|
Seagull posted:i'm glad dawkins jr was there to explain that islam is fundamentally incompatible with not being a regressive barbarian also but im not racist I haven't listened to all of it yet, but I'm pretty sure they are particularly referring to Islamism, which is different to Islam.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Does anyone have the goonmeet details? Is anyone going?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Nien posted:I only stopped in to check out amethysts posts after his meltdown in games. You guys prove that we are quite tolerant. Small and biased sample accepted. Stick around and he'll really show you what a meltdown is. Speaking of: Who's doing next month?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:Hey Cartoon, you should watch Holy Motors by Leos Carax. I don't remember actually watching this movie but for some reason I have a very clear memory of the limousines talking to each other at the end. Edit: 
MonoAus fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
SPOILER THAT poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Does anyone have the goonmeet details? Is anyone going? The details are in the irc topic, phone posting so you can find them yourself
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Birb Katter posted:The details are in the irc topic, phone posting so you can find them yourself gently caress your poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Isn't it worse if the boats have stopped though? Or at least just as bad? The vast majority of refugees are found to be genuine, so the deaths at sea (which we know at time have been caused by political pressure not to rescue) have to be weighed against people being tortured or killed if they're unable to leave their country of origin. Or is Negligient just the type of fuckwit who thinks they should not jump a queue or should apply for asylum in countries that don't recognise the refugee convention?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:the deaths at sea (which we know at time have been caused by political pressure not to rescue) have to be weighed against people being tortured or killed if they're unable to leave their country of origin ~Not Are Porblem~
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:I haven't listened to all of it yet, but I'm pretty sure they are particularly referring to Islamism, which is different to Islam. That and calling out the regressive-left which excuse and justify that islamism in the name of tolerance. Through hours of research and reading the works of Nawaz I have determined that this regressive-left consists of two poo poo articles on the guardian. WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Or is Negligient just the type of fuckwit This one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
What the gently caress are you talking about, deaths at sea are caused by people smugglers overloading unseaworthy vessels, not "political pressure". And if you actually bothered to learn about where those people fleeing are coming from you would find boats from Sri Lanka are a minority, the majority depart from Indonesia and are a secondary flow from the source country, having been brought there by agents. Or maybe you are one of those dumbasses who actually believe that people smugglers are altruists providing scared and vulnerable people a valuable service 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
That explains why we're paying them cash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
Every sovereign nation has the right to regulate who enters. It's not in Australia's interests to take every refugee that takes a boat from Indonesia. Anyone who says that we have an obligation to accept people who pay smugglers to come here is simply insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Signatories to various human rights treaties are insane. A hot take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Zahki posted:It's not in Australia's interests to take every refugee that takes a boat from Indonesia. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Isn't it worse if the boats have stopped though? Or at least just as bad? The vast majority of refugees are found to be genuine, so the deaths at sea (which we know at time have been caused by political pressure not to rescue) have to be weighed against people being tortured or killed if they're unable to leave their country of origin. Or is Negligient just the type of fuckwit who thinks they should not jump a queue or should apply for asylum in countries that don't recognise the refugee convention? If you live in afghanistan/syria/ wherever your only choices are 1. remaining exactly where you are. Or 2. pay a people smuggler to take you on a boat to Australia. You can't do anything else to mitigate the risk of harm, those are the two options. Nice loving paternalist implicit racism there too. If you're brown you're not capable of being a rational self preserving actor, you are entirely at the whim of white men in a faraway land. Negligent fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Zahki posted:Every sovereign nation has the right to regulate who enters. It's not in Australia's interests to take every refugee that takes a boat from Indonesia. Anyone who says that we have an obligation to accept people who pay smugglers to come here is simply insane. agreed, australia doesn't have a race problem, why should we import one
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Zahki posted:Anyone who says that we have an obligation to accept people who pay smugglers to come here is simply insane. Nobody thinks this. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm almost 100% sure nobody, even in this pink, lefty, communist, lefty, race traitor, lefty thread thinks this
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
paternalist implicit racism. I love youre the real racist, I lol everytime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
We absolutely have the obligation to accept anyone who is eligible for refugee status and who seeks protection in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
