|
Negligent posted:Paying someone money, who in exchange for that money places your life and theirs at risk, is not. This just in, taxis, buses and planes are morally unacceptable.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:03
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Negligent posted:Or you know, you could try to go somewhere you won't be murdered, without paying a people smuggler. Explain how.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:This just in, taxis, buses and planes are morally unacceptable. Endman already tried that. Negligent posted:When you get in taxi you dont do so in the certain knowledge that both you and she will require rescue
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Explain how. You place one foot in front of the other and repeat
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Negligent's dick must be red raw from all the stimulus you guys are providing. Seriously, he must be surrounded by a waist-high jizz-caked wall of dirty socks and Kleenex at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Endman already tried that. What about my point about the sale of alcohol (and cigarettes). Both of these pose real harms to the person acquring them, and the community at large, as well as the vendors. Still waiting to hear how it isn't wrong to do what our government does, ie force people stay in a place they aren't safe, or deny them safe ways to leave said place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
The main reason I don't have Negligent on ignore is because the little kid in their picture is cute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:How in the gently caress does the Auspol thread consistently fall for troll replies when there's an ignore button easily available to all accounts I'd personally appreciate the option to ignore all posts which quote someone you are ignoring. SadisTech posted:Negligent's dick must be red raw from all the stimulus you guys are providing. Seriously, he must be surrounded by a waist-high jizz-caked wall of dirty socks and Kleenex at this point. And with a little Auspol help, your posts provided the mortar!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Endman already tried that. And your answer was garbage, because "people smugglers" do not involve the certainty that you will need to be rescued. The possibility, sure, but that is also true of those things I listed. In fact, a few days ago I was involved with a car accident, and I pay for insurance who send out a tow-truck driver to pick me and my car up, in the rain, in the middle of a state forest, on dangerous roads. Am I morally equivalent to somebody who hires a "people smuggler?" Negligent posted:You place one foot in front of the other and repeat You are found in the next town over, shot by radical militants. Your head is placed on a pike as a warning to other members of your ethnic group. Game Over. Would you like to play again? Y/N (seriously, your response is "just walk?" You have literally no idea what it is to be a member of a targeted group in Afghanistan or Syria, do you?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:What about my point about the sale of alcohol (and cigarettes). Both of these pose real harms to the person acquring them, and the community at large, as well as the vendors. If you buy a pack of smokes the vendor isn't required to smoke them with you, whereas a people smuggler goes on the boat with you. If you buy smokes you aren't doing so in the knowledge that this particular transaction will, with certainty, require someone else to rescue you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I don't understand the comparison. Anyone, the ones operating the boats aren't the ones making much money, they're poo poo poor indonesian fishermen getting paid gently caress all and running the risk of ending up in an Australian prison. Edit: also, still waiting to hear if you think it's morally acceptable to force people to remain in danger, or to prevent them from seeking refuge in a safe manner, as our government does. Australian government polciy has a central role in why people get on 'leaky boats' in indonesia, and it's the only thing we have a chance of changing (compared to, say, ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka). Why won't you address this? Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:And your answer was garbage, because "people smugglers" do not involve the certainty that you will need to be rescued. The possibility, sure, but that is also true of those things I listed. In fact, a few days ago I was involved with a car accident, and I pay for insurance who send out a tow-truck driver to pick me and my car up, in the rain, in the middle of a state forest, on dangerous roads. Am I morally equivalent to somebody who hires a "people smuggler?" If, in your current location, you are in danger of being murdered, then the prudent thing to do is go somewhere that you are less likely to be murdered. Walking is available to everyone, whereas people smuggling is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I mean rescue in the broadest sense. Not just that the navy comes and saves you, or even that the boat reached shore and you make it to civilisation, but that you will be completely helpless and at the mercy of your rescuer, and again, I mean rescuer broadly. You have spent all day Tuesday doing a bad job of arguing with people on the internet. I didn't wake up until 1pm and I have had a more constructive day than you. Think about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:And your answer was garbage, because "people smugglers" do not involve the certainty that you will need to be rescued. The possibility, sure, but that is also true of those things I listed. In fact, a few days ago I was involved with a car accident, and I pay for insurance who send out a tow-truck driver to pick me and my car up, in the rain, in the