Again... you accept if the law of the land tells you not to do something and you do it... you have done wrong and need punishing.
Not necessarily. There are laws that I morally disagree with - I accept that they are the law, and are a consequence of having a structured society, but I don't accept that by breaking those specific laws or by breaking the law in general you have necessarily done something 'wrong'. Illegal and wrong are only the same thing in an ideal world.
Yet the bible tells you the same thing. It tells you what is wrong and why you sin if you do it.
Is it, though, wrong in and of itself, or is it simply wrong because the deity decides that it is wrong? Is it deontologically wrong, or is there an independent ethical value to it?
So it is established in the bible by God for those who believe. You are an atheist...what is it to you?
It's an input to people who have a place in the government that determines the laws of the land in which I live - laws like those on assisted dying or the provision of marriage or equalities legislation.
How can you without faith establish or apply anything in the true context?
Because we aren't misled by ancient fairy stories, perhaps?
You don't have an argument... The bible is clear and if you want to say it is wrong then just prove it.
It's not for me to prove that it's wrong. You're making the claim that it has merit - I'll accept each argument you give on its own basis, and accept or refute it as such. Until you've made a robust case for gods I can just ignore them.
Well, if even your own brother has no value to you then why would refugees have any value. We either acknowledge if we cannot love our brother who we can see and help then there is no love or real care or wanting to do it for a stranger.
I think I agree with your broad sentiment here, I think we're just phrasing it differently: how can we value one person in need over another is what I'm trying to say.
Your brother and you are already in the boat. Do you drag someone out of the water to replace your brother.
You could push your brother into the water with the other person. Which means both are without.
Now our country already has your brother living here. Should they ignore his needs to aid the needs of someone who does not already live here?
My point is, though, that as a country we have a massive boat, and some people in it have ten cabins to themselves whilst we argue about whether we can afford to let 10 people or 12 who are in need share one.
Are you Britsh born and bread?
Bred.. Yes, I am.
It isn't about them stealing jobs and benefits.
For a lot of people it would seem that it is.
It is about our own people being homeless and starving whilst they give houses and benefits to foreigners.
Our own people don't need to be homeless either, we have enough to go around.
Something completely different. We are not a wealthy nation any longer our wealth is being given to foreign countries.
We are the fifth largest economy in the world. Our average income per person is vastly in excess of the majority of the world's population. Both individually and as a nation we are, by any measure, a rich nation.
Our old age pensioners starving and dying from cold whilst they send millions abroad. If sending millions of pounds abroad why are people still coming here.
Because those millions we are sending abroad are being shared amongst millions. Do we have pensioners starving and dying at home - generally speaking no, we have a relatively small portion of the populace who are making bad choices, but even then there are safety nets to catch them. We could well stand to more equitably distribute the money we have, absolutely, but it's difficult to find someone who is short of the necessities of life without finidng someone who has made bad choices to get there.
The Government are sending Aid to other countries whilst their own people suffer.
Not to anything like the same degree. People here have health-care, have job opportunities, have legal defences.
The royals came and helped refurbish old houses for our troops left homeless having defended their country.
The Royals came and actually did a day's sort of actual work whilst making damned sure they made their money's worth in PR for their parasitic lifestyle... woohoo, let me break out a trumpet.
NO it stops now. Look after our own first and then look after the rest of the world. If you over fill a boat it will capsize and all will be lost.
Yeah, that's the Christian way. You hypocrite.
NO Our health care is contributed to by National insurance and tax. Nothing is free and it was paid for by our grandparents and we have contributed too.
No, it wasn't. It was set up by our grandparents, but what is being spent now is being taxed on us, just as their pensions that they are now claiming is being paid by us. At least, though, we have the opportunity to be taxed and to elect people at our discretion who will determine the level of taxation and what that will be spent on - do these refugees have that luxury where they come from? What benefits do they get from their taxation? What chance to elect governments do they get?
The only people getting it free is refugees and foreigners.
