Welcome to Gaia! ::

SephRem's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

3,350 Points
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Person of Interest 200
This thread is asking us to decipher your preconceptions about liberals. Not all liberals support "gun control" or "drone strikes".
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.
Kaltros
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros


The sources are included in the article. But perhaps you're too lazy to look into it, eh? But here you go:

High teen births for latinos, as well as higher dropout rates:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/19/latinas.pregnancy.rate/index.html



The elementary school in California getting named after a notorious bandit:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261028/Outrage-California-officials-new-elementary-school-gang-ridden-city-notorious-19th-century-outlaw-hanged-murders.html




The mayor of a New Mexico town gave weapons to Mexican gangs:




You can read the rest for yourself. Your laziness is not my problem.

Which leaves out more crime, more gangs, more corruption.

You being a racist moron is not my problem. Either cite back up your bullshit or quit wasting my time. Also it says nothing about drop out rates.


Again, you're just being a lazy ********. The citations are found in the original article. Or, maybe, you know, you could strain your fingers for five seconds and look up some stuff yourself. Take the bandit, Tiburcio Vasquez. He has a Wikipedia page. Or are you too lazy to even know what Wikipedia is?

Even if I hadn't taken the time to look through the link to know you're full of s**t, it wouldn't be me who is the lazy ********. It's not my responsibility to go searching for proof of YOUR ******** claims. And? What does that have to do with anything? Does that provide proof for your bullshit claims? No. Keep swinging you dumb racist piece of s**t.


Namecalling doesn't count as a rebuttal of my original posts, you lazy son of a b***h. Stop acting like a brainless zombie groaning 'raciss!' all the time. Your decayed jaw is ready to fall off.

Actually it does, seeing as your original posts were a bunch of half baked bullshit that I easily swept away, or that you were completely unable to show ANY proof for. Again, I'm not the lazy one. Cite proof for your claims, dumbshit. That would make sense if I wasn't able to lob that term at those deserving with ******** heat-seeking accuracy. You're a dumb git, and a troll to boot. Welcome to ignore.
HMS Thunder Child
Tactical Leg Sweep
Disa Uniflora
GunsmithKitten
Disa Uniflora
People who think guns make people safer live in this fantasy world where they're all action heroes and can take down anyone who gets the drop on them and nobody ever does anything irresponsible with said guns.


As much as i have zero respect for people who think that having a firearm does make them an action hero, tell me, when you consider that the police in this country can legally sit by and watch me get raped and murdered while not doing a thing, and even if they did, would take over an hour to respond to a call for aid, how much safer am I when another line of defense is taken from me?

You're not, but then you're not especially less safe either unless rapists and murderers declare their intentions and go about their business in a fair-minded, sporting manner. That the world doesn't work that way probably helps explain why the United States has a rather high number of reported rapes, though who can really say how useful rape statistics even are. Take the availability of firearms to potential rapists and murderers, as well as their greater moral proclivity/cause to use such firearms, and your security is even more greatly diminished, enough so that arguments like this don't typically sway me as much they'd perhaps be expected to. The fact of the matter is that there will always be crime in this world, regardless of whether there is gun control or not, and to anyone who supports gun control the thought of reversing themselves because crime can still occur is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As an occupant of a country organised under such a principle, my first thought when someone is raped is not of how they could've been better equipped to defend themselves but rather about the police response/behaviour of any bystanders, and I rely on their possessing your average non-lethal means of self-defence. That is just where the cultural difference between our cultures comes into play. That difference in our culture is the reason why I'm also quite certain that advocates of the right to bear arms in America really don't have cause for alarm, though I can understand where such alarm comes from when talk of executive orders is loosely bandied about as though it means nothing.

I wouldn't bother. Gunsmith cannot with any hard evidence back up the claim that police will sit by and watch her "get raped" and "murdered", nor that they'll take an hour to respond to a call. The fact is she's delusional, probably because she insists that because she lives in a bigoted area (ironically having shown some pretty bigoted opinions herself towards certain minorities) means the world is out to rape and kill her despite what would be the simple solution of moving out of whatever whiskey tango shithole she lives in to a more progressively minded place. Moreover it's probably not in small part due to the fact that she seemingly watches too many Bronson movies and has openly stated she supports vigilantism and has argued extensively in its favor to replace rule of law.
[Confused]

You do know that the DC Appeals Court passed down a ruling that the Police Services are not obligated to help individual citizens, right?

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

[Annoyed]

She is a gay woman in a rather homophobic zone of the country. Considering precedent of police ignoring minorities pleas for help, if not flat out victimizing them, I fail to see how she's being paranoid.

Also, what makes you think she and her partner have the means to just up and move? It's not exactly the easiest or cheapest thing in the world to do.