middle of a state forest, on dangerous roads. Am I morally equivalent to somebody who hires a "people smuggler?" Crossing a land border on foot fleeing a persecuting regime is totally different and far safer than crossing a water border on boat to do the same because umm.... Look a guide you hire to lead you across the land border to escape persecution is not at all the same as the captain of a boat that carries you across borders to do the same because well.. It's the vibe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Why did you ignore the alcohol bit? Bar staff are at risk from drunk punters, ergo it's exactly the same by your absurdly reductivist reasoning. Smokes, booze whatever. Cross out smoke it with you and write in drink. Risk is itself not sufficient. It is certainty and conscious knowledge of that certainty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I mean rescue in the broadest sense. Not just that the navy comes and saves you, or even that the boat reached shore and you make it to civilisation, but that you will be completely helpless and at the mercy of your rescuer, and again, I mean rescuer broadly. still waiting to hear if you think it's morally acceptable to force people to remain in danger, or to prevent them from seeking refuge in a safe manner, as our government does. Australian government policy has a central role in why people get on 'leaky boats' in indonesia, and it's the only thing we have a chance of changing (compared to, say, ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka). Why won't you address this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:How do you walk off an island? Or across a closed border, or through dangerous terrain that might be between two countries. I'm sure every North Korean could simply walk to the South if things were really so bad there. EDIT: Oops they broke the law against leaving the country by leaving the country, better refoul them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
holy poo poo i cannot stop laughing at this poo poo negligent is posting
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
This is great. Everyones posting is great. never change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Auspol or Cryptoparty.... Auspol or Cryptoparty....
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Auspol or Cryptoparty.... Auspol or Cryptoparty....
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
hooman posted:Crossing a land border on foot fleeing a persecuting regime is totally different and far safer than crossing a water border on boat to do the same because umm.... Because, say, militants have never crossed a national border. Go over that imaginary line and you will be safe Laffo
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Negligent posted:I mean rescue in the broadest sense. Not just that the navy comes and saves you, or even that the boat reached shore and you make it to civilisation, but that you will be completely helpless and at the mercy of your rescuer, and again, I mean rescuer broadly. Keep moving the goalposts! Who says they need to be "at our mercy"? What if all they were planning to do would be pitch a tent on a different continent? Would it be acceptable then, is it only when they're expecting the use of our resources that it becomes immoral? Remember, doing so isn't illegal, and hiring someone's services to do so is also not illegal - it is illegal to OPERATE such a service, but not to patronise it. I'm avoiding mentioning that Australia has literally signed a big piece of paper saying "it's okay to seek asylum here" for this conversation. Negligent posted:If, in your current location, you are in danger of being murdered, then the prudent thing to do is go somewhere that you are less likely to be murdered. Walking is available to everyone, whereas people smuggling is not. So you're saying that if you are in danger of being murdered you have a moral obligation to use only the resources available to anyone else who is possibly being murdered? Jeez, it's a shame there are other countries that don't have functional police, fire and ambulance services, because I really like calling those when I'm in danger of being murdered, burned alive or dying of major trauma. Perhaps I should have pushed my car all the way to Tathra personally since not everybody in the world has insurance with tow-truck pickup. I'm glad you've got more moral fibre than to avail yourself of services that only exist because you have enough money for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Lol So you admit that the boat is actually the option that puts you in least danger? That you are in fact endangering yourself and others less by taking a boat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:I'm glad you've got more moral fibre than to avail yourself of services that only exist because you have enough money for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Auspol or Cryptoparty.... Auspol or Cryptoparty.... cosplay as JC Denton
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
