|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On October 23 2016 23:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 18:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
The problem is that political discussion tends to descend into little more than a series of attempts to misrepresent the other person's positions in order to score points. Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. Does anybody else feel reminded of sentences starting with "I am not a racist, but ..." ? Yawn. Find me a response to any of my points that doesn't fit this format Honestly, so idiotic. You're absolutely fine with him calling me extreme and illogical, but have a problem with me saying that I am not. You're only betraying your own bias.
Aren't you now displaying exactly the kind of behaviour you are trying to criticise me for?
I never said anything about what "he" said (whomever you mean by that). I didnt even say I have a problem with anything you wrote because I didnt read it. I just read the first sentenced and was immediately reminded of people who start their own rants in exactly the same way.
If you dont like me pointing that out: dont do it.
|
On October 23 2016 23:18 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 23:04 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 18:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
The problem is that political discussion tends to descend into little more than a series of attempts to misrepresent the other person's positions in order to score points. On October 23 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. Does anybody else feel reminded of sentences starting with "I am not a racist, but ..." ? Yawn. Find me a response to any of my points that doesn't fit this format Honestly, so idiotic. You're absolutely fine with him calling me extreme and illogical, but have a problem with me saying that I am not. You're only betraying your own bias. Aren't you now displaying exactly the kind of behaviour you are trying to criticise me for? I never said anything about what "he" said (whomever you mean by that). I didnt even say I have a problem with anything you wrote because I didnt read it. I just read the first sentenced and was immediately reminded of people who start their own rants in exactly the same way. If you dont like me pointing that out: dont do it.
Free country. 'Contribute' in whatever meaningless, vapid way you see fit.
|
On October 23 2016 23:21 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 23:18 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 23 2016 23:04 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 18:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
The problem is that political discussion tends to descend into little more than a series of attempts to misrepresent the other person's positions in order to score points. On October 23 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. Does anybody else feel reminded of sentences starting with "I am not a racist, but ..." ? Yawn. Find me a response to any of my points that doesn't fit this format Honestly, so idiotic. You're absolutely fine with him calling me extreme and illogical, but have a problem with me saying that I am not. You're only betraying your own bias. Aren't you now displaying exactly the kind of behaviour you are trying to criticise me for? I never said anything about what "he" said (whomever you mean by that). I didnt even say I have a problem with anything you wrote because I didnt read it. I just read the first sentenced and was immediately reminded of people who start their own rants in exactly the same way. If you dont like me pointing that out: dont do it. Free country. 'Contribute' in whatever meaningless, vapid way you see fit.
How can a person be such a hypocrite.
|
On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The economic arguments against globalisation are very well documented, and they are almost exclusively focused on protecting the working class. Are you even aware of what is going on with CETA? Why are socialists trying to block it? Because globalisation cripples the ability of nation states to protect their working classes. A nation state operating according to its own interests and not the diluted lowest-common-denominator interests of 28 diverse states has far more versatility in order to protect its own threatened industries, while at the same time not needing to shoulder the protectionism of the other 27.
This makes sense to a certain point.There are certainly good reasons for going against globalisation, but I would argue that many of these reasons aren't economic at all but social. For example, worker's rights is a huge issue and as a socialist I am dismayed at the idea of huge trade deals with the US that will massively erode worker's rights in the UK. The problem is that the only thing protecting our workers from their biggest threat in this regard is the EU, given the fact that the tories have explicitly stated that they want to scale back worker's rights.
This is where the crux of the issue resides for me. Many socialists wanted to stay in the EU as protection against the irresponsible and dangerous policies of our own tory government. I've had this discussion before and at this point people inevitably shout "But democracy!". The problem with this is that it is simply shifting the discussion from one thing to another. It makes it seem like the main argument is "But i want things the way i want them."
And when you see a critically flawed system, the economic solution is to be proactive and cut yourself loose at short term cost, not to hang on to it for some illusory short term security. Now evidently you weight the facts differently. You think the EU can recover from the migrant crisis, from it's inability to reform and listen to its people, from the economic trap that is the euro, etc. I disagree, and as far as I'm concerned I have a strong logical and empirical basis for doing so.
