Peter Dutton, white farmers yes, war refugees no....

There is not a single part of that which is correct, though your consistent support for mass murder, mass rape & forced removal in Myanmar is noted. Obviously you'd lack the intestinal fortitude to do this stuff yourself, but you're happy enough to applaud others doing it. Pretty pathetic, innit.

One of the more obvious signs of low intelligence is when a person continually repeats something that is plainly untrue. That is especially the case when that person has been presented with data that corrects the untruths and still repeats them. Regurgitating rote learned propaganda is only a small step above what parrots manage to do. At least they have an excuse.

 

This
Supports Australian immigration and refugee policies
favoring "White Peoples".
Australia is NOT Don't try.


Those South African farmers should be required to "farm"
and not in a welfare apt.

 

Complete nonsense. Violent crimes within between Black population is extraordinary high because of countless gangs fighting each other plus the very same people that target Whites for their skin colour target also Black immigrants from all parts of Africa. They cannot seel their farms as they are to be disowned without compensation, they cannot take a job as Black empowerment policies prevent Whites from job opportunities. Which is why you can see thousands of them in capitalistic free economy zones like UAE e.g.

There are influential parties like the Economic Freedom Fighers who openly call for the genocide of White farmers in their song textes.

 

(Thinks: Jeez, I keep making him look a fool in every exchange but he still comes back for more - how effing stupid is that? )

So why not be a bit more specific, and tell me what isn't correct??

 

I've done that before and I was clearly wasting my time. You prefer the propaganda version. You are the one making the claims, try backing them up for a change. With actual proper data, not whatever dross you usually consume.

Last time I made a fool of you not even the opinions of the CDC, NIH & 40,000 oncologists fully convinced you I was right about cancer vaccines because.....you heard some bloke on the radio once.

As long as you hold your own ill informed views as anything worth paying attention to then any exchange with you is going to go roughly the same way. Sometimes it is worth exposing your ignorance. Sometimes it is amusing to watch you twist & turn. Today isn't one of those times.

 

So no examples then? Just as I thought - more insulting rhetoric from a man who should see somebody about an undoubted superiority complex. Yes, you were (and I use the next word loosely) right about the vaccine, but as I subsequently pointed out to you, the clinical trials were too narrow, and restricted to only one type of cancer, and even the conclusions of that were published with a caveat. Why don't you find someone else to troll? Why waste your intellectual talents on someone as 'ignorant and ill-informed' as me? It'll do wonders for your small-minded esteem if you can prevail in arguments more often. Oh and one last thing - as I said at the time, that 'some bloke on the radio' was introduced as a world renowned oncologist, and the interview itself was on Today, the BBC's flagship political and foreign affairs program.

 

1)You are the one making the claims, you back them up. Either you can't or you won't....yet again. You have repeatedly spoken up in support of an act of genocide. It is hard to imagine a more morally repugnant position, yet you seem almost proud of it.

2)You are trolling me, just like last time, and you are playing victim having done that, just like last time. The best way to guarantee that I remind you how worthless your posts are is to specifically direct a post at me. I don't know why you want to be humiliated, but apparently you do.

3)I don't have a superiority complex, but I'm smarter than you. And not just by a little bit. You reinforce that every time you post. Every. Single. Time. I'm still half convinced you are a teenage kid living at home.

4)Over 300 million doses of the vaccine I was talking about have been used in 130 countries. I repeated those figures and the specifics of the vaccine numerous times, yet you can't even get that right. Even when you admit you were wrong you can't get the details right.

5)I don't recall your oncologist even referring to cancer vaccines, so you were offering your interpretation of something general he said. Not exactly the same quality of evidence I repeatedly provided. In fact, not evidence of anything at all.

Now, run along. Your mates in Myanmar are beheading some more kids for you.

 

Muslims have more than the nuclear family norm of 2.4 children - agree, or disagree?

Maybe, but with what proven (emphasis on 'proven'?) results. 'My' oncologist didn't mention the word 'vaccine' once in the entire interview; if he had I'd remember it: therefore unless he forgot to mention it, then I still reject with extreme prejudice the vaccine argument. And I have never advocated genocide, but if you can replicate the passage of my post where you think I did, please feel free to post it, and I'll address it in full. If however you can't replicate it, I'll accept your grovelling apology with alacrity.

