|
Unimpressed posted:Hold on, are you actually saying Chris Brown should be able to use the fact that he's black as a mitigating factor for beating up his partner???? Wow, that's certainly a brilliant logical concoction implied from my statement! You are an incredibly smart word arrangement man! I'm going to go and have a hard think about the implications acknowleging the cultural disadvantage of African Americans, lest it lead to women getting beaten up.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Memento posted:Those sure are some sweet ad hominem attacks there, which are definitely not something who has no other arguments would stoop to. I'm defending myself from ewe2's adhom, genius. If someone wants to roll around in the dirt I'm up for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Cultural problems aren't solved with a punitive legislative sledgehammer. Trying to do so with whatever ideas you hold that day may make you look very bad in the future. Look at the white Australia policy. Equating a racist policy like White Australia with refusing entry to someone because of views they choose to hold doesn't seem right. In any case, I would say cultural problems can in fact be stamped out through punitive measures as well as other methods like education. It seems to me that in letting in someone like this anti-abortion guy, a fundamentalist Muslim or a fascist has the potential to do a lot of harm to locals, so why make them worse off just because someone wants to exercise the privilege of travelling here? How does it make this country and its people better off, or how does it uphold moral obligations to assist those whose lives are under threat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I'm defending myself from ewe2's adhom, genius. If someone wants to roll around in the dirt I'm up for it. He attacked your argument. You're attacking basically everything about him, other than his argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Yay I won Amethyst Argument Bingo  Another round perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:
This is the fundamental issue, and I don't believe it's a strong enough idea to deny visas. We already have cultural defences against fascism, and a robust debate around abortion. These aren't scheming jacobins threatening the revolutionary council, and our society won't collapse through exposure to dangerous ideas. Amethyst fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Wow, that's certainly a brilliant logical concoction implied from my statement! You are an incredibly smart word arrangement man! I'm going to go and have a hard think about the implications acknowleging the cultural disadvantage of African Americans, lest it lead to women getting beaten up. I'm only mildly clever, let me assure you. Now, Chris Brown is being banned not because he's black but because he has several convictions for physically assaulting his partner and therefore manifestly fails to meet the character test. You raised the notion of us not banning culturally disadvantaged people and connected it to my reference to Chris Brown's banning with your reply. What other implication could I reasonably deduce?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Memento posted:He attacked your argument. You're attacking basically everything about him, other than his argument. His argument was "Amethyst is saying dumb things". gently caress ewe2 he's a dullard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I'm only mildly clever, let me assure you. Now, Chris Brown is being banned not because he's black but because he has several convictions for physically assaulting his partner and therefore manifestly fails to meet the character test. You raised the notion of us not banning culturally disadvantaged people and connected it to my reference to Chris Brown's banning with your reply. What other implication could I reasonably deduce? Actually, I was saying we shouldn't punish people in a misguided attempt to protect the culturally disadvantaged. I didn't say anything about cultural disadvantage being a mitigating factor in visa applications (although I don't really have a problem with this tbh).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:This is the fundamental issue, and I don't believe it's a strong enough idea to deny visas. We already have cultural defences against fascism, and a robust debate against abortion. These aren't scheming jacobins threatening the revolutionary council, and our society won't collapse through exposure to dangerous ideas. See, this, this is an actual good argument. Arguing against societal echo chambers is perfectly legitimate. It's just that the guy doesn't want to "argue against abortion". He wants to "incite murder". There's a pretty big difference. If he was just coming here, with zero evidence of inciting to violence in his past, to argue about Baby Jesus crying every time there was an abortion, then fine. If he wants to come here to incite violence - which he does - then no. gently caress off back to the Bible Belt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:I'm only mildly clever, let me assure you. Now, Chris Brown is being banned not because he's black but because he has several convictions for physically assaulting his partner and therefore manifestly fails to meet the character test. You raised the notion of us not banning culturally disadvantaged people and connected it to my reference to Chris Brown's banning with your reply. What other implication could I reasonably deduce? Chris Brown is a turd, no question, but I'm pretty sure his argument is that we're further punishing people for crimes all ready tried in another country and that we tend to only give a poo poo when it's people who aren't white and loved by the boomer crowd. The "kill the abortion doctors" guy is a greyer area, but again, if he does that here then we have laws to deal with this. Restricting travel across borders is a stupid outdated concept.