|
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. What right does someone have to just leave wherever they currently are and come here to live?
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
Unimpressed posted: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? Who's arguing that again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Who's arguing that again? Asio was, read his post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted: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? I understood perfectly what you meant. We have every obligation to "let them in". Who are you, or we, to give or withhold permission for someone to travel to Australia? Or live their life here? And who is " them"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:What right does someone have to just leave wherever they currently are and come here to live? Are you trolling?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
asio posted:I understood perfectly what you meant. We have every obligation to "let them in". Who are you, or we, to give or withhold permission for someone to travel to Australia? Or live their life here? And who is " them"? We are the citizens of Australia and them is the non citizens of Australia. Why do they just have a right to come and live here? Why can't we have a say about who can and can't come and live here? You sound like you're advocating for anyone to be able to migrate here, yet you accuse gay picnic of trolling when he puts that to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
asio posted:Who are you, or we, to give or withhold permission for someone to travel to Australia? The people who already live here? I don't see why people should accept their lives being made worse off just because someone wants to leave their own country and live here instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Asio was, read his post. Oh right, I mean he's expanding the scope of the argument beyond what Amethyst was on about, but I've personally got no problem with it. What's yours?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Oh right, I mean he's expanding the scope of the argument but I've personally got no problem with that. What's yours? Well, I have every problem with the idea that anyone can just come over and become a citizen of this country. For starters that would completely undermine the already weakening social contract. If 10 million people come here next year, do you think we will still be supporting unemployed people with even the meagre hand out that is Newstart?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Does this seem likely? Regardless, it's a moot point, migration control isn't going anywhere soon. I'd like to see restrictions lifted on a global scale, but that's more than a little idealistic I know
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Memento posted:Tell me why you think you should be allowed free entry to every country ever. What actually gives you the right to do that? I'm curious as to your thought process. White male. Duh. It's why Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson believes the single most important issue facing him is the right of wealthy white men to say 'friend of the family'. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Well, I have every problem with the idea that anyone can just come over and become a citizen of this country. For starters that would completely undermine the already weakening social contract. If 10 million people come here next year, do you think we will still be supporting unemployed people with even the meagre hand out that is Newstart? Firstly, your 10 million people/ new start example is ludicrous. There are more ways to skin a cat than letting it drown while border force watches. Secondly, you are assuming that border force is responsible for allowing people in that live to your standard when the burden is on you as their neighbour. Third, the idea that you have a concept of the "right" kind of migrant is arrogant. "Just anyone"? You are not that fantastic a person yourself. You are an Australian, after all. Your fourth sin was trying to make me care more about unemployed folk and the horror that is newstart. This is twofold: one problem is not inferior to the other, and the nation can afford to increase both welfare and the population. Edit Lizard Combatant posted:Does this seem likely? Regardless, it's a moot point, migration control isn't going anywhere soon. I'd like to see restrictions lifted on a global scale, but that's more than a little idealistic I know Migration control doesn't need to have the nature it has now, though. There is no problem with having someone at the gate looking out. It's when that person is a bully and the people inside are cowards is the problem. asio fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
asio posted:Firstly, your 10 million people/ new start example is ludicrous. There are more ways to skin a cat than letting it drown while border force watches. Firstly, I'm not talking about asylum seekers, we have an obligation under the law and under human decency to allow them to come here and seek safe haven and not be put into concentration camps. I'm talking about letting say anyone from any country just come and live here. Secondly, If you just open up our borders do you really think it's impossible for a few million people, maybe even 10 million to come over to one of the richest countries in the world in the span of one year? I don't think it would be unreasonable. Thirdly, I never said there was a "right" kind of migrant and I never claimed to be fantastic. So I'm not sure which orifice you're pulling that out from. Fourthly I wasn't trying to make you care about anything, in fact I couldn't give two fucks about what you care about. I was thinking to myself actually, what the meaning of our national grouping is to me. And the social contract is what came up. I feel more obliged to support a poor person in Australia than a poor person in the UK or in the US, or in Kenya for that matter. I do feel more obliged to support a poor person in Kenya than a poor person in the US because Kenya is a poorer country than the US. So to me countries are about internal obligation, and breaking the boundary of what a country is would break that obligation. Also I wasn't juxtaposing welfare and increasing population, but you're not talking about increasing population in any measured way, you're advocating throwing all the doors open. Finally, I'm making a reasoned argument while you're twisting my words and declaring my sins. I think you should gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Well I'm glad we settled that Chris Brown debate
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Firstly, I'm not talking about asylum seekers, we have an obligation under the law and under human decency to allow them to come here and seek safe haven and not be put into concentration camps. I'm talking about letting say anyone from any country just come and live here. I am advocating for open borders. When you say "anyone from any country just come and live here", why are you so offended by that thought? Is it because ten million in a year is a specific number where Australia would cease to exist? I agree that the social contract is part of what defines Australia. I disagree with the idea that border force has the right to withhold that from anyone who wants to share. And you should gently caress off yourself you nationalist
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
asio posted:I am advocating for open borders. When you say "anyone from any country just come and live here", why are you so offended by that thought? Is it because ten million in a year is a specific number where Australia would cease to exist? The problem is the views they potentially bring with them. Would you be happy if you were gay or female or some other minority and the country that previously had some degree of tolerance for your gender or sexuality or whatever was flooded with people who don't consider you human?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