 

Just back up the claims you made in your post. The figure was 7 children per woman according to you. I have a pretty good idea of the worldwide figure for Muslims & the figure for Myanmar. Time for you to do some research.

OK, so you are back to claiming you were right, and the CDC, NIH & a body representing 40,000 American oncologists are wrong. Based on?.......because you think so. I have given you all that data, you just couldn't be bothered reading it. Al l a bit too hard really.

Like I said: Every. Single. Post.

You have made it clear that you support the mass forced deportations in Myanmar and you have consistently laid the blame at the feet of the victims. The mass murder, mass rape & destruction of villages is how that deportation is being made to happen. Supporting any part of that is supporting genocide. There is no half way position. There is no qualified support that gets you off the hook. Either what the government of Myanmar is doing is wrong or it is not. If you can't bring yourself to say it is wrong then you support genocide. Easy enough.

 

I seem to recollect saying an average of 7 children, but hey who's counting!

The Wiki entry was that it needed verification, and that's good enough for me.

I have never said I support forced deportations, and will ignore your mischievous wordplay with the contempt it deserves. What I did say (which you haven't replicated, I see?) is that I can understand the rationale behind it, insomuch that the Rohingya wouldn't accede to a request to A) Please stop having so many kids, nor B) Please leave voluntarily, because your numbers are becoming unsustainable. Now, enforced culture change might not seem such a big deal to you up there on your self-righteous moral high ground, but I suspect some of your fellow Australians would have something to say if their culture was being threatened with being changed for ever, even if you don't care. And finally, if I were you I'd stop digging??

 

You are counting....but not providing a shred of evidence. Still waiting. Of course, you know you are lying, so there won't be any evidence forthcoming.

I provided a great deal more than that, including the endorsement of the College of Oncologists - all 40,000. Your trolling doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

You clearly support what is going on, and every time you try to claim otherwise you just make it clear all over again. The fact that you have to invent fictional reasons to justify it reinforces that.

 

But haven't you heard - evidence isn't necessary these days? Go away, bigfella - you're the troll around here, not me.

 

....and once again you skulk away unable to back up your claims. Some things never change.

 

I wish the bloody weather would! I'm getting fed up with leaden skies and unrelenting nor'-easterlies. Cue for a song . . .

 

So,
wouldn't it be lovely to have a discussion without insults?
It sucks and doesn't need to become a trademark....
Reg.

 

I support Dutton bringing the farmers over to Australia but then I'm biased, I also probably have a better understanding of what these farmers are currently going through.

suppose the question is should some humanitarian refugees (like the 12000 Syrian Christian refugees) be given priority over other humanitarian refugees, it's difficult.

What I can say is ;

1. why wait for these farmers to go to refugee centres when they can be brought in at minimal cost to contribute to Australia within a matter of months. Do we really need to wait for circumstances to deteriorate to the point where they are unable to pick themselves back up.
2. There are so many people who qualify as humanitarian refugees in the world, Australia cannot allow them all in, should Australia be allowed to pick and choose... this is really a question for the electorate or the average Australian. Do you want the Australian Government to be selective in who they allow into Australia or should it be first come first serve regardless of culture fit, ability to speak english, education and ability to be productive etc.?

 

Good comment,
you nailed it, some questions remain, these farmers are not even close to what other refugees are going through, so choose them because they are white, Christian and speak English?
And the other thing I believe in is that we should give those the thumb up who fled war zones which we helped to create in the first place.
Reg.

 

How do you know M, how do you know it's not even close to what other refugees are going through, how do you compare one person's suffering with the next. Being tortured for hours or watching the rape of your wife and daughter or even your husband, son, can in some ways be worse than living in a tent camp. Watching the slow agonising death of a loved one... how do you compare suffering, you can't and that is why I believe Australia should not choose on these grounds. Australia should choose on what is best for Australia because it is the horror and reality of the world we live in... the impossible job of deciding whose suffering is worse.