markgreyam posted:cosplay as JC Denton Tell people you know their killphrase. Tell them you never asked for this. EDIT: Before any of you spergs say anything I'm aware the second is Adam Jensen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Keep moving the goalposts! Who says they need to be "at our mercy"? What if all they were planning to do would be pitch a tent on a different continent? Would it be acceptable then, is it only when they're expecting the use of our resources that it becomes immoral? Remember, doing so isn't illegal, and hiring someone's services to do so is also not illegal - it is illegal to OPERATE such a service, but not to patronise it. I'm avoiding mentioning that Australia has literally signed a big piece of paper saying "it's okay to seek asylum here" for this conversation. I've been using rescue in the same sense all along, it's other people who have construed it narrowly. Clarifying their mistake is moving the goalposts? Okay. The moral obligation is to not use your money to put yourself and the people smuggler in a position requiring rescue. Because if everyone did that, the universe would have rescuees and no rescuers. It's the loving categorical imperative why is this so hard to comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Negligent posted:The moral obligation is to not use your money to put yourself and the people smuggler in a position requiring rescue Okay, good, so you've never used an ambulance or called the fire service then. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Negligent posted:The moral obligation is to not use your money to put yourself and the people smuggler in a position requiring rescue. Because if everyone did that, the universe would have rescuees and no rescuers. It's the loving categorical imperative why is this so hard to comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Okay, good, so you've never used an ambulance or called the fire service then. Good to know. Sigh, the difference is that you know with certainty upon entering into the act that you will be putting yourself at the mercy of a rescuer, as opposed to an unexpected emergency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Sigh, the difference is that you know with certainty upon entering into the act that you will be at the mercy of a rescuer, as opposed to an unexpected emergency. If I'm calling the ambulance because I have a medical complaint I am doing so in the full certainty that I am placing myself at the mercy of paramedics and requiring them to put themselves in danger for my sake. Of course I am Literally Hitler so there's that
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
(for those playing at home Negligent is using a completely arbitrary definition of "rescue" which just so happens to mean "what seeking asylum requires but not literally any other action in a cohesive society" and is using that as some sort of basis for a moral imperative, because he cannot intellectual reconcile his frothing hatred of refugees with his need to exist in a comfortable wealthy Western society)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:If I'm calling the ambulance because I have a medical complaint I am doing so in the full certainty that I am placing myself at the mercy of paramedics and requiring them to put themselves in danger for my sake. But you don't make a conscious decision to have a medical compliant requiring emergency care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Hey negligent, if is it immoral for asylum seekers to put themselves into situations where they might need rescuing, is it also immoral for us to deny them safe alternatives?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:(for those playing at home Negligent is using a completely arbitrary definition of "rescue" which just so happens to mean "what seeking asylum requires but not literally any other action in a cohesive society" and is using that as some sort of basis for a moral imperative, because he cannot intellectual reconcile his frothing hatred of refugees with his need to exist in a comfortable wealthy Western society) For those with access to a dictionary rescue means 'to free or deliver from confinement, violence, danger, or evil.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Negligent posted:But you don't make a conscious decision to have a medical compliant requiring emergency care. Nor did they make a conscious decision to be hunted down by militant extremists. Just as you said they can walk, I can walk to a nearby hospital. We're talking about the actions we decide to take as a result of our circumstances, and there is no moral difference between me asking a paramedic to risk themselves to save my life, asking a policeman to come and deal with a gunman or paying somebody for passage to somewhere safe. What you are saying is it is never moral to either ask or pay for somebody to intervene in a violent situation that involves some risk to their life or property, and that is not possible to reconcile with the use of emergency services.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Negligent posted:The moral obligation is to not use your money to put yourself and the people smuggler in a position requiring rescue. Because if everyone did that, the universe would have rescuees and no rescuers. It's the loving categorical imperative why is this so hard to comprehend. What does this mean? I can't figure out how everyone requires rescuing using this logic - is it because risk is associated with living and thus everyone is in mortal danger? Because that horrifically undermines the danger people who do have to leave their country face. What if, say, you were Viet and saw the killing fields in Cambodia? Jewish and seeing the horrors of Auschwitz? Where risk of death is so high that living in the area and using ANY service will get you killed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
Negligent posted:For those with access to a dictionary rescue means 'to free or deliver from confinement, violence, danger, or evil.' Which is not the definition you are using, because you're a hypocrite playing semantic games to justify your contempt for refugees. If this WERE the definition you were using, it would cover a whole host of emergency and justice services in Australia, such as the police, homeless and DV shelters and cat rescues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Negligent posted:It's the loving categorical imperative why is this so hard to comprehend. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the categorical imperative. It would only apply to people who are actually being persecuted, and if everyone was being persecuted then people smugglers would be the least of our worries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:57
|
|