If you study the history of Islam, our ship captains were getting murdered. The French had to tip us off. I mean these were the days of Thomas Jefferson. They’ve been doing the same thing. This isn’t a surprise. You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. It’s the only thing these people understand. And all we’ve heard from these SJWs is a case to heap praise on this religion, as if to appease them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
QUACKTASTIC posted:Why not? We don't have the resources to process that many refugees. Even the most ardent refugee rights advocate has to admit we have a quota and going beyond that is harmful for a lot of reasons beyond just the economic ones, the number of social workers who ensure these people become integrated into their communities, support services to get them housed, learn the language, find them jobs. Overall if we're talking about refugees I'd much rather the country take ones that are recognised by the UNHCR and have been suggested for relocation, that way we're certain the process is fair and unbiased with no regard for race, religion or economic status instead of filling our capacity with people who are wealthy enough to pay for their own means of getting here. "Take them all" is not a solution and efforts need to be made to ensure if we take X amount of refugees per year that we're getting people from around the world who may not have the means to get here rather than a "Ok the first 16k people who arrive here by boat get refugee status, the rest of you better luck next year" quote:Nobody thinks this. I'm almost certain someone will pop up and say we're obliged to take everyone who boats over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Oh, so it's ok for Muslims to torture people but as soon as we do it suddenly we're the bad guys?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:We absolutely have the obligation to accept anyone who is eligible for refugee status and who seeks protection in Australia. By "accept" do you mean "grant permanent residence" ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Zahki posted:We don't have the resources to process that many refugees. Even the most ardent refugee rights advocate has to admit we have a quota and going beyond that is harmful for a lot of reasons beyond just the economic ones, the number of social workers who ensure these people become integrated into their communities, support services to get them housed, learn the language, find them jobs. Overall if we're talking about refugees I'd much rather the country take ones that are recognised by the UNHCR and have been suggested for relocation, that way we're certain the process is fair and unbiased with no regard for race, religion or economic status instead of filling our capacity with people who are wealthy enough to pay for their own means of getting here. "Take them all" is not a solution and efforts need to be made to ensure if we take X amount of refugees per year that we're getting people from around the world who may not have the means to get here rather than a "Ok the first 16k people who arrive here by boat get refugee status, the rest of you better luck next year" How many people are you expecting? Abbott was talking about tens, possibly millions, of people. E: are you aware that the most boat arrivals australia ever got was 20,000 people in one year? SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
maybe we'd be better equipped to take refugees if we didn't spend billions torturing them beforehand
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
People get upset about this because these 'people' aren't playing 'by the rules'. I'm convinced that if you show people that they are 'actually playing by the rules' that is part of a process that takes into account who they are and where they are from then we might have some rational debate. Nevertheless and let me just say for what its worth and to be quite honest, we will continue to make this an issue and we will continue to lose and its sad. I've taken this seriously, I think i need to buy amethyst an av. I''m thinking that dsmart's kid in a wheelchair is fitting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Negligent posted:What the gently caress are you talking about, deaths at sea are caused by people smugglers overloading unseaworthy vessels, not "political pressure". Are you forgetting the Navy personnel who said they were told to wait before going to respond to a distress signal? quote:Fiona said she was also aware of the level of indirect political pressure applied to border protection operations. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/navy-personnel-open-up-about-border-protection/5933260 WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Zahki posted:I'm almost certain someone will pop up and say we're obliged to take everyone who boats over. This is the law. If someone claims asylum upon arrival in Australia, we have an obligation to investigate their claim of asylum, and grant them refuge if we find it to be genuine. How they arrived is irrelevant. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. You can disagree that this should be the law if you want, but it's still the law. Obviously we are not in fact obeying that law since we refuse to settle refugees who come by boat even if we find their claims genuine. Nonetheless, it's the law under a treaty that we're a signatory to - not some completely whacko insane left-wing suggestion. Nien posted:I'm convinced that if you show people that they are 'actually playing by the rules' that is part of a process that takes into account who they are and where they are from then we might have some rational debate. The past 15 years suggest otherwise
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Sorry but if we accept that 13,751st refugee it's curtains for the entire country. that's just a simple fact regardless of what the sjw twitterati try to tell you
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Is anyone at the goon meet I cannot find it
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Nien posted:It's a wedge as Marr says in the article. The percentage of people who are actually hardcore anti-immigration and/or outright racist when it comes down to it is small. It's a definitional problem about what is fair and not fair. I reckon. What's he melting down about in games??