 

Oh boy,
you just told me a lesson, you are right there.
I would have assumed that someone who is fleeing a war zone is in a worse situation as someone who lives on his farm for many decades, knowing his neighbors and farmhands.
I have heard/read from/of some assaults against white farmers, but not of the kind you described.
So you are right, I really don't know.
My apologies,
regards

 

It's a life of terror M, they have nowhere else to go and fear for their lives and their family's lives every moment of the day and night. You don't sleep through the night, ever, (I did not even live on a farm and it took me three years before I slept through one single night after I moved to Australia). It's a fearful, stressful, terrifying existence when people around you are mutilated, burnt alive, tortured, murdered and you are waiting your turn.

I am in no way saying other refugees have it easier because I don't know their experience, I'm saying we should not try to grade anyone's suffering because unless you've been there it's impossible to know what they are going through.

We criticise the Australian Government constantly but by the standards of some (like Iran who use Afghan and Syrian refugees as canon fodder for their wars) the Australian Government is a saint. (and I'm fully aware of the Greens' opinion of the Aus Government migration policy and still stand by this statement)

 

Well,
as long as we take the moral high grounds over the rest of the world we shouldn't burn refugees hands on boiling diesel engines of their get away vessels nor should we leave them to rot in hellholes infinite.
Anything goes with a Liberal/National government, it appears. But still better than what you described, probably, but certainly not good enough for my liking.
Happy to be a Greeny,
cheers

 

I love it, it brings out the best and certainly makes for a good read.

 

But we are compelled to 'grade suffering' because we can't accommodate everyone who is actually a refugee, let alone people who are not refugees but might be.

Many of the people living in refugee camps have been through everything you describe and more. Rape, torture, child soldiers, family, friends & sometimes entire communities killed. Many have no home to return to, even if it is safe. In Myanmar more Rohingya were killed in one month than SA farmers have been killed in my lifetime. The military was beheading children. The camps in Bangladesh are barely habitable & the Bangladeshi government wants to push them back into Myanmar, a nation that denies them citizenship despite living there for centuries. The camps in the eastern Congo are equally hellish. Rape & murder are a daily occurrence and armed militias roam the area. There are numerous examples from around the world of terrible violence in camps themselves. They are often not secure environments and for those living in them there are frequently no alternatives.

Additionally, camps that are poorly run carry the risk of disease outbreaks. They require outside funding and lots of it. People can be stuck there for decades or even generations, often with only limited opportunities for schooling & employment.

I understand that you have a personal stake in this, but what is happening in Sth Africa at this stage simply doesn't compare. Those farmers are experiencing the sort of conditions hundreds of millions of people all over the world who are not remotely considered refugees have to deal with all the time. We are only noticing their plight because they are 'like us'.

Given limited resources people in the greatest need should be prioritized. That means other, deserving people will miss out.

 

in your opinion, it doesn't compare... in your opinion. Others have a different opinion and thus it makes grading suffering subjective, not quantifiable.

Your other comments they are like us etc.... few people in Australia actually care about any of this, the only people who care are those who;

1. try to turn it into a rasist issue
2. trying to score political points
3. want to help the white farmers

 

Sorry, but this is bollocks and I suspect that deep down you know it. If suffering can't be graded then some millionaire in Europe suffering from depression caused by their dislike of a particular government is no different to someone sitting in a camp in Congo who has been raped & mutilated by the people who killed her family. We grade suffering all the time and it makes sense to do so.

Even if you don't much care for the facts I've laid out about conditions - which are not opinion - others do. Those facts play a role in who gets to come here as a refugee, as they should.

Sorry, but the 'like us' bit is a major reason why this particular group is getting attention. Part of that is the people who are pushing the issue for explicitly 'like us' reasons, like Dutton. Another part of it is simply that we find it easier to relate to people who are 'like us'. That is a major reason why 10 people being killed in Western Europe or Nth America (the white bits) gets so much more attention than hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of non-white people being killed. The Congolese Civil Wars killed more people than any conflict since WW2 & barely made the news. Some kid with a gun at a US school gets more coverage.

That isn't about racism for the most part, but 'relatability'. White farmers have a 'like us' quality that a Rohingya will never have, so the deaths of a relatively small number of people on Sth African farms gets disproportionate coverage. There are other factors, but that is a big one.