Asylum Seekers-should we or shouldn't we?

Guess that means no..

 

Any member on this forum can now see and understand there “no way” anyone could possible talk to, or debate on rational terms with a do-gooder or bleeding heart. They are psychologically incapable of debating the facts of any issue on an academic level; as their sanctimonious moral imperative drives them to believe they are morally and ethically superior to everyone else’s view or comprehension on the individual topic that’s being discussed. They have climbed so far up that ladder of moral superiority, that they are seldom capable of understanding or comprehending another point of view.

As a last resort to persuade others to their wayward fanatical cause, do-gooders and bleeding hearts attempt to elicit respect and sympathy by trying to take the moral high ground, and attack the character of anyone disagreeing with them.

You will find that do-gooder and bleeding hearts are “always” the first to use to accuse others of racism. They cannot help this - its just part of their psychological profile.

When I hear do-gooders and bleeding hearts ranting and raving on; I just think about washing my undies, as that is more important to me than listening to the verbal diarrhoea spilling from their lips.

 

Culldav says debate on rational terms.....lmfao!! How does Anal Retentive fit your description. Reflect on what you write dude, you are an outright coward! Man up dude and cut out your endless whinging and whining, it is beyond a joke!!!!

 

Agreed. Keep a maturity please.

 

I’ not sure how many other members have encountered fanatical crusading do-gooders and bleeding hearts throughout their lives, but during the course of my business and private life, I have encountered many. The behavioural characteristics of do-gooders and bleeding heats such as “truth vigilante” are present in all do-gooders and bleeding hearts when they are suddenly confronted by facts and truth that don’t conform with their moral imperatives.

They are always the first to use the terms ‘racist’ and ‘discrimination’ in an effort to take the moral high ground in the debate. I’m of the academic understanding, that when an individual uses the terms racist and discrimination to validate superiority in a debate - that point then becomes moot.

The terms racist and discrimination are the only weapons “some” do-gooders and bleeding hearts have to fight their causes, because many are psychological incapable of taking that one extra step to see that truth, logic and facts belong to in the term called: “critical analysis” when academically debating a topic.

When do-gooders and bleeding throw around the terms racist and discrimination they instantly think they have the moral high ground, and the accused person is going to back away through fear of being labelled something that is socially inappropriate and unacceptable. When they attack me with their high ‘n’ mighty nonsense, they have another thing coming, because I’m not some banjo strumming hillbilly that will run away when I hear the words racist or discrimination mentioned, and I will intellectually challenge their sanctimonious behaviour.

When this occurs, these sanctimonious hypocrites forget all about the academics of the debate, and revert back to behaving like “kids” or “twits”.

I don't have the time or patience for long drawn out nonsense with people these days, and I abide by the motto: if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - its a duck.

 

Self incrimination: I didn't mention the word "racist", but if the hats fits, then it is yours culldav, you've said it without enticement from me! I would say you are blissfully ignorant, but again you've mentioned racist and discrimination, which says alot!

All you provide is NEGATIVES NEGATIVES NEGATIVES and more NEGATIVES!!!

This thread started out amicable with honest debate but you stick your bigoted nose in wanting to incite hate and intolerance. I think everyone will agree once they read back.

"Academics of the debate" you say culldav.....now i'm ROFL!! It it sounds like a bigot and looks like a bigot, than it must be a bigot!

Grow up and actually enter debates without pressing your own preconcieved ideas that are filled with vile. Allow everyone to debate acimable and honestly and if you can't contribute in this manner then don't contribute.

 

Now my fellow members, you have witnessed the “true” character of do-gooders and bleeding hearts in full flight, with the smallest confrontation to their own sanctimonious deluded moral imperatives.

We are facing a crisis, because we have highly educated professional individuals who have been frightened and scared into adopting and sometimes advocating these lunatics voices, due to fear campaigns being ran against their personal and profession livelihoods that they are racist, if they object or take a negative stance to what these do-gooders are preaching.

I think its time we started to shut these do-gooders mouths with facts and logic, and put them back into the realm of the fanatical box where they always belonged. To me, they are just another mindless dirty "sect" that needs to be put down.

Do-gooders & bleeding hearts have had far too much influence in the community for too long with little to no evidence to support their fanatical theories and approaches to topics; besides calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them, a racists or bigoted.