please do not quote or reply to amethyst, aka blue stymie tia
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:please do not quote or reply to amethyst, aka blue stymie stfu, lightweight coward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
I like amethyst
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
asio posted:
What if they don't want to be part of the existing social contract? Is someone coming here advocating that doctors providing women with abortions be killed upholding the social contract? Is a hypothetical fundamentalist who thinks gay people are an affront and should be tortured someone who looks like they want to share in the existing social contract? There are plenty of people out there who want to enjoy the stability and standard of living but want to tear down the rights enjoyed by existing residents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I like amethyst
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
this was why IWC was a good poster. Amethyst is too stupid to defend arguments of marginal value properly so people just get the shits rather than make the effort to debate the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
all the good trolls have gone away and all that remain are the tedious idiots who lead the thread in circles for 10 pages by making the same post 100 times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
haha amethyst is salty about "free speech" because he got kicked by the irc bot what a dunce
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Endman posted:I don't get it. Taxis are an outdated business model, or a 'dinosaur', that are under intense government scrutiny. Uber is under some scrutiny. Uber doesn't realise that it itself is also a primitive system (in contrast to having consumers and drivers directly connect, I guess?). Uber is some less scrutiny than taxis. Uber is successfully by stepping on the users/drivers. idk
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:Taxis are an outdated business model, or a 'dinosaur', that are under intense government scrutiny. Uber is under some scrutiny. Uber doesn't realise that it itself is also a primitive system (in contrast to having consumers and drivers directly connect, I guess?). Uber is some less scrutiny than taxis. Uber is successfully by stepping on the users/drivers. But... regulation is... good? I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Endman posted:But... regulation is... good? I'm confused. Me too, Endman, me too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I like amethyst Amethyst is a better poster than roughly 75% of Auspol regulars. Once again he's on the right side of the argument, in this case that Peter "loving" Dutton shouldn't have the power to judge whether someone is of suitable character to come to Australia. This is the case even when he turns away someone that holds views that you may dislike. That is loving self evident and yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Can't say I can imagine how much more direct most people would be willing to get. I mean you already have enough concerns about the reliability of the drivers with Uber, if you take a step more direct say a craiglist/gumtree style anything goes taxi hiring service... yeah. I mean I could maybe see a few people go for it, but I think most people would consider that far to unreliable. Maybe he just means everyone will start hitchhiking. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Problems with this post:Tirade posted:Amethyst is a better poster than roughly 75% of Auspol regulars. Emotive and irrelevant hyperbole. Some kind of red mist must be obscuring your critical faculties. quote:Once again he's on the right side of the argument, in this case that Peter "loving" Dutton shouldn't have the power to judge whether someone is of suitable character to come to Australia. Racing so quickly to be on the "right" side, you manage to be irrelevant to the argument Amethyst was making, about a point which no one was actually disputing. This makes me suspect you haven't even read the last few pages, or you'd have noticed that two of us explicitly made that point. Alternatively, some kind of automatically revisionist reflex kicked in before you engaged your critical faculties. Could be that red mist issue again. quote:This is the case even when he turns away someone that holds views that you may dislike. More irrelevance for extra "win".  If it is a red mist problem, you may need to wait a suitable period until it clears and then read what was actually written and avoid silly phrases like "loving self evident" when it doesn't apply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:haha amethyst is salty about "free speech" because he got kicked by the irc bot Nope. I've never joined the irc channel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Problems with this post: Cool line by line rebuttal you tiresome dickhead. No one was disputing my argument? Can you read? All you ever do is tromp in with some clumsy meta commentary in a weak attempt to look above it all, with liberal use of scare quotes around words like "right" and "win. The main reason this is insanely boring is that your opinion on the actual matter at hand is noncommital milquetoast nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Cool line by line rebuttal you tiresome dickhead. No one was disputing my argument? Can you read? All you ever do is tromp in with some clumsy meta commentary in a weak attempt to look above it all, with liberal use of scare quotes around words like "right" and "win. you are a goddamn funny poster sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:
Thank you for your valuable and extremely insightful contribution to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
I may not agree with your right to be a terrorist and call for the murder of doctors, but I'll defend to the death your right to be a terrorist and call for the murder of doctors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:The problem is the views they potentially bring with them. Would you be happy if you were gay or female or some other minority and the country that previously had some degree of tolerance for your gender or sexuality or whatever was flooded with people who don't consider you human? In this day and age anyone can get any idea off the internet what does it actually matter if there is a person carrying that idea crossing our border? We don't ban music, we don't censor TV, we don't filter the Internet (or do we? I forget). The idea that stopping a person stops an idea from getting here seems a bit outdated, I mean sure maybe for the true believers who go and see the event those ideas are legitimised, but isn't it already too late for those people? Banning a person isn't going to change those people's minds, and if we were really worried about other people catching those bad ideas, why don't we block and censor the other ways that people can be exposed to those ideas? If Chris Brown or Tyler the Creator could fill concerts with fans here then it's too late and the "damage" has already been done. It doesn't seem to really be about dangerous or offensive ideas, is what I'm saying, or we'd get all the other forms of "keeping us safe" too. Stoca Zola fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Eh, I agree with your general point but Australia certainly does censor the poo poo out of all our media. We're pretty god drat conservative. Even poo poo so ingrained into popular culture like American Psycho is still required to be sold in shrink wrap for example, an Adelaide bookshop had it removed from shelves by the police earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
A wealthy entertainer should be able to come here to make money, after all everyone else did, except the aborigines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 17:37
|
|