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Memento posted:See, this, this is an actual good argument. Arguing against societal echo chambers is perfectly legitimate. It's just that the guy doesn't want to "argue against abortion". He wants to "incite murder". There's a pretty big difference. If he was just coming here, with zero evidence of inciting to violence in his past, to argue about Baby Jesus crying every time there was an abortion, then fine. If he wants to come here to incite violence - which he does - then no. gently caress off back to the Bible Belt. I don't believe media reports alone should be enough to bar someone. If there had been a formal process, maybe, but that has not happened here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:This is the fundamental issue, and I don't believe it's a strong enough idea to deny visas. We already have cultural defences against fascism, and a robust debate against abortion. These aren't scheming jacobins threatening the revolutionary council, and our society won't collapse through exposure to dangerous ideas. Why let people in who clearly wants to make the country worse for its inhabitants? Whose views run counter to everything our culture purports to stand for? What right to people have to get issued a visa in the first place? I guess we could go back and forwards arguing about who should or shouldn't be let in, it might be more productive if you explain in some detail why you think the borders should essentially be thrown open to whichever shithead wants in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
We will decide who comes here, and the manner in which they come
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:Why let people in who clearly wants to make the country worse for its inhabitants? Whose views run counter to everything our culture purports to stand for? People aren't coming here to "make the country worse for it's inhabitants". That's black and white, us and them, cartoon morality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
To make the issue clearer, perhaps it's better to discuss the Tyler the Creator case. Does anyone support his visa denial?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:People aren't coming here to "make the country worse for it's inhabitants". That's black and white, us and them, cartoon morality. People coming here to incite people into potentially murdering abortion practitioners actually would be making the country worse for its inhabitants hth
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
ewe2 I may have gone overboard with the insults before, sorry. Bono still sucks though
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:To make the issue clearer, perhaps it's better to discuss the Tyler the Creator case. Does anyone support his visa denial? To further clarify the issue, does anyone care? about Tyler the creator?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:People aren't coming here to "make the country worse for it's inhabitants". That's black and white, us and them, cartoon morality. Someone who comes here with believing killing abortion doctors is a good idea, or promotes other lovely attitudes towards women, LGBT people or any other minority group certainly wants to make the lives of the people affected worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
tithin posted:To further clarify the issue, does anyone care? about Tyler the creator? Why does anyone care that an artist was banned from entering our country purely on the basis of the content of his art? I don't know
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Why does anyone care that an artist was banned from entering our country purely on the basis of the content of his art? I don't mean specifically to his ban, I'm speaking in generalities. I neither know who he is, nor care that he was banned. I am uncomfortable with the general idea of DIMI being able to ban people they disagree with from entering the country after a visa's been issued because of their celebrity status, for political purposes. That said, it is their right to do, even if I disagree with it Until such a time as the law is changed to prevent it, the argument is moot. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
tithin posted:I don't mean specifically to his ban, I'm speaking in generalities. I neither know who he is, nor care that he was banned. The argument isn't moot because the tenor of the public reaction will influence future rulings and policy. At the moment there are a bunch of unthinking dummies cheering on fb about Chris Brown being barred. "Hey, barring undesirables is a vote winner! Let's bar someone unpopular a week before the election!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Chris Brown is a turd, no question, but I'm pretty sure his argument is that we're further punishing people for crimes all ready tried in another country and that we tend to only give a poo poo when it's people who aren't white and loved by the boomer crowd. The "kill the abortion doctors" guy is a greyer area, but again, if he does that here then we have laws to deal with this. Restricting travel across borders is a stupid outdated concept. Again, we're not punishing them. As in we're not denying them a right (e.g. their freedom), we're withholding from them a privilege. We have no obligation to let anyone but Australian citizens or other visa holders and asylum seekers into the country. I think your main objection ties into your last sentence, about travel restrictions being outdated. Why is that the case? Without travel borders we have no control over who comes here. The problem with the refugee policy isn't that we're trying to control our borders, but that the people who are prevented from coming here through the border controls should be able to come as per our obligations and human decency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:The argument isn't moot because the tenor of the public reaction will influence future rulings and policy. At the moment there are a bunch of unthinking dummies cheering on fb about Chris Brown being barred. I agree with you entirely that the Chris Brown banning is suspect because of the motives behind it. But I am absolutely not against the general idea being applied equitably regardless of fame/infamy and political advantage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:People aren't coming here to "make the country worse