The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Integration is a two way street > Comments

Integration is a two way street : Comments

By Andrew Hewett, published 23/10/2007

It’s time to speak out for an Australian refugee policy which is non-discriminatory and based on the actual humanitarian needs of those resettlling in this country

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Cruddwig; I am not going to allow you to decide how many times I post.

I do not attempt to tell YOU what YOU meant. I was not even initially addressing you!!

What is this REALLY all about?
Posted by Ginx, Sunday, 28 October 2007 7:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luvvie

“Either get your frock off and actually run for office, or keep your trap shut.”

Shouldn’t Oxfam have every right to express their views?

Shouldn’t any such views be debated on their merits rather than anyone telling them that they don’t have the right to express themselves?

Do you think NGOs have no right to express an opinion and that the only legitimate way for anyone to express themselves is to run for political office?

What about those who run for office within NGOs?

These are supposed to be neutral questions. I’m not trying to offside you. I just want to understand where you are coming from.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 28 October 2007 9:17:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get rid of TPVs.

Get rid of the Pacific solution.

Refugee's need compassion and support, not abuse of their rights as a human being.
Posted by aco, Monday, 29 October 2007 10:25:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, this is very heavy going. It is clearly pointless trying to explain a position that has been misunderstood or misrepresented, since that explanation itself becomes misunderstood or misrepresented...

Fester, it would have helped if you had answered my question instead of going off at a tangent:

>>Sorry Pericles. I didn't realise that your comments had an expiry date<<

But the whole point was, dear Fester, that they were your comments, not mine. You simply pretended that I had said them so you could argue against. That's known in the trade as "sad".

Divergence is even more bewildering.

>>In view of your remarkable personal attack on me...<<

Eh? I have looked again, word by word. And there's nary an unkind word in sight, let alone a "remarkable personal attack".

And your point on redistribution of the world's resources is way wide of the mark.

No-one is remotely suggesting that at midnight we all share everything equally across six and a half billion people. It doesn't work that way, so there is no point setting it up as your straw-man argument.

World trade has grown consistently over hundreds of years. If you had suggested, say 1,000 years ago that the world would have the wealth available to share that it enjoys today, you'd be laughed out of court. Nevertheless, it happened. And there is absolutely no reason why the same rate of increase in global prosperity cannot be repeated in future. Simply because you cannot imagine it, doesn't mean it won't happen.

But if we carry on the way we have, and insist upon continuing our habit of out-of-control overconsumption, that growth is not going to be evenly spread, is it? The rich will continue to get richer at the expense of the poor, instead of making a conscious effort to redistribute future wealth increases disproportionally towards less fortunate countries.

The alternative is, as Bronwyn so cogently explains, an increase in envy, and an increase in our vulnerability to aggression.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 October 2007 2:28:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

So you have never argued for skilled immigration to Australia on the basis that will increase our per capita prosperity? Now you are arguing for more refugees and reduced consumption on the basis of the moral outrage it represents. Perhaps you might do other than to assume moral failings in those you differ with. At least you seem to agree with me on the potential for technological development. So how do you think it compares with other forms of aid? How about a lives saved vs dollars spent comparison to further your argument?

Ludwig

Thanks for correcting the spelling and punctuation. I have trouble understanding how a drastic reduction in our consumption might help the third world. Accepting refugees is a great "feel good" exercise, but is it the most helpful option? The promotion of fertility in the west curtails the ability to encourage birth control in the developing world. The CC isn't much help in this regard either:

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=emilJurado_oct10_2007

But technological development can solve many problems simultaneously, and for me at least has a far higher priority.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 29 October 2007 8:59:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Of course, overconsumption is "a" problem. It adds to the general mess and doubtless is ultimately behind the disaster in Iraq, as Bronwyn said. To say that it is "the" problem is to be too influenced by a small sliver of recent history in a favoured part of the world. A lot of what has happened in history and is happening now in large parts of the world today can be explained by the notion of a Malthusian trap, rather than steady progress in the human condition. Technological advances occur, but population growth soon restores the accustomed level of misery. After the Black Death in 1348 the wages of agricultural and then building workers rose in real terms to a point that was not matched until the late 19th century and exceeded the wages on offer during World War I. See for example

http://ideas.repec.org/p/tor/tecipa/munro-00-03.html

The Green Revolution is another case in point. People are still poor and hungry now because many countries, although not all, translated the gains into more people rather than into better living conditions.

We are now up against a whole host of environmental problems: peak oil, climate change, land degradation, mass extinctions, the pumping dry of aquifers, etc., not just one limiting factor, such as poor productivity of grain varieties. Science and technology aren't magic, and the time frame before matters get really serious is short. Going down the gurgler with poor Third World countries by overexploiting our environment and collapsing our own society is not going to help anyone in the long run. We should help people in their own countries, as Fester says, and that help should be evidence based. Refugees with no realistic prospect of going home are a special case. By greatly reducing other immigration and making sure that we only take genuine refugees, we could afford to help more of these people and to give them proper settlement services.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 10:38:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy