Stop the Boats Hypocrite

Thanks, truthvigilante, I think the glass slipper may continue giving the slip. For me, it's that I don't know if 'certain someone's' can't or don't want to grasp the 'actuality' of what another person is 'actually' saying... there's no debate or discussion without basic 'comprehension' of what another is saying - and having to explain that "No, I didn't say that, and no, I don't think that" is really tedious. Then it ends up being not about the issue, but about someone else's projections that miss the mark by a 100 miles. Weird, huh?

 

From your post:

1) Ignorant bigotry

2) Stupid intellectually challenged people

3) Bigotry and racism and vile hatred

4) Supposed moral superior stand


That's a lot of derogatory terms for such a little post. You've done a good job of illustrating point 4 with this post.

 

Yep, Big noting, guru wanna be! Some individuals will make a negative out of the slightest bit of detail that twists the actual whole context simply for self projecting guruein purposes and not for discussion and education sake! I gave up trying to discuss things with certain individuals a while ago due to their "bigotry"! The hysteria from these individuals is laughable! Gwendoline, I like discussion from a questioning approach but you never get to do that on here with certain individuals who either want to spew out their vile and hatred for Australia because we are not fulfilling their "exact" ideals! And on the other hand you get "patronising know alls ( think they know all), who are way off mark with their commentary but are helped along by trolls who give them the drive to continue with their drivel because it helps them with their political leaning cause!

You get people like yourself, DV, diuretic, recusants, bowerbird, tank, wizard etc, who are unasservative in the approach to discussion and tend to get shat on by either a bigoted big noter or trolls!

 

Just a quick note from the adult world. We are every bit as concerned for the billions of people in this world, who live in appalling conditions. We are more concerned with doing the right thing by others, than indulging ourselves in our own emotions. Self indulgence dosen`t solve problems. If I`m ever involved in an accident, and need medical attention, I hope not to be attended to by a lefty, meterosexual paramedic who bursts into tears, and flounces around bemoaning their own feelings. I`d rather a paramedic who can deal with the facts, put their own feelings aside, and do something constructive. Emotionally immature people have no place in difficult situations. Check out the body count of the ALP`s soft border protection policies.

IT ISN`T ALL ABOUT YOU!

 

Yes yes thank you for the public service announcement. Let me know when you decide to pass on the note from the adult world because this post didn't deliver

 

I gave no guarantee that all children would understand those simple facts. I`ll break it down to the two most significant words, "emotional maturity".

 

Don't worry about waiting by the letter box!

 

Yeah I am seeing that lol

 

Yes it is. Funny that... However, as this is not pointed to yourself I would wonder why you want to move away from your issue to simply point out that I wish the other to bring to the table more than just their bigoted ignorance. Is this due to the point, you are being slightly misleading with you OP???

Unfortunately the issue you want to portray as hypocrisy is that one WAS fleeing potential bodily harm to a place of closest safety (not Australia) and the people you are comparing them too are not fleeing potential bodily harm to closest safety but to preferred destination. As with boats from Afghanistan, Nobody can blame them for climbing on a boat. BUT that from Indonesia, Sorry simply complaining about living conditions are not good reason to excuse such activity, as stated chalk and cheese. It is your moral pretence that want to reconcile both actions as similar.

You point the finger at me, as being disingenuous because I distinguish between the two, when the fact is, this person lived in far worse conditions in Malaysia waiting for placement. Did he then climb into another boat and make his way to Australia, Simply because his living conditions??? NO, you even neglect to say that he applied for asylum in Australia or did he just apply for asylum in any country that would afford him protection. No, you simply claim hypocrisy...

So who is pointing to point 4 of your summery??? I do not classify you into the other points due to the fact you have some understanding and are willing to hear. BUT as most of your issue with my post demonstrates you believe ignorance is degrading, I will say that it is only degrading should one want to stay ignorant while laying pretence of higher moral grounds, and the person the point is directed at, wallows in that ignorance.

