Australia to save White South African's lifes

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by Glücksritter, Mar 20, 2018.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,655
    Likes Received:
    16,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I missed that part about HIV, I was only looking at the murder rate statistics. From what I gathered it had been up around 78/100k then dropped as low as 32/100k then started climbing again so I was just averaging it out at around 50.

    What I was trying to get at though is that I don't see South Africa as being significantly different to other 3rd world nations when it comes to violent crimes. I suspect that many of the other 3rd world nations show lower rates just because they don't keep accurate records.

    The ANC government has failed to deliver and from all accounts Zuma actually made things worse for the people of South Africa. That is something that needs to be addressed but, as with all 3rd world countries where corruption in government is rife, the odds of it happening are not good.
     
    Mr_Truth, scarlet witch and Sallyally like this.
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,655
    Likes Received:
    16,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a lot more in the same vein to be found here;

    http://www.islamicity.org/2835/myth-of-islamic-intolerance/

     
    Mr_Truth and Sallyally like this.
  3. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Agreed.

    I guess the question that has to be asked now that both yourself and Sally have cherry picked the post to suit your argument is how do both these faiths stack up today in regards to the teachings of both Jesus and Mohammed? Have they progressed or digressed in terms of social advancement?

    However I feel you are not grasping the point.
    I am not debating the singular. I am debating the collective and the future make up of our society, and no amount of cherry picking the past is going to advance the debate for our future. We must debate the current direction we are heading in and how these two differing faiths interact and will we be content with destination we eventually arive at. Or do we alter direction now, and where will this lead us?
     
  4. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    8,527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that the faiths will have to alter to avoid " the destination we eventually arrive at"?
    Are you expecting that the two faiths will not continue to co exist as they do presently?
     
    Mr_Truth and Derideo_Te like this.
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,655
    Likes Received:
    16,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Establishing the facts is not "cherry picking".

    As far as your "point" goes you are behaving as though religions are sentient and capable of acting independently.

    The facts are that there will always be, and currently are, INDIVIDUALS that will EXPLOIT religions for their own personal empowerment albeit that they are using religion as both a false front to hide behind and a means to dishonestly "justify" their actions.

    By phrasing your "point" as you have done you are "buying" into the falsehood that it is the "religion" that is pursuing whatever nefarious action is being taken in the "name" of that religion.

    The way to prevent another "holy war" is to understand who is promulgating the dogma that is inciting the violence and hold them accountable for crimes against humanity. This needs to be done by those of the "same faith" as the inciters.

    Yes, making that happen is easier said than done but it beats the alternative.
     
    Mr_Truth and Sallyally like this.
  6. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The two faiths can not alter enough to co exist in equilibrium.

    Now we are on track.

    Currently in Australia we have a dominant and submissive co-existence. This works because we are a secular society, but make no mistake, our laws and values are distinctly based around the Christian faith.

    Unfortunately there are fewer secular Islamic nations than there are theocratic. King Hussein of Jordan speaks widely and openly of his struggle to maintain secularity amid the growing powers of the faith.

    But what happens when or if equilibrium is acheived?

    Our destination will be determined by whether we are content to reach equilibrium or not.

    We are already seeing changes in sub societies attitude toward the collective in London, Paris, and Stockholm. They have become the majority within the enclave and thus creating a dominant sub collective. Now they are lobying for more say on laws that suit their beliefs but are at odds with the current societal laws. Why not? They are the dominant in that enclave after all.

    This may seem localised, and it is right now as equilibrium has not been reached. However it is a small entree to what may occur as numbers equalise in the future.

    This is a conversation that needs to be had, unfortunately I fear it will be hijacked by redknecks, religious biggots, and political correctness.

    The hypothetical question is can you see yourself living in an Islamic society in the future knowing what you know now about Islamic nations across the globe? Or would you want to keep the status quo?

    Political correctness aside.
     
  7. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There are many religions under each faith, this is something that must be clarified.

    I am talking faith not religion, and yes I am suggesting that faiths can act independently as a controlling force in society.

    Please do not put words in my mouth in an attempt at some cheap shot at exposing a religious zealot. None of my posts have suggested anything “nefarious” by individual or faith. You are creating a debate with yourself, and I will not be drawn into it.

    The only person who has mentioned holy wars is you, and is completely obscolete to the point.

    In an attempt to understand your argument, and correct me if I am wrong, but you are suggesting the way forward to co-existence between the faiths is “cure”, moreso than prevention, which I guess is loosely my point.