This is simply a matter of disagreement and there's not really much to be done about it. The raw facts and data are so hard to come by in this era of ridiculously biased media on both sides that everyone is just left to make up their own mind. I reckon this is done more on an instinctive level than an intellectual one, because intellectual argument about the EU has become literally impossible with the sheer amount of misinformation coming from official sources. We're left to debate on logic alone, which isn't really up to the task with stuff this complex.
It is entirely pointless to look at a popular movement and say 'That's bad!' or dismiss its membership as bigots or imbeciles brainwashed by some malignant media. Popular movements never exist without context, and if you refuse to acknowledge the context you're not undermining the movement - you're fuelling it. Elite ideology and visions of impossible utopias will never hold out against the tide of popular opinion born of people accurately assessing their lived reality.
You're absolutely right here, I think one of the main points of contention I have with my friends on the left is that they often jump to generalizations about right leaning folk and refuse to acknowledge any debate that needs to be had about matters that are difficult for the left.
Islam has certainly thrown a massive spanner in the works for socialism, I know that. I find it harder every day to figure out my own position because there's so much contradictory stuff going on in my head. To my mind, if you have a clear and simple position on this stuff you aren't thinking hard enough about it. Immigration has no answer coming from socialism so we seem to have just given up on the question and said "Well immigration is good anyway." as if that's going to ease the fears of the population. Its not, and its why Corbyn hasn't overtaken anyone in the polls, and its why he never will.
That said, the fear based approach that comes from UKIP (Where are those hundreds of millions of Hungarians Farage was talking about a couple of years ago? HAHAHAHA) is a cancer on UK politics and needs to be cut out.
p.s. I'm going to laugh if Raheem Kassam becomes UKIP leader and you all are forced to accept that nationalism in the UK has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Note, for example, how British nationalists tend to be very fond of Sikhs and Sikhs voted for Brexit in the same proportion as the population as a whole.
This doesn't even stand up to the most basic logic, sorry.
|
On October 24 2016 01:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The economic arguments against globalisation are very well documented, and they are almost exclusively focused on protecting the working class. Are you even aware of what is going on with CETA? Why are socialists trying to block it? Because globalisation cripples the ability of nation states to protect their working classes. A nation state operating according to its own interests and not the diluted lowest-common-denominator interests of 28 diverse states has far more versatility in order to protect its own threatened industries, while at the same time not needing to shoulder the protectionism of the other 27.
This makes sense to a certain point.There are certainly good reasons for going against globalisation, but I would argue that many of these reasons aren't economic at all but social. For example, worker's rights is a huge issue and as a socialist I am dismayed at the idea of huge trade deals with the US that will massively erode worker's rights in the UK. The problem is that the only thing protecting our workers from their biggest threat in this regard is the EU, given the fact that the tories have explicitly stated that they want to scale back worker's rights. This is where the crux of the issue resides for me. Many socialists wanted to stay in the EU as protection against the irresponsible and dangerous policies of our own tory government. I've had this discussion before and at this point people inevitably shout "But democracy!". The problem with this is that it is simply shifting the discussion from one thing to another. It makes it seem like the main argument is "But i want things the way i want them." Show nested quote +
And when you see a critically flawed system, the economic solution is to be proactive and cut yourself loose at short term cost, not to hang on to it for some illusory short term security. Now evidently you weight the facts differently. You think the EU can recover from the migrant crisis, from it's inability to reform and listen to its people, from the economic trap that is the euro, etc. I disagree, and as far as I'm concerned I have a strong logical and empirical basis for doing so.
This is simply a matter of disagreement and there's not really much to be done about it. The raw facts and data are so hard to come by in this era of ridiculously biased media on both sides that everyone is just left to make up their own mind. I reckon this is done more on an instinctive level than an intellectual one, because intellectual argument about the EU has become literally impossible with the sheer amount of misinformation coming from official sources. We're left to debate on logic alone, which isn't really up to the task with stuff this complex. Show nested quote +
It is entirely pointless to look at a popular movement and say 'That's bad!' or dismiss its membership as bigots or imbeciles brainwashed by some malignant media. Popular movements never exist without context, and if you refuse to acknowledge the context you're not undermining the movement - you're fuelling it. Elite ideology and visions of impossible utopias will never hold out against the tide of popular opinion born of people accurately assessing their lived reality.