So, I put it to you… DO you really want to head down the road of bigotry??? Pretending to have the higher moral ground over others due to supposed stance on policy that is simple disingenuous to the real situation you pretend to be the same? Or do you want to discuss the issue???

 

So you suggest that those Appling for asylum status in Indonesia are climbing on boats to Australia because their treatment in Indonesian camps are not good??? I would consider that these reasons are more to the point of why the Australian government have good reason to look to processing in Indonesia.

Now you’re being disingenuous yourself... These conditions you are complaining about are "A human rights organisation has released a report saying children seeking refuge in Indonesia are being locked up, abused and neglected in detention centres." They have applied in Indonesia and have been sent to Indonesian detention... So now you want to accept responsibility for all asylum-seekers around the world??? Not simply those that apply or head to Australia??? That is disingenuous at the least.

I am sorry, do you consider the Malaysian detention any better than Indonesia??? Did he then climb on a boat for Australia??? Did he even apply to Australia for asylum??? Or did he apply to any nation for asylum??? Disingenuous of you not to at least make that claim. Nobody is complaining about people fleeing the only way they know how from imminent danger except you. Trying to lay the moral pretence of what is acceptable and what is not. Considering majority of people sailing from Indonesia are not Indonesian and are in fact people who travel to Indonesia for the express purpose of getting to Australia to apply for asylum status is again disingenuous of you...

No I see your complete lack of compassion to one person (due to politics) to compare them to another that has completely different situation and action. This is the entire problem of this debate, people such as you, want to say that every asylum-seeker is the same... This is clearly untrue and it is disingenuous to try and associate the two. So maybe I do assume too much, but the picture you want to paint is that of the superior moral standard that is made from pretence and pomposity.

Yes he does, like many you want to complain about he does want to stop the boats. From your assumption that means anybody who wants to stop the death at sea are hypocrites because they want to stop the deaths at sea, because they are high and dry. You assume that he wants to stop the boats to stop asylum- seekers again being totally disingenuous to the points as that has not been raised by you or your cohort.

What alternative do they have??? Do you suggest there are better options??? No that is the very reason you need to condemn the government now and of the past, for not doing the right thing here. BUT NO, you want to complain about stopping the very cause of death that has claimed thousands of lives due to living conditions in INDONESIAN DETENTION CENTRES... Disingenuous at the least.

Beg your pardon... YOU make comparison in this very post

And then you want to condemn me because living conditions are not good in INDONESIAN DETENTION CENTERS... Well bad living conditions compared to being dead... Disingenuous at the least.

Are these boats full of Indonesian refugees??? No they have travelled to Indonesia for the express purpose of getting to Australia, YOU assume they all go to Indonesian detention centres and then decide (due to conditions) to sail to Australia, Again disingenuous.

Again disingenuous to the real situation you complain about...

Yes, sounds despicable in such simple terms, until you find out the truth of the situation. Again the two are totally different and it is only you and your cohort who wish to align the two... Disingenuous at the least, ignorant blatant lie at the most...

 

http://www.ajarnforum.net/vb/famous-threads/3306-why-are-australians-so-stupid.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21030666
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/TN8GTU57L5PQUUA1M

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/john-oliver-australia-is-racist/
http://www.academia.edu/1565407/Is_Australia_Racist
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/religion-and-beliefs/news/article.cfm?c_id=301&objectid=10708312
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-...-are-anti-muslim-study/1954194?section=justin

We could go on, BUT simple to say, just because you sit with a group of people who share your own opinion of yourself does not mean that is the opinion of the world.

 

I'll leave this bigoted looney with yas!

 

Certainly not. If we go by empty emotional argument only, then the best thing to do would be to shuttle as many as possible poor and abused people around the world to Australia. This would improve their situation a lot, and you could help millions! Australian standard of living would decrease a lot, bu who cares, we go by emotions only!

There is also an argument to do which is best for Australian people. And I think it is the most important one when it comes to immigration policies.