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Are you forgetting the Navy personnel who specifically said they were told to wait before going to respond to a distress signal? Yes, the real reason people drowned is definitely that the navy, buckling under political pressure, decided not to rescue people, and not, for example, those people paying money to people smugglers who sail across the open ocean in an overloaded, unseaworthy boat. It's definitely the rescuers fault, and not the person who put themselves in a position to require rescue. That person is utterly blameless in their own demise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Is anyone at the goon meet I cannot find it The goonmeet I'm having at the airport is awesome you should all come here
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
katlington posted:How many people are you expecting? Abbott was talking about tens, possibly millions, of people. That's triple our usual refugee intake. Resettling refugees here takes a lot of time and effort. They need a lot of support before they actually feel at home here. Whats the point of accepting them if they need to live in tent ghettos no better than Nauru because we can't find them proper housing? Everyone loses, the communities who live nearby and get to see their crime skyrocket and the refugees who basically live as third world citizens in a first world country. If we're going to take refugees it needs to be deliberate and measured, not a free for all where we take in unsustainable numbers because we're trying to take UNHCR designated refugees as well as everyone who makes it to our shores by boat. I have no idea why you think we'd be able to support 20,000 refugees a year when the average is around 6,000. It would be impossible to give them the support they need to integrate into the community. Like I said, 'take them all' is not a solution, it's not feasible and unless you think that relatively wealthy people who can access people smugglers should get priority over people living in warzones without the means to escape themselves then we shouldn't be trying to take on an additional burden that would compromise the integration of the refugees we already take into their new communities. Making sure we only take an amount we have the resources to properly support and ensuring that they go through an equitable process of selection is the only humane thing to do. Allowing unrestricted movement into our country by anyone who claims to be a refugee is a really bad idea with terrible outcomes both for the refugees and Australian citizens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Zahki posted:That's triple our usual refugee intake. Resettling refugees here takes a lot of time and effort. They need a lot of support before they actually feel at home here. Whats the point of accepting them if they need to live in tent ghettos no better than Nauru because we can't find them proper housing? Everyone loses, the communities who live nearby and get to see their crime skyrocket and the refugees who basically live as third world citizens in a first world country. If we're going to take refugees it needs to be deliberate and measured, not a free for all where we take in unsustainable numbers because we're trying to take UNHCR designated refugees as well as everyone who makes it to our shores by boat. I have no idea why you think we'd be able to support 20,000 refugees a year when the average is around 6,000. It would be impossible to give them the support they need to integrate into the community. Like I said, 'take them all' is not a solution, it's not feasible and unless you think that relatively wealthy people who can access people smugglers should get priority over people living in warzones without the means to escape themselves then we shouldn't be trying to take on an additional burden that would compromise the integration of the refugees we already take into their new communities. Actually our humanitarian intake is currently 13,750, was scheduled to be 20,000 before the change of government and now has an added 12,000 special intake of Syrian refugees on top but yeah 6,000 is our breaking point
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Yes, the real reason people drowned is definitely that the navy, buckling under political pressure, decided not to rescue people, and not, for example, those people paying money to people smugglers who sail across the open ocean in an overloaded, unseaworthy boat. If someone's been pushed into a pool and is drowning right in front of you and you have the ability to save them, but don't, both you and the person who pushed them carry the blame. It doesn't matter if you only didn't save them, because you wanted their death to act as a deterrent to other people by the pool. Like realistically, what is your ideal solution for these asylum seekers? WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
If I ride a bike through a red light get struck by a car and die of head injuries (I wasnt wearing a helmet) it is the fault of 1. Passersby who didn't call 000 2. Ambulance officers for not responding fast enough 3. Driver of the car 4. Person who designed the intersection 5. Manufacturer of the bike 6. Government for failing to educate me on the risks of cycling
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:If someone's been pushed into a pool and is drowning right in front of you and you have the ability to save them, but don't, both you and the person who pushed them carry the blame. It doesn't matter if you only didn't save them, because you wanted their death to act as a deterrent to other people by the pool. Your analogy is poo poo since people actually voluntarily pay money to get on a boat
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:If someone's been pushed into a pool and is drowning right in front of you and you have the ability to save them, but don't, both you and the person who pushed them carry the blame. It doesn't matter if you only didn't save them, because you wanted their death to act as a deterrent to other people by the pool. Actually it's the pushed in persons fault for not grabbing a pool noodle and treading water for the next twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:11
|
|