Search results

I don't know what you are trying to argue here. Are you suggesting that people, who can't communicate and are usually illiterate, won't need to be on welfare and looked after by Australian tax payer dollars? Because you have admitted that they will be, thus my point still stands of what...

So you are for allowing people to come into this country, ok fair enough, next question. What do we do with them once they get here?

The article is irrelevant. You’re doing what I'm suggesting people stop doing which is avoiding the question. To summarise that article, “People are trespassing onto Australian land BUT BUT!!! It's not as bad as xyz so we should just lie down and accept whilst giving them lots of stuff they...

I am not aware of any conclusive data on the subject, nor do I think it is possible to get any as everybody lies. There will always be people coming here for a better life, whether it is for purely economic reasons or because of some kind of persecution, thus the ratio of 'true refugees' to...

The UN has 0 powers, case in point Rwanda. Nothing came of the Tampa Crisis; nothing will come of a repeat in a similar situation. Australia is a sovereign nation that is able to decide who comes here and under what conditions.

Maybe it's just me, but could you rephrase that question so I can understand it?

My 2 cents on this asylum seeker debate. What people have failed to recognise is that this is a debate between the ideas of internationalism vs national sovereignty. Currently you (Hippies) either support all individuals having the ability to come here, proceeding to live off welfare and other...

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

Christianity. Just say you love Jebus and you can do anything apparently

:(

I wish we had it so that X number of votes to X party guarantees a seat in the parliament. It would be so much more fun that way!

Ok well as stated I have at no point denied that people believe that, everbody knows that there are people who believe in such a thing, soooooooo the question is why did you bring it up if not to argue whether it was true or not? Well that's stupid. What's the point in arguing anything if...

You evaded the point made, their morals have changed that was the point, and whether they claim otherwise is irrelevant. They may believe they know what is absolutely moral and right and that it is unchangeable, but the fact of the matter, is that they have changed their minds, and that in...

Wrong. The morals of Catholics and that of the Catholic Church HAS changed, they may say to the contrary but they would be kidding themselves. Slavery was permitted and endorsed by the Catholic Church for most of its existence; it was morally ok to own another person. It may not have been till...

Perhaps fickle was the wrong word to use. But you agree that morality does differ on all scales, I.E. person to person, region to region, across space and time. The moral consensus on many issues in the western world has without a doubt changed dramatically over the past 100 years. Leads me to...

What is moral and right to a Christian, may be immoral and wrong to her. Morality is a fickle thing.

The expression and discussion of contradictory ideas and opinions is always a valid and worthy pursuit, lest we let our culture and society stagnate through blind acceptance and by "Keeping it to ourselves."

OMG ! I used to do this! But then I gave up and embraced my hatred of others who disgust me, ugh muslims

Pretty much. Isn't the main reason marriage became a matter for the state was because of issues of illegitimacy and inheritance, which of course society couldn't give two shits about now a days?

I, for one, welcome our new incest overlords