Besides, foreign aid is an alternative to immigration if you want to help people, one which does not import the problem into Australia.

 

Empty emotional drivel again. This level of debate is like in some schoolyard, pointing fingers and screaming "boo, he did it too!", like that fact somehow obligates him to never oppose leaky immigration policies. I am certain that is some kind of logical fallacy.

And as I said, if he believes it is bad for Australia, then it would actually be a bigger violation of his integrity to not oppose it just because he was one of them in the past. Hed be an even bigger hypocrite, making fools out of his voters and putting his own interests over those of Australian people. So before you criticise him, think about what the alternative would mean.

 

You claimed someone was taking the superior moral ground.... while you yourself took the superior moral ground and produced a particularly 'toxic' post. I responded to that. What if... you're projecting your superior moral ground on others? What then?

Spin it how you like. John Nguyen was a boat person. He got in a boat and no one stopped it. Now he wants to stop boats. That makes him a hypocrite.

http://www.monashweekly.com.au/story/1525017/former-refugee-john-nguyen-stands-his-ground/

You and your 'living conditions'. Trivialising genuine concerns. 5 years in detention and a person's mental and physical health deteriorates. Detention is hideous. Try it, Garry, and then don't complain about your 'living conditions'. I remember a story about a baby born in detention to a severely mentally ill mother in Baxter. The baby didn't move, it's eyes were glazed, and mother and baby were stuck in a dark, windowless room. At the time, some government officials visited, and determined giving the baby a 'baby bouncer', for (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake. The baby was severely ill along with the mother... but they would give a baby bouncer and that would fix everything! People in detention fall through the cracks, they live in limbo, any violence can be done to them and no one will find out... because they don't have a voice... or even a face any more. The recent story from Manus Island of young boys being raped in the tents and the officials knowing and not doing anything about it is horrendous. So don't give me that (*)(*)(*)(*) about 'people not liking their living conditions', because that is being particularly disingenuous. You just perpetuate the disingenuous thing of wanting to obscure how horrendously inhumane the conditions are for those in detention.

Why don't YOU discuss the issue instead of this repetitive nonsense. Get off your pedestal and stop being a broken record. Why are you OBSESSED with using the words 'bigotry' and 'high moral ground' all the time? You clearly have the words on your mind a lot. Perhaps your psyche is trying to tell you something profound.

 

John Nguyen is not a hypocrite because he is not a queue jumper & those people coming to Australia by boat from Indonesia are trying to jump the Queue & need to be sent straight back to the end of the line.

 

Why don't you check your own level of drivel? What is your understanding of past / present boat arrivals in Australia? If you don't have the 'context' and the 'history' of the situation, then it will be YOU whose level of debate is coming out of the schoolyard.

John Nguyen is a Liberal candidate. He is advocating stopping boats and turning them back. A practise that is considered particularly dangerous. So, not only a hypocrite, but advocating further endangering people's lives at sea.

 

Are people are aware that it's the right of a sovereign country to say who is in and who is not allowed in ?


The fact that he has been taken as azyluim still allowed him to say that the Australian people wealth and happiness worth more than people fleeing on boat for whatever reason.

 

Yes, I did claim that somebody else was taking a superior moral ground, And due to that particular person and their previous remarks of the past on this very subject, without any substance, I responded to that. Your responses in support of this particular individual stand as the point that you did not want to discuss this subject with open mind and your agreement to that particular individual…

I think you are trying to spin this to suite your agenda. As stated, you fail to realise that this person was fleeing for his life… Do you suggest that is false??? He and his family fled to the closest safest place… Do you suggest that to be a lie??? He then requested asylum where he landed… Is this not the case??? Australia granted him asylum while he was in Malaysia and brought him to Australia… Is this not the truth???

No, the only spin here is you want to compare his situation to those who travel through other countries of safety in focused effort to get to Australia to seek asylum. Since your previous claims of fleeing from desperation has fallen on death ears, you now want to proclaim all asylum-seekers are the same. This is untrue and you know it.

