Armchair Critic,

<<Emphasis: AS long as it does not have 'negative or detrimental impact' to others.>>

Who decides what is 'negative or detrimental' and its impact on others? What is the standard you use?

Australia has signed the United Nations Childrens' Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Two of its articles state:

"All organisations concerned with children should work towards what is best for each child" (Art. 3).

"Children who come into a country as refugees should have the same rights as children who are born in that country" (Art. 22), http://www.unicef.org.au/Upload/UNICEF/Media/Our%20work/childfriendlycrc.pdf

These two daughters, Kopika, 4, and Tharunicaa, 2, have been and are being traumatised in detention centres, Melbourne and now Christmas Island. These children, born in Australia, are refugees who ought to have the same rights as Australian children. They are not getting that from the Dept of Immigration. A little girl sobbing her heart out on her father's chest (as seen on TV) should never happen in a civilised country that is a signatory to UNICEF. See: http://www.unicef.org.au/our-work/unicef-in-australia

Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on 17 December 1990, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/childrens-rights/publications/un-childrens-convention-and-australia-1991

Now it's time to practice what the Convention preaches and "take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members" (Art. 2.2), http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

Hey OzSpen,
When I asked you about the nephilim it was a rhetorical response to yours (and runners) emphasising my 'conspiracy theories'.

I wanted you to either say you believe reptilians existed;
(Which would probably make you be a conspiracy theorist too)
Or that you disagree with with that particular religious text.
- You dodged it but I won't hold it against you -

The religious version is 'He who is without sin shall cast the first stone';
The non religious version - 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'
I was just returning your serve, kind of like tennis.

I personally don't know and don't really have an opinion on whether they existed or not.
I've never really bothered to look into it.

Re: Catholic Churchs (Christians) opposition to the establishment of the State of Israel and Zionism.
Found some info here: http://jcpa.org/the-vaticans-path-toward-official-recognition-of-israel/

"Pius X appealed to religious doctrine to deal with the nationalist yearnings of the Jews. The Pope gave a theological answer to a political proposition, thus closing all possibility of a meeting of minds. The Jews had not recognized Jesus Christ, the Pope told Theodor Herzl, ergo the Church could not recognize the Jews."

- So that's that.

"Who decides what is 'negative or detrimental' and its impact on others? What is the standard you use?"
I'll address these concerns (as well as others) later when my post limit allows me to.

Armchair Critic,

<<When I asked you about the nephilim it was a rhetorical response to yours (and runners) emphasising my 'conspiracy theories'.

I wanted you to either say you believe reptilians existed;
(Which would probably make you be a conspiracy theorist too)
Or that you disagree with with that particular religious text.
- You dodged it but I won't hold it against you ->>

I dodged nothing. I did not reply because, (1) Your response had nothing to do with the topic of my essay. Therefore, (2) It was a Red Herring Logical Fallacy, which is fallacious reasoning, http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring.

We can't have a reasonable conversation when you resort to this kind of erroneous reasoning.

GodsGrace,

<<We know that even atheists are moral persons...there's no need to be a Christian to do what is right...we all know what is right.>>

Do you think it's possible to and do good without God? Does Australia need to promote subjective morality, i.e. everyone doing what is right and good in his/her own eyes? See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gVpUxT-9H4

Will secular goodness keep Australia free and bring the greatest justice to Australia?

<<I believe that if they've been absorbed into the community and are raising their family in a normal and loving way,,,they should not be put through anymore heartache.>>

I agree 100%. This Tamil family has integrated well into a small regional community of 5,000 people and Nades, the father, has found employment in the local meat works. They are a credit to Biloela and should be returned there.

Oh Spencer...

"I dodged nothing. I did not reply because (1) Your response had nothing to do with the topic of my essay...

You did reply actually, firstly when you added a link;
- It was ok to reply the first time I'm confused please explain?

And then you replied again to tell me why you didn't dodge the question when you did dodge the question.

The reason you dodged the question the second time (you did reply the first time) was because even though the book of Enoch isn't accepted as scripture, Christians still believe its true, and there are references to Nephilim in the bible, only the bible refers to them as giants.
I'm sure you believe Genesis is true don't you?

You avoided the question because admitting that you believe the Nephilim existed would've given merit to my argument that you were being hypocritical calling me a conspiracy theorist and you didn't want me making you look stupid when I threw a quote from Jesus back at you.

You know you lied and dodged the question.
And then you used some squirmy excuse to try and deflect with a logical fallacy excuse;
- that itself was a logical fallacy

- And then attack me with a straw man argument.

In other news...
Israel illegally attacked 4 nations overnight;
But you probably wont hear that on your news...

Sorry I haven't responded to your earlier questions about the Tamil couple btw, I've been quite busy with some other things that have to take priority and I've had to put off responding, but I will tomorrow.

Hey OzSpen,
"Who decides what is 'negative or detrimental' and its impact on others? What is the standard you use?"
I'll adress these concerns (as well as others) later when my post limit allows me to.

I'll go with your standard, 'Do unto others', or the non-religious version 'Treat others the way you'd like to be treated'.
But there's an clause: you HAVE to also consider and 'The bigger picture', or 'The greater good'.
Once you take that in, you'll realise there's a reason why they HAVE to go.

If letting them stay leads to a political or legal path that results in more boats coming and potentially more men women and kids drowning, then that goes against the greater good, and therefore is NOT the right path.

ScoMo says he 'can't in good conscience'.
- And I agree with him.

Say I jump the fence at the Ekka and get busted.
I've got to be escoted out, then go back in the proper way through the turnstiles - and then I'm allowed in.
That's just the way it has to be.

Re the kids: Your making the argument that removing them and having them go through this is having a negative or detrimental impact on them, and I'll agree with that. I'm sure it is but you've got to look at 'The Bigger Picture'. Better their suffering than 50 men women and kids drowning.

Can't you understand that?