You're absolutely right here, I think one of the main points of contention I have with my friends on the left is that they often jump to generalizations about right leaning folk and refuse to acknowledge any debate that needs to be had about matters that are difficult for the left. Islam has certainly thrown a massive spanner in the works for socialism, I know that. I find it harder every day to figure out my own position because there's so much contradictory stuff going on in my head. To my mind, if you have a clear and simple position on this stuff you aren't thinking hard enough about it. Immigration has no answer coming from socialism so we seem to have just given up on the question and said "Well immigration is good anyway." as if that's going to ease the fears of the population. Its not, and its why Corbyn hasn't overtaken anyone in the polls, and its why he never will. That said, the fear based approach that comes from UKIP (Where are those hundreds of millions of Hungarians Farage was talking about a couple of years ago? HAHAHAHA) is a cancer on UK politics and needs to be cut out. Show nested quote +
p.s. I'm going to laugh if Raheem Kassam becomes UKIP leader and you all are forced to accept that nationalism in the UK has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Note, for example, how British nationalists tend to be very fond of Sikhs and Sikhs voted for Brexit in the same proportion as the population as a whole.
This doesn't even stand up to the most basic logic, sorry.
The problem with socialism within the EU is that it would have to be pan-European, and it would have to be enacted by the EU itself, meaning the transfer of so many powers from national parliaments to Brussels that it's completely inconceivable. It would also mean either making the wealthy countries poorer or trying to bring the poorer, more corrupt areas up to the same standard. In order to do either of those things you would need to go full-on colonial mode. I don't really see how socialism can be possible at anything other than the national level. In fact, I felt the left wing case for Brexit was even stronger than the conservative case. Free movement more or less precludes any possibility of socialism in the UK (although, so too does the centrist nature of the voting public). By the way, workers rights in the UK exceed those required by the EU in essentially every area, which is not particularly surprising given the wealth disparity between the UK and some member states who also manage to meet EU criteria. That is to say, the protections for workers rights in UK legislation exceed those in EU legislation.
You have to admit that it's a little strange that the favourite candidate of the furthest right section of the furthest right party in UK politics is... the ethnic Indian son of Tanzanian immigrants. It's almost like they don't hate brown people.
|
On October 23 2016 23:26 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 23:21 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 23:18 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 23 2016 23:04 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:On October 23 2016 18:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
Well you'd hope it was a rhetorical overexageration. However bardtown likes to fight it up with everyone in this thread; a one man (or near to it) army best representing the illogical extreme brexiteer of today. There are no economic based arguments that are favourable (for the working class at least), and the anti globalisation/immigration is just backwards xenophobic in summary.
There are thugs in the EU, of course there are, but they are a lot less randomly angry than in the UK. This has just given every punter a liscence to attack anyone who is different for whatever reason. Asians, arabs, latinos, africans, eastern europeans, they seem to have not understood which countries actually form the EU.
I would've thought he would stop posting here after his first ban...
The problem is that political discussion tends to descend into little more than a series of attempts to misrepresent the other person's positions in order to score points. On October 23 2016 22:51 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread. Does anybody else feel reminded of sentences starting with "I am not a racist, but ..." ? Yawn. Find me a response to any of my points that doesn't fit this format Honestly, so idiotic. You're absolutely fine with him calling me extreme and illogical, but have a problem with me saying that I am not. You're only betraying your own bias. Aren't you now displaying exactly the kind of behaviour you are trying to criticise me for? I never said anything about what "he" said (whomever you mean by that). I didnt even say I have a problem with anything you wrote because I didnt read it. I just read the first sentenced and was immediately reminded of people who start their own rants in exactly the same way. If you dont like me pointing that out: dont do it. Free country. 'Contribute' in whatever meaningless, vapid way you see fit. How can a person be such a hypocrite.
I have no idea, he bounces from one absurdity to another and then double backs on himself.
Also UK legislation does not exceed EU requirements by any means; currently by itself (in regards to worker's rights). sigh I'm just too lazy for this.
|
On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread... Xenophobic? Not even a little bit. On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home.