So what relevance do you consider that to have. Did Nguyen leave Malaysia on another boat to get to Australia??? No… Do you complain about the fact he was accept as a refugee and then flown to Australia??? What is your claim??? Because he fled his own country by boat he is a hypocrite… How did all those who left their own country flee the oppression you claim they are under??? Did they just board a plan or did they use alternative means considered illegal??? Is everybody asking that process to be stopped??? NO… only you want to compare that to be the same as the issue you want to make of it…

No, not at all but I am prioritising them. As stated, fleeing imminent threat of death to nearest place of perceived safety, compared to those who are detained in Indonesia detention centres(who applied for asylum in Indonesia of the indonesian government) and pretending all the people who travel by boat suffer that fate, Completely disingenuous and trivialising LIFE over living conditions.

Try living in desperation for your life, come back and let us all know the difference…

Nobody said it was a cake walk, but you are ignoring many factors in attempt to complain about somebody wanting to do good (maybe only to the extent of draconian legislation which both parties are guilty of) in attempt to demonise one person who got out of a life threatening situation in comparison to others who focus their efforts for Australia… No similarity at all.

So what are you complaining about??? Treatment of Asylum-seekers around the world or one man’s political stance???

You complain that a man is a hypocrite for fleeing his country for his life and your support is by claiming poor treatment of asylum-seekers??? If you want to complain about their treatment, get on your soap box and complain about it… But that is disingenuous and simply fabricating a reason to persecute somebody because you don’t agree with a political party stance.

Fact is, as stated I do not want to obscure anything, you know this (unless you are simply trying to be obtuse) But I am also prioritising life over living conditions. This emotive complaint of yours simply stands to show you have things backwards.

I have been discussing the issue with you… But it was you who proclaimed something different… From the first post I discussed the difference of your claim, but you wanted to fly back with living conditions. You are the one proclaiming similarity of actions with your OP and every post after.

Nice try, but it is the pretence of moral superiority I would use here. Your cohort is bigoted to anything that is not ALP and will listen to nothing but… Your cohort simply puts everything to either ALP or Coalition no matter the thought or process. Your cohort displays all the traits of bigotry and racism even when those ideologies are not present. BUT that is another person (who you are trying to support)

No, I use that pretence of moral superiority for people who are being completely disingenuous about others who show care for the death of people at sea simply to promote some political point of asylum-seekers. Your pretence of blaming one person (AS YOUR OP) comparing their own actions, which are different, to others to condemn them for their policy stand… Demonstrates, you don’t care about the situation at present, you simply want to score political points now… Disingenuous and showing you could care less about the situation… That is MORAL PRETENCE.

 

Are people aware that Australia is a signatory of the refuge convention! Do people understand that non genuine asylum seekers are sent back and not settled!

What do we do, let thousands of people die inhumanly or support as many as we can until it is safe for them to go back home, which might be a few years!

Good luck with the fools pedantic drivelling thesis Gwendoline! Lol!

 

The humanist arguments die out when you live close by those "poor azylium" seekers. The fact is that it's better for the refugee to settle in countries with welfare and freecash than the one without. Where are the azylium seekers in japan

Look how a nation with proper self-preservation handle them

A few questions now.

1. Did you live close to a migrant camp ? Or a migrant populated social housing ?
2. Did you ever meet tzigans or roms by your city square ?
3. Did you hear a majority of foreign language in your public transportation on day to day basis.

if you answer no to most of question you likely to be a blind humanist.
If you answer yes, and still hold your position you are likely to be a cultural masochist.

Not to mention you can't ask to any population
"would you pay a tax increase to feed, shelter and welcome useless foreigners in the name of human rights ? "

 

In regards to John Nguyen being a hypocrite.

He is probably as much a hypocrite as Penny Wong !

 

Sorry, I can make no sense of this.

You think I am spinning it to suit my agenda. I think I am giving my opinion. I am me so what I think trumps what you think I think.