In the main they want to work and they want to pay taxes. Yes, they want to do it here because it gives them better options than other places, what right do you have to say you deserve that chance and they don't? You say your grandparents built this system, fine - that's what they did. What do you do to deserve the benefits of it?
Just as the leaders in Lebanon are responsible for it's own people.
But those people didn't choose that government, and that government isn't governing in their best interests. What have they done to deserve that? Nothing, they were just born there.
If we were in trouble they would NOT HELP US.
We don't know if they would or wouldn't, but that's not really the point - we don't determine what's right or wrong based on how the worst possible people would treat us in return.
It isn't about deserving... but at any time when things were good they could have left Lebanon but they did not.
Firstly, perhaps they actually couldn't - legally or financially - but even if they could, whilst there wasn't a problem why would they? And for those people that are coming from peaceful, adequate places because the possibilities are better here - Poles, say, or Hungarians and Bulgarians - they face the same response.
They only want to come here for the free care and homes. TROJAN HORSE comes to mind. Once in they will wreck this Country too.
No, they want to come here for stability and education for their children and the chance to earn a comfortable, safe living. They don't mind paying taxes, because they value what those taxes go towards.
Go and tell your neighbour you want him to keep you. Pay your mortgage and all your bills.
Nobody's asking for that. Trying climbing out of the Daily Mail for a minute.
Because that is the real issue not the stupid and ignorant thing you just said. You see this Nation is basically like you and your neighbour. Both in the world, both with your own houses and now you want your neighbour to pay for you to live where you are and keep you. NO you would not get that would you. No more than you would pay for your neighbours because responsibility begins with you and your home. Just as the Lebanon predicament begins with them, their own Government/rulers and people as a nation. They cannot demand or expect another nation to pay for them and even move into their home.
No, I see it as my neighbour is a twat who beats his family. His son wants to leave home, get a job and move on with his life, and the rest of the town is saying 'But you're one of those - stay in that house, get beaten, we don't owe you anything, our jobs and houses are for decent, upright, people'.
Whose fault is it, that their countries are destitute, war-torn, hostile piss-holes lacking in infrastructure and temperature climates that make Western Europe so easy to live in. Do you honestly think you have an argument of some type there.
Yes. Do you think the refugees are the ones with access to government bank accounts to buy weapons systems?
They made their country what it is today as the rest of Europe did. As or the rest LEBANON IS NOT PART OF THE UK nor is it our responsibility.
Perhaps, as a Christian, you should try reading some of that Christianity stuff again... Good Samaritan, perhaps, or at worst the Prodigal Son.
That is because companies have built up their industries.
Because they're based in stable Western democracies where they have that option.
Footballers and teams have absolutely nothing to do with politics and are not responsible for Lebanon.
The obligation is on all of us, not just on politicians. If you have billions of pounds that you don't need, can you really justify funding Chelsea Football Club's latest multi-million pound bench-warming left back when people are starving on beaches waiting to risk their lives to escape a hopeless, desperate life?
Each man has the right to his own house, land, and living they have earned.
And what of these people, who are facing having that right taken away? If you believe in those rights why are you denying people them? 'It's not our problem' you say, no it's their problem, but we can help.
We are NOT responsible for every other Country on earth
Am I not my brother's keeper any more?
Your arguments fail till you can show the UK to be responsible for every other Country and their people in the world.
Firstly, you don't need to be responsible for someone situation in order to help them, or it wouldn't be called charity it would be called compensation. Secondly, the way economics (and mid 20th Century politics) works means that, actually, yes, our good fortune now is a direct influence on their situation.
We do not have the room, the money or the housing to look after our own.
Bullshit, bullshit and why not? Not lack of resources, not lack of opportunity, but because two-face lying shits horde the money, pretend like they care and kick the poor and desperate when they're down. We could easily build enough housing for all our own people, and many from outside, and we could easily feed and employ them, but we wouldn't make as much profit as we do now - people don't count, coinage does, and you bleat about being the holiest of holy then back them to hilt.
O.
