|
>> Once again Strawman talks in the language of ignorant
bigotry.
Bigot: n. someone who wins an argument against a member of a minority
group.
>> Thanks to our
>> government's distaste for open government, none of us really knows what's
>> happening there. True, we don't really know what is happening there, but there is one thing
we do know: there is not a genuine hunger strike. If there were, there would be
dead people by now. This fact combined with the claims of the left, tell us a
great deal about the left. The rest of the article
is based on what was formerly known about Nauru. As for our government's distast for open government, I agree it
stinks - almost as much as the desire that many of my fellow Australians have
to steal my money and give it to these
people. >> Presumably someone has to die before we get a squeak of
>> christian charity out of Strawman - but even then I think his attitude will be
>> "good riddance". I get the impression of a thoroughly distasteful individual.
Distasteful: a. A fact which contradicts your belief set.
>> I just hope, Strawman, that you never are stateless or hungry. People don't
>> risk their lives in the way these people have for nothing. Don't risk their lives for nothing? Maybe you would like to tell that to
the hoon who drove past my home at around 150Km/h two nights ago. I don't think
he was fleeing oppression - especially judging from the non-standard
modifications to his car. People take all kinds of risks for all kinds of
reasons, and that's their own business unless they put others at risk in the
process. Someone choosing to take risks does not incur any obligation on my
part. Someone inflicting self-harm on themselves (including crash dieting) does
not incur any obligation on my part. And someone lying to me reduces any
obligations that I would otherwise have had. >> Now that DOESN'T
>> mean we should open the floodgates to them, but it does mean that we don't have
>> to keep treating them like shit. We don't 'treat them like shit'. We shelter them, give them basic
medical care, and feed them (or at least offer them food which they pretend not
to eat). And they can leave whenever they like. When one of my house guests
refuses to eat the food I offer them, I simply regard them as rude. If they
complain about my treatment of them, I show them the door. I would be inclined
to do the same thing to these asylum seekers if they were in Australia. But of
course they aren't in Australia. They have never even been to Australia, and
they are still complaining about us because we won't let them in. I have never
felt guilty about refusing someone entry to my house, and don't expect that I
ever will. By the way, the thing that makes it my house is the fact that I can
refuse someone admission without having to justify it to anyone. Why do we have more obligation to someone who has knowing broken Australian
law that someone who hasn't? I have no special obligation to someone just
because they tried to break into my home. In fact they have an obligation to me
- to leave immediately and to compensate me for their violation. >> The thing that really shits me off is that if they were white Zimbabwean
>> farmers Strawman would be bending over backwards to tell us how entrepreneurial
>> and daring they are, risking all for a better life. No, I would be bending over backwards to tell you how entrepreneurial they
are because it's true. They used to feed a nation until the means to do so was
stolen from them (the people they used to feed are now close to starving). On
the other hand, breaking Australian law by coming here would count against
them. >> But of course if they were
>> white Zimbabwean farmers the tabloids would already be calling them
>> enterprising and daring, and our hypocritical little PM would be leading the
>> charge to welcome them. No, there is nothing enterprising or daring about paying
a people smuggler, and I would be pointing that out. >> And how, anyway, can a strict libertarian be opposed to the free movement of
>> labour? Hmm, maybe you can you point to the 'strict libertarian' who is opposed to
the free movement of labor?
| 