He was a genuine refugee in a fishing boat. No one stopped his boat. 90% of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees.

What? Where have I claimed Nguyen wasn't a genuine refugee? I haven't. So you could have spared yourself all that. I haven't said it. I haven't inferred it. So WHY pursure that line?

There is similarity. He was a genuine refugee in a fishing boat. And those arriving by boat are found to be 90% genuine refugees. Similarity? TICK.

No, the man is a hypocrite for himself being a boat person... who wants to stop boats. That's right, I don't agree with his political party stance because it is inhumane and because it is dangerous and negligient to send the boats back:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3800150.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ack-boats-policy/story-fn9hm1gu-1226625252215

My cohort? Seriously. Why don''t you leave people alone. You pick and pick away. Let people be.

If a man who himself was a boat person doesn't care about boat people, then what hope for non-boat people to care? He wants to stop boats and turn them back. A dangerous thing to turn them back. So how much does he care?

Oh, yes, they show so much care for the death of people at sea... that their policy will double the deaths by turning the boats back. Callous.

 

I've had my moments being particularly assertive... particularly in the women's rights section that I don't go to any more because it got too depressing and stupid to continue listening to so much rubbish. Maybe we (universal 'we') fall over as debaters when we're so hot and bothered and invested in our opinions that we attack the opinions of others. I'm sure I've had my moments. No one's perfect. I am genuinely interested in what others think and people on here have made me think harder, have inspired me, have annoyed me, and the rest. I can handle strong opinions, I have mine. I like to hear people laying out their ideas and opinions... I like 'concepts' and invention... a lot of scope for people to be creative and inventive here. I'd like to see more of that.

Forums are funny beasts. I've been stalked, sent vile PMs... made friendships and found kindred spirits... yep, forums pack a punch!

I like the enthusiam in your posts, truthvigilante.

 

Usual avoidance tactic

Yes you are giving your opinion, and your opinion is making your agenda to oppose particular party politics.

I think that is for others to decide. However, in my opinion it is rather conceited and egotistical of you to assume judgement of you opinion over another, as most commenters on your thread oppose your opinion I would assume that majority are against your opinion and agree with me… BUT again that is for others to decide.

Oh gee what will we get? Indignant retort or insults…

So what you are showing is that pretence of moral superiority, I describe. You believe that stopping the boats means stopping the asylum-seekers. This very comment states you care less about people dying at sea because they are considered refugees… And this justifies your stance against this person???

That is rather a different way of answering one question, how about the rest of them??? Why pursue the line??? For your assertion to have any truth then you must be thinking along those lines… Simple really

Note, I have already pointed out how superficial this is. I have also pointed out that this clearly demonstrates that you clearly want to sound like a moral individual but are prepared to see people die to satisfy your moral pretence… So if that is your stance then yes there is a similarity but only to the fact you want to score political points of the deaths of others.

Maybe, but it is obvious that you do agree that people should continue to drown just to satisfy your political agenda. What is the score now Thousand or so known??? Maybe fifteen hundred all told??? Maybe you could fill that gap???

Sorry to say, your only support to this point is a ignorant bigot, your support of that bigotry only lays demonstration to pretentious claims of moral outrage. Should you wish to comment to others about me, I have perfect right to return the favour. Get over yourself, and begin to think what you support.

Oh I see, you feel that because he wants to stop the practice of people dying at sea it is demonstration of somebody who does not care about people dying at sea… Bit of a conundrum you have built there. But again, clear lack of claim…

REALLY? How many died at sea due to Howard’s policies? How many have died due to Rudd’s policies? Fact is, you would rather score political points on the deaths of these people than really stop the problem of people drowning at sea. That is moral pretence, and the fact you want to lecture me on something that sounds good to you over this issue is claim of superiority… Hence the pretence of moral superiority … I find your stance callous on this subject now. You want to play politics with peoples lives. You have already told me that you believe living conditions are far more important that people’s lives… Good for you, I hope that lets you sleep at night…