By the way I am still waiting for you to make good on your stated intentions to stop posting, but I see it was just an attempt to make sure nobody responds to your outrageous statements instead. When you strawman another poster, only to be pointed out on the hyposcrisy, you respond by saying that everything you contribute is meaningless. Why should anybody take you seriously? You flip-flop even faster than Trump.
See, you can have a point of view. It's not like I can't understand certain points of view, or have never spoken to the other half who voted to leave the EU. The problem is that you just spew out utter garbage to support your opinion of the day, even to the point of saying that you can say whatever you like, even if it contradicts a post written the day before, just to support the mass the contradictions you write. Yes of course you can write whatever you like. Hey, it is after all a free country (a forum is not a country, and in actuality in the UK there is a lot you cannot say or do legally; for instance incitement to hatred or disrupting public order, but I'll ignore that), but you don't seem to understand that if you don't logically connect sentences together, you cannot feel aggrieved if that is pointed out towards you.
It doesn't help that all you seem to talk is in nonsensical soundbites, instead of talking about issues. It's not a hard concept. If you want to put forth a point of view, you must do so in a manner that is logically consistent, rather than sounding like you picked up a few angry words from your father and are just repeating it in the vague hope that people will nod along with you.
|
On October 25 2016 05:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2016 20:25 bardtown wrote:
The irony is that I'm probably the most moderate/centrist poster in this thread... Xenophobic? Not even a little bit. Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. By the way I am still waiting for you to make good on your stated intentions to stop posting, but I see it was just an attempt to make sure nobody responds to your outrageous statements instead. When you strawman another poster, only to be pointed out on the hyposcrisy, you respond by saying that everything you contribute is meaningless. Why should anybody take you seriously? You flip-flop even faster than Trump. See, you can have a point of view. It's not like I can't understand certain points of view, or have never spoken to the other half who voted to leave the EU. The problem is that you just spew out utter garbage to support your opinion of the day, even to the point of saying that you can say whatever you like, even if it contradicts a post written the day before, just to support the mass the contradictions you write. Yes of course you can write whatever you like. Hey, it is after all a free country (a forum is not a country, and in actuality in the UK there is a lot you cannot say or do legally; for instance incitement to hatred or disrupting public order, but I'll ignore that), but you don't seem to understand that if you don't logically connect sentences together, you cannot feel aggrieved if that is pointed out towards you. It doesn't help that all you seem to talk is in nonsensical soundbites, instead of talking about issues. It's not a hard concept. If you want to put forth a point of view, you must do so in a manner that is logically consistent, rather than sounding like you picked up a few angry words from your father and are just repeating it in the vague hope that people will nod along with you.
Look: if you want me to stop posting then stop trying to get in the last snide word in the hope I won't defend myself. You just presented a strawman and then started talking about strawmen. There's nothing xenophobic about saying that there are illiterate thugs in Europe. It is also the case that the people who benefit most from free movement are the people who would otherwise be incapable of moving to the country they want to move to. In other words, the people who are insufficiently educated/lacking skills to secure a job there. You don't like my tone, which is understandable, but me being blunt is not me being illogical. Does freedom of movement mean that every illiterate thug in Europe has the right to live in the UK? Yes. Are facts xenophobic? No. All you do is wait for me to say something that you can intentionally misinterpret in order to virtue signal. That doesn't constitute an argument.
I didn't strawman that idiot, either. He literally came to the thread, then read (supposedly) one single sentence and made some asinine comparison implying that I am a racist. It was about as low value a post as could be conceived of, and then he got upset for being called out on it. My contention: people should criticise my posts based on their content. His contention: I shouldn't criticise his post for its complete lack of content.
If my posts are so illogical it should be easy for you to deconstruct them and show me where I'm going wrong. As it stands, you haven't done that once. Either give it a shot or leave me alone.
Let me give you some more xenophobic bigotry to practice on:
'Children' coming from Calais to the UK should have checks to ensure they are, in fact, children. We have known about the problem of men posing as children on the continent for years now, and there is absolutely no excuse for not having learnt from those experiences. The government has given charities much too free a reign when their motivation is clearly to help as many people get into the UK as possible and not to actually enforce the specifics of the policy the government has decided on. Parents are entirely justified in having concerns about their children being in classes with adult men.
