Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
That didn't address what I said.
Just because you applied for asylum doesn't mean you don't have to feed yourself and house yourself.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
No, generally no. And demanding them to is, in practice, simply a way to reject the notion of asylum without daring to express it. It's an excuse, like many others, to make asylum impossible while presenting it as some clean hands rationality.
Asylum seekers aren't allowed to work in the UK, and it looks like they aren't in the US unless the government fails to process your asylum claim on time (and then they can apply to be allowed to work after about six months).
Yeah so they would have to finance their trip and pre-approval stay before departing to account for that. If these are not economic migrants but regular people fleeing some sort of catastrophe, surely they have some savings.
Like if you don't have enough fuel to make the trans-atlantic flight you don't depart anyways and then ask to be refueled mid-air by your purported destination country at their expense. No destination would agree do that. Departing and emotionally blackmailing your destination cause you will crash if not refueled shouldn't be promoted, and just because you chose out of your own volition to head somewhere, that doesn't make you the destination's responsibility even when you are within other jurisdictions.
Nah, Tstorm has got you beat with the "Climate change will be good for the planet" thing going on.
This is just complete bollocks. That's not how it happens, even with all legal procedures followed.
Yeah. They should just stay where they are and die, out of a desire not to inconvenience you.
There's a right and a wrong way to move from one country to another. I know cause I did it myself. If someone's actually in danger, then by merely getting to mexico they no longer risk death, they can just stay there and they won't die. They're mexico's responsibility.
So... why should they head to Mexico rather than the US? Why is Mexico by default higher on the list of options than the US?
If we're talking about the ability to provide for refugees, then the US is far wealthier and able to accommodate. And the US was also itself involved in creating/exacerbating many of the conflicts around the world from which people are now having to flee-- and the one who creates a bad situation, or makes it worse, is usually considered to have greater responsibility to ameliorate its impact.
If the US is closer they should head here but if Mexico's closer they should stay there, it's about getting to safety, not to wealth.
We're not talking about the ability to provide for them (clearly there's no ability to provide for our citizens with all the homeless btw), we're talking for the ability to remove them from life-threatening-circumstances.
The US isn't responsible that another country is unable to withstand its influence, that failure lies solely on the shoulders of that country's leadership. Those people were failed by their own governments, not by the US, the US is just doing its best for its citizens and doesn't have any responsibility for the citizens of other countries. If we are to say otherwise then we should just gobble up all those states and have them pay taxes.
The ability is there. Just not the desire amongst those that have the ability.
Wut.
This is semantics at this point but I define as "ability" the capacity to generate an outcome, whatever that may entail. If there's a way but there's no will, we don't have that capacity, and the thing lacking is purpose and feeling as opposed to materials.
Countries will vie for influence, power, resources, all that. A country's responsibility is to fend off other countries' interests while asserting its own. Failure to do so is the fault of the one failing, not of the others who did not fail and managed to exert influence to their benefit and the detriment of the country who failed.
Last edited:
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you realise New York is a port city, right? One of the most famous in the world in fact. So it’s not inconceivable that he may be referring to those who arrive by ship in New York City Harbour.
That's actually the pattern, Silvanus. Glacial periods set in slowly for long periods of ice, then the globe heats rapidly back towards thaw. The term is Dansgaard Oeschger events. When the most recent glacial period receded, the temperature in Greenland is estimated to have spiked 8 degrees C over just 40 years.
That describes interglacials within an ice age, but our best understanding of ice ages on the full geological time scale have a similar pattern of slow cooling periods descending into ice ages and relatively rapid heating periods ending them.
You, like Silvanus, have a serious misunderstanding of how quickly the world can change. It doesn't take millions of years for everything to change. The variations in people and domesticated animals across the globe are from the last few millenia. The food you eat didn't exist in the form it is now a few centuries ago. Huge swaths of nature are being challanged by "invasive species", with whole ecosystems being overturned within a decades. Nature does not move slowly.
To the best of our knowledge, that isn't true. High temperatures for much of the Earth were not terribly different than they are now (caveat, this is all best guesswork, obviously history isn't truly knowable), the big temperature difference was the ocean was much warmer and the poles were unfrozen, I've never seen any suggestion that the land was getting death-valley hot. Also, I wouldn't call 2% the entire age of the planet "extremely short".
So, you're fine with catastrophic global biodiversity loss and the collapse of all existing ecosystems because you don't see the difference between biodiversity and a bunch of slightly different looking cows?
Nature does not move slowly because we live in the middle of an extinction event, which is on the verge of becoming the sixth mass extinction in earth's history. Mass extinctions occur when conditions change so quickly that the great majority of species on the planet cannot adapt and die out. The impact of humans on the planet resembles a catastrophic cosmic or tectonic event more than the normal state of affairs.
Think about this one for a second. Where, in this scenario, do you imagine that the energy to heat the oceans (and only the oceans) was coming from?
It takes a lot more energy to heat water than to heat air.
Last edited:
Arguing that asylum seekers should be starving and homeless if they don't have months worth of savings from their home country where everything costed dramatically less than it does in the United States (cost of living goes both ways, everything is just way more expensive here) while arguing the USA doesn't have a responsibility for the lives in the countries we devastate because they didn't have the power to resist our sheer economic might lands you pretty solidly in Blatant Gundam Villain territory
Geographical closeness to their original country is a ridiculous metric to judge by. It means bugger all. The only reason you want to focus on that-- rather than on the ability of the country to accommodate, which is far more pertinent-- is convenience for the US (at the cost to anyone who isn't the US).
LOL. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the US has more than enough resources to tackle homelessness. It opts not to bother.
"The perpetrator of the crime isn't responsible for the fact the victim was unable to avoid being mugged. That failure lies solely on the shoulders of the victim".
Give me a break.
I believe this mindset is what allows people to sleep at night. And who am I to suggest that robbing the vulnerable (anyone smaller than me) should lead to a teeny tiny bit of the old insomnia?