European migrant crisis: Shipwrecks 'kill up to 700 migrants' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killuah;50436604]In the case of Syria this is actually wrong????? The neighbouring states are hosting millions of refugees under horrible conditions? North Africa is no option as well, Arab Spring fucked that up pretty well too. Agree so far. this is literally the black and white thinking you are speaking about? "they are helping because they want to look good" is literally that exact black and white thinking?[/QUOTE] Doesn't means they all have to go next door straight away. But it also doesn't means they have to traverse half of the world to reach the cream of the crop. It ends up being more of a danger than anything else. The black and white thing is referencing the way how people say "you help them you're ok, you don't help them you're obviously a bad person because you just don't want to help them." [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50436687]the agenda is better treatment of the kind of people who died what the fuck are you talking about that's like saying that emotional appeals using the deaths of 9/11 first responders is disgusting when pushing the agenda of better treatment for 9/11 first responders[/QUOTE] That's not what he meant

The more migrants will come, the more far-right Europe will become. Every action has a reaction.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50436625]Emotional appeal using the deaths of human beings to push an agenda is fuckibg disgusting regardless of what agenda is being pushed.[/QUOTE] Asking people to please not say that refugees from North Africa are welfare leeches and not really refugees (we just deemed North African countries as "Safe") is...disgusting?

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50436728] That's not what he meant[/QUOTE] what did he mean then

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50436641]Europe does not want, nor need to take care of the world's problems. They took the risk of using a vessel which was top-heavy and it flipped on them, causing the deaths of several innocent people. If any of the traffickers that encouraged people to get on this boat are found, give them nothing short of a bullet for ultimately leading to deaths of hundreds.[/QUOTE] Yea we just want to take care of the worlds ressources. [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50436728]The black and white thing is referencing the way how people say "you help them you're ok, you don't help them you're obviously a bad person because you just don't want to help them." [/QUOTE] But you ARE a bad person if you don't want to help them? The only thing that is to be discussed is how to do that.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50436625]Emotional appeal using the deaths of human beings to push an agenda is fuckibg disgusting regardless of what agenda is being pushed.[/QUOTE] My proposed solution expedite movement taking it out of the hands of criminal smugglers, making it safer for us and the refugees/migrants, easier to regulate, less money spent on search and rescue and less money going to criminals and terrorists. If someone from a foreign country commits a crime while in your country they should be considered for deportation (unless its terrorism and organised crime in which case its safer to keep them locked up). Let successful asylum seekers stay in the country and get jobs, encourage integration, don't let them move to ghettos, spread them across the country ideally with local volunteers to act as a kind of buddy system, there are precedents for this successfully working in Canada. Put priority for such integration programs towards families, especially families with children. Stop right wing groups from controlling the narrative, they flood the media with lies to destabilise europe and gain more support, get more money and spread hate. Using european ships to take control of people's movement in the med would save those lives, its not an emotional appeal, its a logical one. People are dying, here is the solution which just happens to fix several other issues. Stopping the smugglers would mean we can spend less on search and rescue operations, that money can be directed toward moving people, doing security checks and providing support for refugees. I also believe all countries in europe should agree to share refugees. 1 country refusing might be itself better off, but then those refugees are still in europe and someone else has to take the burden; the more spread out refugees are the lower impact they will have, economically and culturally. It's not a problem of if they are coming and how we can stop them, its a problem of they are coming and how can be best handle the situation. You might call it an emotional argument to mention people are dying, but they are infact dying and it would be nice to have a solution rather than some nebulous "we gotta stop the invaders!" rhetoric thats being pushed by some.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50436911]My proposed solution expedite movement taking it out of the hands of criminal smugglers, making it safer for us and the refugees/migrants, easier to regulate and less money going to criminals and terrorists. If someone from a foreign country commits a crime while in your country they should be considered for deportation (unless its terrorism and organised crime in which case its safer to keep them locked up). Let successful asylum seekers stay in the country and get jobs, encourage integration, don't let them move to ghettos, spread them across the country ideally with local volunteers to act as a kind of buddy system, there are precedents for this successfully working in Canada. Put priority for such integration programs towards families, especially families with children. Stop right wing groups from controlling the narrative, they flood the media with lies to destabilise europe and gain more support, get more money and spread hate. Using european ships to take control of people's movement in the med would save those lives, its not an emotional appeal, its a logical one. People are dying, here is the solution which just happens to fix several other issues. Stopping the smugglers would mean we can spend less on search and rescue operations, that money can be directed toward moving people, doing security checks and providing support for refugees. I also believe all countries in europe should agree to share refugees. 1 country refusing might be itself better off, but then those refugees are still in europe and someone else has to take the burden; the more spread out refugees are the lower impact they will have, economically and culturally. It's not a problem of if they are coming and how we can stop them, its a problem of they are coming and how can be best handle the situation. You might call it an emotional argument to mention people are dying, but they are infact dying and it would be nice to have a solution rather than some nebulous "we gotta stop the invaders!" rhetoric thats being pushed by some.[/QUOTE] Thank you for typing this out.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50436755] But you ARE a bad person if you don't want to help them? The only thing that is to be discussed is how to do that.[/QUOTE] and you arent a bad person for fucking it up for other people in the process?