for it's inhabitants". That's black and white, us and them, cartoon morality. I think that having important decisions of any sort at the discretion of a minister is a bad idea. Especially if there isn't any judicial review available. The Minister, while they have to have been elected as a representative, wasn't selected by the polity. They were selected by and are accountable to the Executive government. This situation is fundamentally flawed especially if there is no judicial review. Now as to the denial of visas there has been a lot of dog whistling around Chris Brown and his 'lack of respect'. If denying him entry is out of a level of authoritarian finger waggling then letting him in would seem reasonable. It certainly has nothing to do with DV convictions. We let any number of DV convicted people in with out fear or favour. I get the strong sniff of Chris Brown being used by the authoritarians as a wedge against the 'progressives' who would neither like to restrict freedom of expression nor appear to support a renowned beater like Brown. I personally found this one a hard one to take a stand on because while I object to the authoritarian and dog whistle way he was denied Chris Brown isn't the hill I would choose to die on for the issue. Now please return to the frequently scheduled melt down of Amethyst. Is it one a month now? I lost track.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
I am not melting down. It is you, who are the one who is having a meltdown. Please stop freaking out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Again, we're not punishing them. As in we're not denying them a right (e.g. their freedom), we're withholding from them a privilege. We have no obligation to let anyone but Australian citizens or other visa holders and asylum seekers into the country. That's just semantics though. If we're not denying them a privilege as you say for a past criminal conviction, why are we doing it? It's a character assessment made on their past not their present. People squabbling over borders has been the root of nearly every conflict since forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I am not melting down. It is you, who are the one who is having a meltdown. Please stop freaking out. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:People squabbling over borders has been the root of nearly every conflict since forever. Yeah, so what? That's a useless truism. So does not having borders solve all the problems or create different ones?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Never believe anything until it is offically denied If that were true, no one would believe that DCFADP, given he's never denied it formally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Well, if we're denying visas on the basis of political speech, it isn't much of a stetch to imagine we could cancel the citizenship, or residency applications, of such people, either, is it? Lol you are an idiot
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
katlington posted:Lol you are an idiot Your stupid
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Yeah, so what? That's a useless truism. So does not having borders solve all the problems or create different ones? Worth a shot. Anyway, that's a useless dichotomy. I didn't say we should lose them entirely. As others have said more eloquently, ministerial discretion, lack of appeal and dogwhistle politics is a real issue here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Again, we're not punishing them. As in we're not denying them a right (e.g. their freedom), we're withholding from them a privilege. We have no obligation to let anyone but Australian citizens or other visa holders and asylum seekers into the country. What do you mean, its a privilege to live in Australia? It's a right. The root cause of the problem is nationalism. Obligations my testicle. You are obligated to treat people like human beings. It isn't border controls problem who comes here and how they act, it's our problem, as the people who live in this society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Hold on, are you actually saying Chris Brown should be able to use the fact that he's black as a mitigating factor for beating up his partner???? *looks down with hands in pockets kickin' dirt* Prob'ly wouldn't stop an old white dude who beat his wife from stopping in to talk at the writer's festival, just sayin'
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
asio posted:What do you mean, its a privilege to live in Australia? It's a right. The root cause of the problem is nationalism. Obligations my testicle. You are obligated to treat people like human beings. No I mean it's a privilege for people who aren't Australians to come into Australia. As in, we don't have any obligation to let them in. The only non Australians we have an obligation to let it are asylum seekers. Do you think anyone who wants to should be able to just come? What about come and live here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:*looks down with hands in pockets kickin' dirt* I'm not arguing that Chris Brown is being banned for the right reasons, I just don't have a problem in principle with applying a character test to granting a travel visa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:*looks down with hands in pockets kickin' dirt* Gonna need a name for this one please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Cartoon posted:Never believe anything until it is offically denied Well he didn't even ask which positions of his I agreed with before having a tanty so I'm voting meltdown. I'm not sure but I think Amethyst is arguing some sort of "checkmate leftards" because we don't have a black and white view, but I could be wrong because he keeps changing it. This decision exemplifies why Ministerial discretion is problematic but unfortunately no one faces any kind of serious consequence whatever the individual case is. The principle of control over a state's borders trumps any questions about the way it is done in the minds of those with the power. And I don't see that changing any time soon. Cf unfortunate boat people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:08
|
|