    To prevent another misunderstanding, your view is weed out the troublemakers in both faiths to acheive peaceful co-habitation?
     
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,655
    Likes Received:
    16,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These are your own words from your reply to SallyAlly.

    This is demonizing of Islam as a religion, which in turn denigrates individual Muslims, by alleging that it is going to be "imposed" upon westernized nations.

    That is de facto rabble rousing and fearmongering since it creates a "threat" that does not actually exist until enough hatred is stirred up that results in violence between those of different "faiths".

    Ask the Irish what they accomplished with their "war" between the faiths? Did either side "win"? Was either "faith" declared the "victor"? Or was it more a case of a lot of innocent lives being lost while atrocities were committed on BOTH SIDES?

    What makes you believe what you are advocating is going to be any different?

    Religions can and do coexist peacefully side by side in SECULAR societies.

    The current influx is a result of climate change and war that is making areas uninhabitable. These immigrants are being treated intolerantly by small minded bigots and this is resulting in localized violence escalating into widespread rioting.

    The SMART move is to do what they are doing in Canada. Jewish Temples are welcoming Syrian Refugees.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-rabbis-envy-canadian-counterparts-chance-to-welcome-refugees/

    The SMART move is to do what they are doing in Brussels where they are offering warm beds, showers and meals to refugees from places like Syria, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan and Ethiopia.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/brussels-refugee-bnb-180103082106214.html

    This is the HUMANITARIAN way to deal with refugees.

    Inciting conflict is the WRONG way to go about it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    Mr_Truth and Sallyally like this.
  9. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your pulling rubbish out of the air and wasting my time.
     
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,655
    Likes Received:
    16,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ironic!
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  11. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well we were discussing whether people cluster due to racism. This thread is also primarily about South Africa, and South Africa did introduce explicit laws of segregation.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but the pressure to abolish apartheid came from outside the country it seems SW, and wasn’t some good deed from within. I always thought it was a do or die decision(not literally)

    I’m certainly not discriminating against you because you’re a white SA’can but your argument regarding migrants honestly looks as though it is an argument for why people should be separated. I mean that’s the context of discussion. Multiculturalism was a part of this discussion.
    • I can’t recall anyone saying that whites can’t live in “like us” communities. We are the dominate culture in Australia by a huge margin. Look there is no law to say Asians must only sell to Asians and whites should only sell their house to whites to maintain the “like us” communities. If I want to live in Hurstville and an Asian happens to be selling their house, do you think they’ll refuse me because I’m white?
    • Yes I am suggesting that our attitudes were deplorable to all new migrants, especially Non English speaking. For the bloody life of me I don’t know why we have to attempt to look at things from rose coloured glasses. Let’s just be honest from where we have come. We take this silly stance when it comes to aborigines. It just seems ridiculously silly to me....but I am different on my world view, especially from some of my conservative family.
    No I didn’t for one moment think you were framing Asians per se. Your context was about certain ethnic groups clustering and reasons why. I was just re-emphasizing using your yard stick, which was Asians.

    Look people will cluster because of many and varied reasons. There is nothing wrong with it “but” restricting people from living in certain neighbourhoods and from certain services etc would be a problem.
    • I don’t agree that racism is subjective. There is the loose term and the term that nails racism to the wall in its full meaning. Of course other groups can be racist but how do you conclude that?
    Please tell us about apartheid SW because the world must have misunderstood apartheid. Seriously, I’d like to hear your perspective.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    Sallyally likes this.
  12. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think without considering this, it would be easy to suggest a glossy perspective.
     
    Sallyally and Derideo_Te like this.
  13. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,655
    Likes Received:
    16,240
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given that the apartheid regime had some Nazi roots (the architect of apartheid was a Nazi sympathizer) the use of propaganda to put a "glossy perspective" over the atrocities and downplay the reality would not be a stretch at all.
     
  14. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No we are discussing why people cluster, an my answer is exactly that it's NOT racism... of course you immediately jump on the racism wagon like an alcoholic grabbing for the bottle. Also your assumption that I'm a white South African and therefore automatically approve of Apartheid is discrimination, in exactly the same way M2 decided all Australians are filthy.

    I have come to the conclusion that most Australians don't really have a ****ing clue what racism/discrimination really is. They are also discriminated against on a daily basis by other ethnic groups but oblivious that discrimination can actually run in both directions.

