You're talking to the wall, Mr Hamilton.

>>'Bleeding hearts' see it as something that we owe to our fellow human beings by virtue of the fact that they are human and in pain. It is a natural expression of a shared humanity.<<

That argument won't get you very far on this Forum. There's a phrase somewhere that covers it nicely... ah, yes, here it is.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%27m%20all%20right%20Jack!

"Narrow-focus, narrow-gauge pseudo-Darwinian selfishness glorified as a sensible philosophy of society and life."

That seems to cover most of the comments so far, does it not.

When given the choice of identifying with a culture of comfort and prosperity or identifying with humanity at large, there's only one way to go.

Right?

Yuyutsu I don't think it's that simple. Not a big fan of the term "bleeding heart" or it's travelling companion "do gooder", both with similar conetations in the way they are used.

If the combination of your access to ability to act and your sense of duty lead you to contibute to the release of someone from prison with a known history of serious abuse of others and that person then uses the freedom to assault and perhaps kill an innocent it's in no way a step closer to a perfect world.

How responsible for the consequences should the person be who's duty it is to contribute to a situation with fairly predicatable and not easily avoidable adverse consequences for others?

R0bert

Dear R0bert,

Now it takes wisdom to differentiate between one's duty and one's desires and sentiments, but IF your duty is to release someone from prison, then it is not better or worse than the prison-guard's duty to try keeping that prisoner in: each of you should concentrate on his/hers.

Doing one's duty cannot cause adverse results, but of course it is still possible for others to conceive of the results as "adverse" by their own judgement - "adversity" is a relative term and it is never possible for one to make everyone else happy simultaneously.

Sorry for being brief - I have to go, but I'll be back on Sunday.

The long and short of it is that the "Bleeding Hearts" have blood on their hands, in a Vanity Festival they knowingly killed 1200 plus (2000+?). By their wilful indifference to the established hazards of an immigration program based on leaky boats they are accused; by their silence when drownings were escalating they are accused; by their flippent dismissals such as SH-Y's "tragedies happen, accidents happen" they are accursed.

Every time a bloody "Bleeding Heart" raises their voices in an own ovation, point out that the blood in not from a bleeding heart, but dripping from their hands.

The first point wrong with Andrew Hamilton's rant, is that he and his bleeding heart liberal friends consider themselves to be the font of all that is good and holy. This implies that the majority of Australians are beyond the pale when it comes to moral values, a presumption which most Australians consider an insult. Next falsehood is his claim that people should not let our government "do whatever it likes" which completely avoids the fact that the democratically elected government of Australia is doing exactly what is expected of them by the overwhelming majority of the electorate.

Andrew appears to be yet another liberal who thinks that his own people are greedy, selfish peasants that any poor person from the third world who wants to come to Australia and live with us should immediately do so, and that the greedy Australians he despises should not object. This makes him a virtuous person as opposed to those crass, consumerist, working class suburbanites that he and his fringe group are so superior to. And then he wonders why ordinary Australians despise him and his fringe group liberals and why we are becoming increasingly inoculated the their customary anti Australian blatherings.

Always being opposed to the interests of the Australian people is a position not likely to win friends and influence people outside of the cloistered halls of academia and the ABC, with their reflexive anti establishment inbred views

<<This implies that the majority of Australians are beyond the pale when it comes to moral values>>

It doesn't.

First, the majority of Australians never had a chance to express their views on the matter of asylum seekers, or in fact on any other issue.

The Australian electoral system is a farce. It doesn't allow citizens to be represented and at most allows them a slight influence on the ONE issue that matters for them most, that's if they are lucky enough to have their home positioned in the right neighbourhood that has a "marginal seat".

In my case, that ONE issue was the NBN - it has to be stopped and so I gave my [compulsory] preference to Tony Abbott. This doesn't imply that I agree with his "stop the boats" policy!

Second, it's logically wrong to imply that those with different views/preferences are morally deficient. Were the people of either Lilliput and Blefuscu immoral for breaking their eggs on the smaller or larger sides respectively?

<<Next falsehood is his claim that people should not let our government "do whatever it likes" which completely avoids the fact that the democratically elected government of Australia is doing exactly what is expected of them by the overwhelming majority of the electorate.>>

Rubbish. The government does whatever it likes because it has the power to do so, backed by the armed power of the police, not because the majority of Australians ever agreed to it. The majority of Australians were never even asked whether they agree with the concept of government or with the Australian constitution: all they are allowed is to select every three years between the twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

<<Always being opposed to the interests of the Australian people>>

There is no such thing as "the interests of the Australian people": different people have different interests - and there's nothing wrong with it!

In this particular issue of refugees, obviously Sydney-siders don't want them and obviously Tasmanians do. Then why not allow refugees to come and settle in Tasmania, with visas that prevent them from crossing the Bass strait?