And some homophobic bigotry:
The verdict in the NI bakery case was wrong. The bakery should have the right to withhold their services and suffer/benefit from the market response to their decision. I suspect that if the bakery staff were Jewish and the request was a swastika then the judge would not have come to the same conclusion about making the cake not implying support for the message. Where, then, do you draw the line? Must the bakery necessarily decorate cakes with explicit messages/imagery on request? Reminds me of the outrage about that lady being denied access to a club because she wasn't wearing high heels. Either businesses have the right to make arbitrary rules or they don't.
|
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate.
|
On October 25 2016 18:02 Artisreal wrote:
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate.
My swastika example is more extreme than the actual case in question, but in the UK it is not illegal to display the symbol. Legally, at least as far as I am aware, requesting a swastika on a cake is no different to requesting the text 'Support Gay Marriage'. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are morally equivalent. What I'm saying is that a Jewish baker would be 100% justified in refusing to decorate a cake with a swastika, contrary to this ruling. Now I'm confident that in that instance a judge would rule in favour of the bakery, but what that then implies is that the judge is passing a moral judgement as opposed to a legal one.
To make a less extreme comparison, I wonder if the case would have gone differently if the text had been 'Oppose Gay Marriage', and the bakers had been, say, a married gay couple.
|
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit.
|
On October 25 2016 23:14 MyTHicaL wrote:
The swastika may be banned in Germany/France however it is not in the UK.. Idiots were parading around with it strapped to their arms and on flags down in Kent recently. Great movement this Brexit.
the research shows that British people display the second highest net approval of society becoming more ethnically and religiously diverse, behind Spain and ahead of Sweden. Conversely, France, Poland and Germany actually showed a strong net disapproval of increased diversity in their societies.
http://brexitcentral.com/polling-shows-brexit-rejection-eus-closed-minded-institutions-not-internationalism-globalisation/
Curious.
Almost as if when every single key public proponent of Brexit argued in favour of fairness for commonwealth/EU migrants they weren't being racist. Have any of you actually lived in a working class area in the UK? You're infinitely more likely to get beaten up for being racist than you are for being a certain race. Same point I've made before: to be a nationalist in the UK is, for the most part, to be antifascist, pro democracy, pro free speech, pro individualism. Because those are the defining national characteristics of the UK. Even the majority of the so called (not actually) far right are very anti-racist.
|
Its difficult to argue the immigration thing with you bardtown because you and I are coming from such different sets of assumptions that there will simply never be a middle ground we can agree on.
I don't believe we should be age checking child refugees simply because I thinking helping refugees is good as the more we can help, regardless of age, the better. If our first act towards the refugees is one of hostility (and yes, the process of checks which refugees undergo is needlessly hostile and incompetent - as a recent Guardian article showed - if I can find it I will link) chances of successful integration will be massively reduced.
Obviously you are coming from the opinion that we have SOME responsibility but the fewer we need to help the better it is for the current residents of the UK, and we should take as many precautions as possible (if I have this right).
I can't see how a meaningful discussion could occur from that starting point.
|
On October 26 2016 01:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its difficult to argue the immigration thing with you bardtown because you and I are coming from such different sets of assumptions that there will simply never be a middle ground we can agree on.
I don't believe we should be age checking child refugees simply because I thinking helping refugees is good as the more we can help, regardless of age, the better. If our first act towards the refugees is one of hostility (and yes, the process of checks which refugees undergo is needlessly hostile and incompetent - as a recent Guardian article showed - if I can find it I will link) chances of successful integration will be massively reduced.
Obviously you are coming from the opinion that we have SOME responsibility but the fewer we need to help the better it is for the current residents of the UK, and we should take as many precautions as possible (if I have this right).
I can't see how a meaningful discussion could occur from that starting point.
For my part I find your stance quite confusing. You said you were socialist, right? A socialist country relies on a strong welfare state. The more you strain your welfare state, the more you downgrade the quality of living for everybody who relies on that welfare state. You have to have a cut off point, surely, or you will collapse the system. Then, from my perspective, you have to consider the situation of the people who have made it to Calais. Firstly, they have broken EU law. They are supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, and for most of them that was either Greece or Italy. The fact that they have made that journey also implies they have some degree of wealth, unlike the kids stuck picking through landfill in Syria/Turkey. Also, if you take the people from Calais you send a message to other migrants: take the risk crossing the Mediterranean, break EU law, lie about your age. You are rewarding them for undermining your own immigration system, enabling the traffickers who put their lives at risk, and diverting resources from people who need it more urgently than they do. You are exacerbating the problem, essentially, and encouraging more people to follow suit.
