|
Also loving lol if you uncritically believe Fiona
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
A person so sure their allegations are true that they speak to the media anonymously
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Your analogy is poo poo since people actually voluntarily pay money to get on a boat So they pay for access to the pool and then get scammed and drowned. While you still don't rescue them. More accurate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
How about we gently caress off the pool analogy as unhelpful and just describe them as people who paid money to people smugglers to get on a boat since that's what actually happened
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
I can't think of a single reason why a person in that situation would want to protect their anonymity nope not one
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Negligent posted: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 7. The person who told the ambulance to wait so as to provide a message to other cyclists to wear a helmet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
when one person chooses to keep anonymity while whistle blowing it's because they're some filthy commie liar When a government chooses to stop releasing information about operations indefinitely it's because you don't need to know
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:when one person chooses to keep anonymity while whistle blowing it's because they're some filthy commie liar No, it's because there's no information to give, clearly. Try to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:7. The person who told the ambulance to wait so as to provide a message to other cyclists to wear a helmet. I'd stand in front of the ambulance personally if negligent got run down
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
When officers give orders they are frequently in the habit of giving the recipient a detailed explanation of why those orders are being given. That explains how Fiona came to know that actually, Tony Abbott is personally responsible for rescue activities
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
counterpoint: having our camps be total loving poo poo and for processing to take ages is terrible and makes us bad people
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
have considered that maybe actually torture of the children is good? e: as hell???
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Seagull posted:have considered that maybe actually torture of the children is good? Oh, so you don't care about adults being tortured?  I guess you were the real torture apologist all along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Seagull posted:have considered that maybe actually torture of the children is good? That's a hell of a hypothetical given that individuals utterly beyond reproach such as Scott Morrison and Peter dutton and Chris Bowen have said that the kids are fine and self harm and suicidal ideation is a normal part of growing up and also has anyone checked if kids is even the right word for small browns
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
If you called them pups people would probably care more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
It's almost as if Amethyst and Negligent have synchronized cycles. Refugees are a convenient problem we use to distract our population from the actual problems our politicians refuse to solve and often cause. Why do the right thing and deprive the political class of media-selling headlines and sanctimonious press conferences? Next you'll be expecting them to vote on things that the electorate cares about! We're not even original about it, we're just worse than most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:I can't think of a single reason why a person in that situation would want to protect their anonymity nope not one everytime we heard about a boat the captain would ring toned abs on the boatphone to see what we should do and also have raunchy phonesex - anonymous
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Negligent posted:When officers give orders they are frequently in the habit of giving the recipient a detailed explanation of why those orders are being given. That explains how Fiona came to know that actually, Tony Abbott is personally responsible for rescue activities Obviously Fiona is better at pattern recognition than you
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
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. If costs are your concern, in june 2014-may 2015 of May 2015, we spent $409,390,722 for Nauru. $1920 a day. Conversely it's less than $400 a day to lock somebody up in maximum security in Australia. Naru is the reason for the cost. Zahki posted: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 10:49
|
|
|
I too believe everything I read on 4chan, because anonymity is the hallmark of credible storytelling
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Fiona: Captain we've just received a distress signal! Captain: Is it in Australian waters? Fiona: No? Captain: Well then we wait until it is. I can't imagine how someone might think an order that didn't directly name a politician could be construed as being for purely political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
This is incredible https://foragerfunds.com/bristlemouth/dick-smith-is-the-greatest-private-equity-heist-of-all-time/
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
What good have anonymous sources ever done hey? Tell me that leftards
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Fiona: Captain we've just received a distress signal! https://www.reddit.com/r/thathappened
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
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. Refugees are a boon to our economy. We spend way more torturing and raping them than we would supporting them in the community Wealthy people only can pay people smugglers is rubbish. The ones coming to Australia are the ones who can afford to pay the least. "people living in warzones without the means to escape themselves" Well given there is no way for these guys to do anything but suffer you might as well write them out of the equation. Australia deliberately doesn't allow these people to even apply for assylum let alone visas. Here read this: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/fact-sheets/faqs/faq-info-about-refugees-asylum-seekers-and-australias-refugee-and-humanitarian-program/ You might not spout such utter drivel if you do. There is no 'unrestricted movement' into our country and after decades of accepting refugees the outcomes are largely positive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Hi AusPol. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask. Tangent - a friend on Facebook wrote:  His argument is that exemption should not be made for religious garments (remember those men who were denied sitting in Parliamentary Pubic Gallery because they were wearing KKK hood/motorcycle helmet), because religion is comprised of an arbitrary belief system*. He argues that if you allow for religious exemption for articles of clothing, then you should also allow for religious exemption for other things, such as vaccines (his example). I believe that you can exempt clothing, because in my opinion it's not an 'arbitrary' belief system - it is built upon centuries of thought process and decision making which has led that particular religion to where it is today. On the other hand, I am against exemption for vaccines for religious reasons - most of the science performed to date has a statistically favourable outcome for vaccination vs non-vaccination. I believe it is better for humanity as a whole to vaccinate those who can be vaccinated (only exemption being health reasons), regardless of whatever beliefs you hold. I know that is a horrible thing to say, because I believe in bodily autonomy, and forcing vaccination (discouraging anti-vaxxers by denying benefits is as good as 'forcing' for me, and ultimately it's the child who suffers) upon those who do not want it is wrong. How can I reconcile these two beliefs? *He argues that if the helmet wearer is security screened and checks out ok, then he should be allowed to sit in in the Parliamentary Public Gallery, just as those who wear religious garments are allowed. I argue that the helmet is not a core piece of identity for the wearer - the absence of their helmet doesn't affect their identity as a person and they're just wanting attention for being a unique snowflake. He argues that 'what if the helmet suddenly does become part of their identity - similar to how you have 'born-again Christians', or people who convert faiths'; to which I have no response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
you should tell him to stop reading r/atheism
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Well done. I was definitely saying that was a thing that happened and not using a scenario for illustrative purposes to show how you don't need to hear a phone conversation between Canberra and the Captain to understand something is political. I am undone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
while the correct response is "you're a fuckwit" it probably doesnt help much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Imagine the kind of boot-licking authoritarian government knob jockey you have to be to think there's no possibility of an ulterior motive to a department stopping the release of information but to claim that whistleblowers might as well be 4chan posters 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Imagine the kind of boot-licking authoritarian government knob jockey you have to be to think there's no possibility of an ulterior motive to a department stopping the release of information but to claim that whistleblowers might as well be 4chan posters An Australian
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
One of the greatest myths Australia has managed to perpetuate is that we're super laidback and have an anti-authoritarian streak. The diggers wouldn't salute the British officers at Gallipoli, ha ha, good on those bloody legends eh! *literally runs concentration camps*
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
freebooter posted:One of the greatest myths Australia has managed to perpetuate is that we're super laidback and have an anti-authoritarian streak. The diggers wouldn't salute the British officers at Gallipoli, ha ha, good on those bloody legends eh! *literally runs concentration camps* At least they make the RBA rate decreases run on time
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:There is no 'unrestricted movement' into our country Because of policy like Operation Sovereign Borders, yes quote:and after decades of accepting refugees the outcomes are largely positive. Because we adhere to a policy when we select, process and relocate them and don't just allow anyone with a boat to rock up. That's the point. You think we'd still have positive outcomes if we allowed a free for all where anyone who arrived on a boat was settled here? I hope not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
Zahki posted:Because of policy like Operation Sovereign Borders, yes Still waiting for you to source your 6000 cap number by the way Or is your point that the 13750 cap is clearly too many and results in adverse societal outcomes like your posting
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Zahki posted:Because we adhere to a policy when we select, process and relocate them and don't just allow anyone with a boat to rock up. That's the point. You think we'd still have positive outcomes if we allowed a free for all where anyone who arrived on a boat was settled here? I hope not. What bit of that do you not understand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:If an asylum seeker is deemed to be a refugee, then they should have access. If not, they can go home. So you think we should settle a potentially unlimited number of refugees here if they arrive by boat. Probably not a good idea. quote:Or is your point that the 13750 cap I thought I already pointed out that refugees are only a subset of the humanitarian arrivals. The refugee quota has remained fairly stable at around ~6000 for a decade, which is a pretty good indication of how many people we have the capability of settling here on an annual basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
if even a single refugee makes it to our virgin shores unassaulted we have failed our poop flinging crusader ancestors
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Imagine the kind of boot-licking authoritarian government knob jockey you have to be to think there's no possibility of an ulterior motive to a department stopping the release of information but to claim that whistleblowers might as well be 4chan posters if you actually believe that the executive government has engaged in a massive campaign of deliberately deceiving the public about the arrival of boats and instructed the navy not to rescue people from drowning then ... posting about it on the internet is definitely the best thing you can do, you impotent piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Zahki posted:So you think we should settle a potentially unlimited number of refugees here if they arrive by boat. Probably not a good idea. it was shocking to learn that the only thing that's literally infinite in our universe was refugees but my guess of dark matter was close imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 11:16
|
|