Aaaand what does that have to do with anything? Are you the one that knows her personally and consistently feels the need to white knight for her, because she's cited that many a times in apropos of NOTHING. That does not prove that any response time is accurate with her ridiculous claims. Also, seeing as you seem to, like she does, misunderstand that ruling; they're obligated to uphold the laws, many of which overtly are in place to protect citizens.

Uh, she's being paranoid when she thinks the entire world is out to kill lesbian women with bum legs, yes. No one is denying that there are people who are homophobic and violently bigoted, but to act the way she does is paranoid, yes. I also like how you dodge the fact that she's outright admitted that supports vigilantism. You'll also have to forgive my lack of sympathy for her plight when she turns around and espouses ridiculous views on Muslims, immigrants etc in lock step with the same people she claims she hates for their bigotry against LBGT people.

And yet people who I'll bet my bottom dollar are poorer than she is do it all the time. If it's really that much of a problem you might think she would work at it.
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?

It's denying opportunities for non-white people. (Typically, policies that do harm must be justified with an equal or excessive benefit. In this case, one would probably refer to benefits from being an all-white society.)
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?

It's denying opportunities for non-white people. (Typically, policies that do harm must be justified with an equal or excessive benefit. In this case, one would probably refer to benefits from being an all-white society.)


That's not harm, that's just refusing to let immigrants wander over borders with impunity. Is it doing harm to burglars to refuse to let them break into your house, steal your TV, and have a nice beer while they're at it? Or refusing to let every homeless person in a fifty-mile radius come and live with you?

Even if it does harm immigrants, though, what harm does it do to Australia?
Kaltros
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?

It's denying opportunities for non-white people. (Typically, policies that do harm must be justified with an equal or excessive benefit. In this case, one would probably refer to benefits from being an all-white society.)


That's not harm, that's just refusing to let immigrants wander over borders with impunity. Is it doing harm to burglars to refuse to let them break into your house, steal your TV, and have a nice beer while they're at it? Or refusing to let every homeless person in a fifty-mile radius come and live with you?

Even if it does harm immigrants, though, what harm does it do to Australia?

Being refused an opportunity that would otherwise be available to others is harm, and there better be a damn good reason for it. Other than direct, personal costs like not affording the iPhone 5 or flies eating out their dehydrated, dead eyes, there's potential in people who are not white to fill jobs that Australians have rendered themselves incapable of doing due to overeating or barricading themselves in their flat during an episode of xenophobic paranoia. So your economy suffers, and you suffer, and you'd still prefer to forfeit half of your two-pea-per-day ration in a economic apocalypse in order to feed the ubiquitous government agents you've empowered to eject the non-whites from your immediate surroundings.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?
Aside from the obvious one (harm to the immigrant himself, who can't live where he'd like to), it does harm to society, as immigrants of non-white lineage have literary, artistic, scientific and mathematical contributions to make to one's society, just like the white ones would.
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?

It's denying opportunities for non-white people. (Typically, policies that do harm must be justified with an equal or excessive benefit. In this case, one would probably refer to benefits from being an all-white society.)


That's not harm, that's just refusing to let immigrants wander over borders with impunity. Is it doing harm to burglars to refuse to let them break into your house, steal your TV, and have a nice beer while they're at it? Or refusing to let every homeless person in a fifty-mile radius come and live with you?

Even if it does harm immigrants, though, what harm does it do to Australia?

Being refused an opportunity that would otherwise be available to others is harm, and there better be a damn good reason for it. Other than direct, personal costs like not affording the iPhone 5 or flies eating out their dehydrated, dead eyes, there's potential in people who are not white to fill jobs that Australians have rendered themselves incapable of doing due to overeating or barricading themselves in their flat during an episode of xenophobic paranoia. So your economy suffers, and you suffer, and you'd still prefer to forfeit half of your two-pea-per-day ration in a economic apocalypse in order to feed the ubiquitous government agents you've empowered to eject the non-whites from your immediate surroundings.


Incidentally, I'm not Australian myself, just considering the argument from the outside.

Australia (and by extension Australians) has a right to control its borders, correct? Immigration to another country is a privilege that country allows sometimes, not a right.
Wendigo
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?
Aside from the obvious one (harm to the immigrant himself, who can't live where he'd like to), it does harm to society, as immigrants of non-white lineage have literary, artistic, scientific and mathematical contributions to make to one's society, just like the white ones would.


If these non-white immigrants are so gifted why don't they stay in their home countries and make those places better, richer, more scientific, etc?

Also, are you suggesting all non-white immigrants are equally gifted and beneficial?
Kaltros
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros


What harm does it do?

It's denying opportunities for non-white people. (Typically, policies that do harm must be justified with an equal or excessive benefit. In this case, one would probably refer to benefits from being an all-white society.)


That's not harm, that's just refusing to let immigrants wander over borders with impunity. Is it doing harm to burglars to refuse to let them break into your house, steal your TV, and have a nice beer while they're at it? Or refusing to let every homeless person in a fifty-mile radius come and live with you?

Even if it does harm immigrants, though, what harm does it do to Australia?

Being refused an opportunity that would otherwise be available to others is harm, and there better be a damn good reason for it. Other than direct, personal costs like not affording the iPhone 5 or flies eating out their dehydrated, dead eyes, there's potential in people who are not white to fill jobs that Australians have rendered themselves incapable of doing due to overeating or barricading themselves in their flat during an episode of xenophobic paranoia. So your economy suffers, and you suffer, and you'd still prefer to forfeit half of your two-pea-per-day ration in a economic apocalypse in order to feed the ubiquitous government agents you've empowered to eject the non-whites from your immediate surroundings.


Incidentally, I'm not Australian myself, just considering the argument from the outside.

Australia (and by extension Australians) has a right to control its borders, correct? Immigration to another country is a privilege that country allows sometimes, not a right.

Australia has the right to oversee border security as far as their rights allow. However, open discrimination in immigration policy has not been within their rights since 1975.
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?
Aside from the obvious one (harm to the immigrant himself, who can't live where he'd like to), it does harm to society, as immigrants of non-white lineage have literary, artistic, scientific and mathematical contributions to make to one's society, just like the white ones would.


If these non-white immigrants are so gifted why don't they stay in their home countries and make those places better, richer, more scientific, etc?

Also, are you suggesting all non-white immigrants are equally gifted and beneficial?
Some people leave war zones to avoid, let's say, being killed. Some people see better opportunities in their chosen field outside their home country. Some would just rather live some place that is not that country, and there's really no reason to stop most of them doing so.
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros
Kokiri Prodigy
Kaltros


What harm does it do?

It's denying opportunities for non-white people. (Typically, policies that do harm must be justified with an equal or excessive benefit. In this case, one would probably refer to benefits from being an all-white society.)


That's not harm, that's just refusing to let immigrants wander over borders with impunity. Is it doing harm to burglars to refuse to let them break into your house, steal your TV, and have a nice beer while they're at it? Or refusing to let every homeless person in a fifty-mile radius come and live with you?

Even if it does harm immigrants, though, what harm does it do to Australia?

Being refused an opportunity that would otherwise be available to others is harm, and there better be a damn good reason for it. Other than direct, personal costs like not affording the iPhone 5 or flies eating out their dehydrated, dead eyes, there's potential in people who are not white to fill jobs that Australians have rendered themselves incapable of doing due to overeating or barricading themselves in their flat during an episode of xenophobic paranoia. So your economy suffers, and you suffer, and you'd still prefer to forfeit half of your two-pea-per-day ration in a economic apocalypse in order to feed the ubiquitous government agents you've empowered to eject the non-whites from your immediate surroundings.


Incidentally, I'm not Australian myself, just considering the argument from the outside.

Australia (and by extension Australians) has a right to control its borders, correct? Immigration to another country is a privilege that country allows sometimes, not a right.

Australia has the right to oversee border security as far as their rights allow. However, open discrimination in immigration policy has not been within their rights since 1975.


What does that mean? Has Australia been invaded, conquered, and occupied since 1975? What tyrant is keeping them from exercising full control of their own borders?
Wendigo
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
Wendigo
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
Because it's racist, and racist policy does harm but doesn't provide corresponding benefits to society.


What harm does it do?
Aside from the obvious one (harm to the immigrant himself, who can't live where he'd like to), it does harm to society, as immigrants of non-white lineage have literary, artistic, scientific and mathematical contributions to make to one's society, just like the white ones would.


If these non-white immigrants are so gifted why don't they stay in their home countries and make those places better, richer, more scientific, etc?

Also, are you suggesting all non-white immigrants are equally gifted and beneficial?
Some people leave war zones to avoid, let's say, being killed. Some people see better opportunities in their chosen field outside their home country. Some would just rather live some place that is not that country, and there's really no reason to stop most of them doing so.


Let's apply your logic to a smaller scale but similar situation: "Some people leave troubled homes, let's say, to avoid being killed. Some people see better opportunities outside their first home. Some would rather just live some place that is not their original family's home, and there's really no reason to stop most of them from picking a new home, whether the adoptive family agrees or not."

If it's okay for immigrants to go to any country they want, isn't it also okay for any child to pick a new family without that family's approval? Shouldn't a kid just be able to say "Hey! I like that nice big house over there! I'm moving in with them!" and then do it, without asking the family that lives in the big house?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games