It is so much more cost effective to care for Syrian refugees in the middle east than it is to care for them in Europe, where they also have little hope of being economically active for many years and there are all sorts of cultural tensions.
So in short my stance is that we have a duty to help refugees but that bringing them to the UK is a very wasteful use of resources when there are so many in immediate need. That said I would like for individuals to be free to take in refugees if they want to, and if they can demonstrate that they can provide a good standard of living for them. Tried to get my family to volunteer actually, but no luck. Might be a good thing, though. I would be very uncomfortable if a grown man had turned up at the family home after they had volunteered to foster a child.
In a way that's hypocritical. If my family had taken in a refugee it would have cost them a lot of money - money which could have helped many more people if it was sent directly to Syria. That's hypocrisy I've learnt to live with, though. At a human level we can't really be impersonal and rational all the time, but I don't think the state should behave emotionally or irrationally.
|
On October 25 2016 19:28 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 18:02 Artisreal wrote:
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate. My swastika example is more extreme than the actual case in question, but in the UK it is not illegal to display the symbol. Legally, at least as far as I am aware, requesting a swastika on a cake is no different to requesting the text 'Support Gay Marriage'. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are morally equivalent. What I'm saying is that a Jewish baker would be 100% justified in refusing to decorate a cake with a swastika, contrary to this ruling. Now I'm confident that in that instance a judge would rule in favour of the bakery, but what that then implies is that the judge is passing a moral judgement as opposed to a legal one. To make a less extreme comparison, I wonder if the case would have gone differently if the text had been 'Oppose Gay Marriage', and the bakers had been, say, a married gay couple.
As far as I can see supporting something is always preferred over opposing something. Supporting gay marriage is okay, opposing it is not. Supporting religious freedom is okay, opposing it not.
The cake with a supportive message which is not attacking any one person or group is okay. The cake with a message that inspires hate and violence will not be.
Its a pretty simple concept, really.
|
On October 26 2016 02:44 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2016 19:28 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 18:02 Artisreal wrote:
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate. My swastika example is more extreme than the actual case in question, but in the UK it is not illegal to display the symbol. Legally, at least as far as I am aware, requesting a swastika on a cake is no different to requesting the text 'Support Gay Marriage'. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are morally equivalent. What I'm saying is that a Jewish baker would be 100% justified in refusing to decorate a cake with a swastika, contrary to this ruling. Now I'm confident that in that instance a judge would rule in favour of the bakery, but what that then implies is that the judge is passing a moral judgement as opposed to a legal one. To make a less extreme comparison, I wonder if the case would have gone differently if the text had been 'Oppose Gay Marriage', and the bakers had been, say, a married gay couple. As far as I can see supporting something is always preferred over opposing something. Supporting gay marriage is okay, opposing it is not. Supporting religious freedom is okay, opposing it not. The cake with a supportive message which is not attacking any one person or group is okay. The cake with a message that inspires hate and violence will not be. Its a pretty simple concept, really.
You could support the holocaust... Also, the point is that opposing gay marriage is, for many, equivalent to supporting religious freedom. Who decides whose deeply held beliefs trump whose?
|
In an essential sense, no one gets to decide that because it's fundamentally meaningless outside an applicable context.
In a legal sense, that's exactly what courts do in the UK and the US, they apply constitutional/statutory/common law rules to specific controversial fact situations and resolve the dispute one way or the other.
|
On October 26 2016 03:13 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 02:44 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 25 2016 19:28 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 18:02 Artisreal wrote:
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate. My swastika example is more extreme than the actual case in question, but in the UK it is not illegal to display the symbol. Legally, at least as far as I am aware, requesting a swastika on a cake is no different to requesting the text 'Support Gay Marriage'. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are morally equivalent. What I'm saying is that a Jewish baker would be 100% justified in refusing to decorate a cake with a swastika, contrary to this ruling. Now I'm confident that in that instance a judge would rule in favour of the bakery, but what that then implies is that the judge is passing a moral judgement as opposed to a legal one. To make a less extreme comparison, I wonder if the case would have gone differently if the text had been 'Oppose Gay Marriage', and the bakers had been, say, a married gay couple. As far as I can see supporting something is always preferred over opposing something. Supporting gay marriage is okay, opposing it is not. Supporting religious freedom is okay, opposing it not. The cake with a supportive message which is not attacking any one person or group is okay. The cake with a message that inspires hate and violence will not be. Its a pretty simple concept, really. You could support the holocaust... Also, the point is that opposing gay marriage is, for many, equivalent to supporting religious freedom. Who decides whose deeply held beliefs trump whose?
How do you "support" a holocaust. What does that even mean? "Go Holocaust, GO! You can do it! Thats my boy!"
|
On October 26 2016 05:27 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:13 bardtown wrote:On October 26 2016 02:44 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 25 2016 19:28 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 18:02 Artisreal wrote:
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate. My swastika example is more extreme than the actual case in question, but in the UK it is not illegal to display the symbol. Legally, at least as far as I am aware, requesting a swastika on a cake is no different to requesting the text 'Support Gay Marriage'. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are morally equivalent. What I'm saying is that a Jewish baker would be 100% justified in refusing to decorate a cake with a swastika, contrary to this ruling. Now I'm confident that in that instance a judge would rule in favour of the bakery, but what that then implies is that the judge is passing a moral judgement as opposed to a legal one. To make a less extreme comparison, I wonder if the case would have gone differently if the text had been 'Oppose Gay Marriage', and the bakers had been, say, a married gay couple. As far as I can see supporting something is always preferred over opposing something. Supporting gay marriage is okay, opposing it is not. Supporting religious freedom is okay, opposing it not. The cake with a supportive message which is not attacking any one person or group is okay. The cake with a message that inspires hate and violence will not be. Its a pretty simple concept, really. You could support the holocaust... Also, the point is that opposing gay marriage is, for many, equivalent to supporting religious freedom. Who decides whose deeply held beliefs trump whose? How do you "support" gay marriage. What does that even mean? "Go gay marriage, GO! You can do it! Thats my boy!"
|
On October 26 2016 05:27 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2016 03:13 bardtown wrote:On October 26 2016 02:44 RoomOfMush wrote:On October 25 2016 19:28 bardtown wrote:On October 25 2016 18:02 Artisreal wrote:
Sorry to pick just one statement out of your whole post, but I want to give you my perspective on what you just said.
The swastika, at least the one the Nazis are using is a strictly forbidden symbol just like the Hitlergruß is.
Even with it's display being allowed, you compare a gay rights thing with a symbol of dehumanization. Sorry that's a no-go.
While I respect your opinions and actually value your input oftentimes because it engages me and displays another perspective, I think you're plainly wrong this time. And yes, it is a fine line to balance on.
While arbitrary access to clubs might not be challenged - yet - it ain't a carte blanche for others to discriminate. My swastika example is more extreme than the actual case in question, but in the UK it is not illegal to display the symbol. Legally, at least as far as I am aware, requesting a swastika on a cake is no different to requesting the text 'Support Gay Marriage'. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they are morally equivalent. What I'm saying is that a Jewish baker would be 100% justified in refusing to decorate a cake with a swastika, contrary to this ruling. Now I'm confident that in that instance a judge would rule in favour of the bakery, but what that then implies is that the judge is passing a moral judgement as opposed to a legal one. To make a less extreme comparison, I wonder if the case would have gone differently if the text had been 'Oppose Gay Marriage', and the bakers had been, say, a married gay couple. As far as I can see supporting something is always preferred over opposing something. Supporting gay marriage is okay, opposing it is not. Supporting religious freedom is okay, opposing it not. The cake with a supportive message which is not attacking any one person or group is okay. The cake with a message that inspires hate and violence will not be. Its a pretty simple concept, really. You could support the holocaust... Also, the point is that opposing gay marriage is, for many, equivalent to supporting religious freedom. Who decides whose deeply held beliefs trump whose? How do you "support" a holocaust?
Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere has your answers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
