will always be people who get hosed over. In short, it's all hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
I don't mean good or bad in the sense of the merits of the content of the law, the good or bad goes to the validity of the law in the strict technical sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Laws that aren't valid aren't laws at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Endman posted:
no u
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I don't mean good or bad in the sense of the merits of the content of the law, the good or bad goes to the validity of the law in the strict technical sense *tearily removes crown again*
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I don't mean good or bad in the sense of the merits of the content of the law, the good or bad goes to the validity of the law in the strict technical sense Valid how? It was passed by the legislature? So was the white Australia policy. It was enforced by the judiciary? So are anti-abortion laws and racist laws and homophobic laws around the world. What exactly does "valid" mean?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Endman posted:With this kind of ridiculous moral absolutism, I'm starting to think Negligent is the reincarnation of Ayn Rand. I actually feel like I have to defend loving Ayn Rand here. I used to read her books back in uni, and I am still less embarrassed by this than I would be if I was trying to argue a position like Negligent's. At least Ayn Rand could go on for like 30 pages of her painstaking logic and lay it all out in a way that made some kind of internal sense to the Objectivist mindset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
I settled this question in first year jurisprudence, strict literalism is the only sensible approach to laws. A law means exactly what it says and if you want it to mean something different well you have to rewrite it. Next time you're outside and you see a 'No Standing' sign you better sit the gently caress down, or else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Worse Than Ayn Rand: The Negligent Story. Coming soon to ABC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Paying a people smuggler is a moral wrong regardless of its legality. In return for your money the smuggler puts herself and you in a situation of peril from which you will need rescue. If everyone acted that selfishly, the universe would collapse because there would be rescuees but no rescuers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:I actually feel like I have to defend loving Ayn Rand here. Bifauxnen posted:I actually feel like I have to defend loving Ayn Rand here. Bifauxnen posted:I actually feel like I have to defend loving Ayn Rand here. LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID THREAD. LOOK AT IT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
We fixed Iraq, and that turned out great for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Like fire, Hellfire How did this shitposting begin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
hooman posted:LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID THREAD. LOOK AT IT. Bifauxnen posted:I actually feel like I have to defend loving Ayn Rand here. WHAT HAVE I DONE!? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I'm going to regret this... As a lowly undergrad doing BSc Commerce at USyd (yes, kill me), during an exam for an accounting exam myself and 5 others saw our teacher helping foreign students cheat. No joke, they had text books and notes with them during the exam, actively passing them around right in front of the teacher - he sat directly in front of them. At first we were confused and thought maybe it was open book, so at the end of the exam we asked him what was going on. He denied the whole thing had ever occurred, there was no books he said, coming off very much like the Iraqi communications minister because the students walked past him with their books in their hands as he said this. Some of the other students pushed harder and went to the faculty dean to which that person did nothing about it because of a 'lack of evidence'. Woop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Paying a people smuggler is a moral wrong regardless of its legality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
hooman posted:LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID THREAD. LOOK AT IT. Howard Roark did nothing wrong Except blow up a whole housing complex I think that was against the law, actually
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Paying a people smuggler is a moral wrong regardless of its legality. We're just going to have to disagree here. I believe the persecution many of these people are fleeing is more than enough justification to take the risk of getting in a leaky boat. I think your idea of "rescuers" is just absurd as well. We're not rescuing these people; we're imprisoning them in horrible camps. Even if you believe they're in the wrong, how can you justify our comically disproportionate punishment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:38 |
|
|
Lol what a moron negligent is. So people should be able to just go places if they're fleeing persecution!!? What if they don't have the proper paperwork!?! *faints*
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:16
|
|