    Racism is subjective because people are, we make it so. We bring all our baggage, values and preconceived ideas (such as that all South African white people approve of Apartheid or Australians are dirty) into their behaviour and words toward others and their perceptions of behaviour and words from others.

    Here's another scenario, what if a Chinese man with a business in one of these 70% plus Asian areas advertise a position. Two people apply, one is Asian, have very little qualifications and experience but speaks Mandarin. The other is highly qualified with at least 10 years of experience, but only speaks English. He gives the job to the person speaking Mandarin, is that racist?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
  15. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Except it's only become a 3rd world nation in the last 20 years, it used to have a space program, something btw Australia only recently announced. 10th largest stock exchange in the world, we did the first heart transplant, we had nuclear weapons, our hospitals and medical research facilities were first class, first world.

    South Africa, despite it's advanced infrastructure and capabilities, now a 3rd world country within the short time of 20 years, have among the highest HIV rates, people in the west just don't die from HIV anymore. With treatment you can grow old.

    What happens in South Africa is that children are left to fend for themselves as adults die around them, it creates a horrific cycle of poverty and abuse as these children are taken advantage of.

    The South African government is only looking after a corrupt few, corruption in police force is rampant. In fact several years ago they disbanded the Scorpions, which were the internal affairs division for South African police. There is no oversight, as a result corruption comes from the top and goes all the way down to the guy writing tickets.

    This is also why it's so difficult to find crime stats, when you google it, it's all over the place, no one really knows exactly what the stats are, because not only is it not reported properly but the South African Government changes it to make themselves look better. Also HIV deaths are not reported properly, doctors are paid to state people died from Turbeculosis and other diseases instead of Aids due to the stigma.

    The part that annoys me is we're not suppose to criticise or say anything against the South African Government because ...Apartheid. That's rubbish, if it was a white government we'd all be saying the same thing, why not hold the black South African Government to the same standards. That's what it truly means to not discriminate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    Sallyally likes this.
  16. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    8,527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Your scenario is an interesting point. In our shopping centre, you'll see help "wanted ads" in Mandarin. I believe that action has been taken on this, by the relevant agencies but it is an instance of discrimination.
     
    Mr_Truth and scarlet witch like this.
  17. slipperyfish

    slipperyfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes but is it discrimination?

    If 99% of your clientel prefer to speak Mandarin, is it really discriminatory to want your employees to speak mandarin?

    These are some of the arguments that are going to become commonplace as we see larger enclaves of same same within the broader collective.

    And their arguments aren’t without merit. What language you speak in your employment will seem trivial in comparrison to other arguments as values and ideologies clash.

    There is no wrong or right here. It will be difficult to navigate.
     
    scarlet witch likes this.
  18. scarlet witch

    scarlet witch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,536
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Here's what I think, depends on the job, if it's a job that does not require a lot of experience or qualifications, like working behind the counter and talking to customers who predominantly only speak Mandarin it's not racism.

    If it's a job like an accountant, where you do not need to interact with clientele and you require a level of knowledge, that would be discrimination.

    What is confusing for some people is this "preferring to mingle with people "like us" because we relate" to be honest other ethnic groups feel the same way, (as demonstrated by the way they group together in Melbourne and Sydney). Preferring the company of your own group is not racism, pushing someone out because they are different, is racism.

    If you have two people applying for a job, one is of the same ethnic group as yourself, the other is from another. And you employ on a basis with preference to ethnic group instead of qualifications, that's clearly discrimination. The area becomes muddled when specific characteristics of a particular ethnic group is required for the job.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    8,527
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    99% of the population in this area don't speak Chinese and the customers at the shopping centre are 99% Anglo Saxon. The Chinese in the area are the shop keepers.
    ps. The advertising is discriminatory if only a particular ethnic group can understand it. They could perhaps advertise in English and explain that a bi lingual speaker is preferred owing to the demands of the job.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    Mr_Truth and Derideo_Te like this.
  20. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,058
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are feisty SW, but love it

    Of course it’s not racism...,.sorry, just taking a swig ; )

    Institutionalized and intergenerational discrimination of a whole ethnic group of people, who were consequently devalued as humans historically and systematically across their entire country is a totally different discrimination SW. That’s why we don’t understand what discrimination is!

    Racism is not subjective, you’re just confusing racism with stereotyping.

    I think others have addressed your Chinese business man query.
     

Share This Page