 

Anything that does not substantiate facts, and on top of it lacks balanced interpretation without inflaming, is only a mindless form of pub speculation! It is far from being an educated analysis, which I doubt you possess the ability to do. It is by nature inflammatory subjectives, which is nothing more than blissfully ignorant bigotry! Now, remember i didnt mention the word racist, I'll just go with it though, if you think it suits the occasion.
I reckon you are simply looking for justification of your yesteryear view of the world. Australia has come along way from these attitudes, and if it be true that you are not an Aussie, then your opinion is quite shallow.

 

I`ve noticed the fanatical intolerance of those who use "tolerance" selectively, as a weapon to justify their intolerant agendas. Much the same way that feminists are invariably the most sexist of all people, and sadistic inquisitionists preached the love of god. Just a symptom of a disease.

 

My conclusion to the poll, reflects that many of us are deeply humane, which was as suspected. You could tend to confuse this with the loud roar from the ego and ethnocentrics but always confident that mankind deep down has a strong regard for human life.
I'm a proud "heart bleeder" if this is where I fit. Weakness and laziness are attribute to the uncompromised.

 

As I was watching Q & A last night, it became apparent that this issue is not or will not ever be resolved. Both sides of the argument are so far from finding middle ground I fear a resolution is unlikely.

On one hand you have the argument for, which most would like to see our borders thrown open to all. On the against they want the border closed full stop. Neither argument is workable, and both are naive at best.

Last night Canada was used as an example, taking in a whopping 30 + percent of the worlds refugees, whereas we take in a relatively small 3 %. What was never mentioned was that Canada has a 60 % useable land mass and at least three times the size of Australia. What they also forgot to mention was Canada has major issues with infrastructure to cope with the explosion of demand....mainly housing and health. The later at a desperate stage.

When these politicians have to make a decision in this regard there is more than just their bleeding heart to take into consideration.

As much as a majority of people would like to take these poor suffering people into our arms and welcome them whole heartedly, we must not ignore the mechanics of the situation. Because if the engine of the car does not work the vehicle is going nowhere but to the scapheap !

 

Actually, Canada has less arable land than us. The united states has somewhere around 20% and we have somewhere around 10% I think? If these stats are correct, we have greater capacity than both of these countries to take in refugees based on your argument and calculating population, at present anyway. I think the idea of Australia's lack of capacity goes back to the white Australia policy to be honest, and we know how our population has grown since then.
There are other factors I know, but this one doesn't hold any water IMO.

 

I disagree, population sustainability has everything to do with it. I have no idea how you come up with a link in regards to population sustainability and the white Australia policy ? The only reason I can come up with is that you are trying to assert that those who believe in population sustainability are racists. Guess your beloved saviour Bob Carr would be the most extreme white Australia advocate........going by your argument !

 

No, not at all slippery, far from it. I'm not sure how you have construed it to mean that! It was apparently an argument from those that opposed southern Europeans entering Australia around the time and therefore has been stuck in our mindsets.

The only issue we would have in the short term is infrastructure, but again, demand means stimulation and stimulation means money.

 

I also watch Q&A last night for the first fifteen minutes.

How many hard questions were put to the panel in relation to these so-called boat refugees.

All the questions were like asking a child if they liked chocolate or strawberries.

 

Millions of children starve to death every year, this boat people issue is blown out of all proportion. Selective morality in politics is pathetic.

 

If we had that stand on everything, so many would die it is not funny. YOU fix what you can, not simply throw it in the too hard basket because their are other bigger issues that you can not.

 

You mean, if we put the most effort into the most important moral issues like mass starvation and war, "so many would die it is not funny"? Yes, that makes perfect sense.

 

No, as stated, you fix what you can. you do not just throw things in the too hard basket because their are other issues you can not fix.

Many children might be be suffering, but people are also drowning, do you suggest that people should ignore one death for another?

People starving to death is blown out of proportion because people are being killed in civil wars. we can play that game all day and nothing will be solved.

Don't be so ignorant, as sometimes you can be so much better than that.

 

You're just putting words in my mouth and making ridiculous assumptions.

If a hundred people drowning at sea is such a great moral imperative for parliament, why isn't 15 million children starving to death every year?

It's playing politics with peoples lives, and it's disgusting. Moral consistency and equality is apparently too much to expect from our politicians.

 

Yes it is, and both parties do not seem to be able to come out of that politicing to actually get a result.

 

Unless they apply a consistent moral standard across all policies, we are no where.

 

And where are they now, NO WHERE