What kind of poor-against-poor scenario are you hinting at this time?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50436753]what did he mean then[/QUOTE] He meant killuah is using this as an excuse to say that refugees are indeed in need of help, and there arent any hoping in on the bandwagon for free without need. [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;50437280]What kind of poor-against-poor scenario are you hinting at this time?[/QUOTE] I'm not hinting at any poor vs poor scenario. I'm hinting at every problem that rised up from the decisions made.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50436687]the agenda is better treatment of the kind of people who died what the fuck are you talking about that's like saying that emotional appeals using the deaths of 9/11 first responders is disgusting when pushing the agenda of better treatment for 9/11 first responders[/QUOTE] Apples to Oranges. These are people migrating to Europe and trying to get a better life, some of whom may have potentially been simply migrating to leech off of the European welfare state. Not people running into the howling darkness and knowingly risking their lives to save people that were attacked out of the blue. I don't think emotional appeal is even needed nor is it appropriate for the first responders either as their actions and the actions of their fallen brothers alone demonstrated they deserve a LOT. [QUOTE=Killuah;50436746]Asking people to please not say that refugees from North Africa are welfare leeches and not really refugees (we just deemed North African countries as "Safe") is...disgusting?[/QUOTE] Pushing a political agenda using deaths of people is disgusting, regardless of what side you're pushing, so yeah it actually is; I stand by what I originally stated. These people could've potentially been people looking to leech off of European welfare, or could've been people in dire need of actual help.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50437335]He meant killuah is using this as an excuse to say that refugees are indeed in need of help, and there arent any hoping in on the bandwagon for free without need. [/QUOTE] Yes, any excuse like for example thousands of people drowning in the sea. Holy shit. [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50437614]Apples to Oranges. These are people migrating to Europe and trying to get a better life, some of whom may have potentially been simply migrating to leech off of the European welfare state. Not people running into the howling darkness and knowingly risking their lives to save people that were attacked out of the blue. I don't think emotional appeal is even needed nor is it appropriate for the first responders either as their actions and the actions of their fallen brothers alone demonstrated they deserve a LOT. Pushing a political agenda using deaths of people is disgusting, regardless of what side you're pushing, so yeah it actually is; I stand by what I originally stated. These people could've potentially been people looking to leech off of European welfare, or could've been people in dire need of actual help.[/QUOTE] The political agenda of helping people????? [quote]These are people migrating to Europe and trying to get a better life,[/quote] Better than poverty, famines, war, religious extremism, post-revolution instability.... And this is just North Aftica

[QUOTE]Pushing a political agenda using deaths of people is disgusting, regardless of what side you're pushing, so yeah it actually is; I stand by what I originally stated. These people could've potentially been people looking to leech off of European welfare, or could've been people in dire need of actual help.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Everyone on every side does it and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using death to argue a political point.

The more sure people are that crossing the Mediterranean to Europe can drastically improve their lives, the more people you'll have drowning in the Mediterranean attempting to do so. This will never end as long as you encourage the practice to continue.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50437739]Yes, any excuse like for example thousands of people drowning in the sea. Holy shit.[/QUOTE] And as I've said, you're using that to paint a bad image of anyone who says anything negative about it. Now that's just blackmailing people into thinking its their fault that people drowned in the sea because they didn't go get them. You're beggining to sound delusional tbh. You expect people to go in and save them like a million kittens stuck in trees or something?

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50438175]The more sure people are that crossing the Mediterranean to Europe can drastically improve their lives, the more people you'll have drowning in the Mediterranean attempting to do so. This will never end as long as you encourage the practice to continue.[/QUOTE] Nobody is encouraging it except crooked smugglers though? [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50438615]And as I've said, you're using that to paint a bad image of anyone who says anything negative about it.[/QUOTE] Anyone who is saying anything negative about helping people like the ones in the OP is painting a bad picture about himself, that's not my doing. [quote]Now that's just blackmailing people into thinking its their fault that people drowned in the sea because they didn't go get them.[/quote] What?

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50438175]The more sure people are that crossing the Mediterranean to Europe can drastically improve their lives, the more people you'll have drowning in the Mediterranean attempting to do so. This will never end as long as you encourage the practice to continue.[/QUOTE] If only it was as simple as that

[QUOTE=Killuah;50438856]Nobody is encouraging it except crooked smugglers though? [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] Anyone who is saying anything negative about helping people like the ones in the OP is painting a bad picture about himself, that's not my doing. What?[/QUOTE] Oh please, the promise of help in countries thousands of miles away from them is enough to encourage people, and calling out people for saying we shouldn't divert all attention to helping is your doing. It has been your doing for a while now. Don't act like you haven't pointed fingers at people before over it. And just because YOU deem it a bad picture, doesn't means it is. Or hell, you could call it a bad picture, but at least people actually give two thoughts about the problem before saying "WE MUST HELP EVERYONE" and going in without a care in the world to what consequences that might have. And with that, you're essentialy blackmailing people into thinking their bad people and that its their fault people drowned at sea. As I've said before, maybe if politicians didn't make it a literal free-for-all, none of this would have happened. How you didn't understand that is beyond me though.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50438856]Nobody is encouraging it except crooked smugglers though?[/QUOTE] You encourage it by taking them in. I'm not saying don't save them, but ship them back. Tell them that it doesn't work that way, tell them not to try to cross the ocean to illegally enter Europe. Arrest anyone caught taking money to smuggle people over seas. If you take them in you are encouraging more people to risk their lives crossing the sea in shitty makeshift boats. How is it not obvious to you that accepting this as a means of immigration only encourages more people to do it?

Maybe risking their lives to cross the sea in shitty makeshift boats is better than staying behind no matter what help they expect to recieve.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50439303]How short-sighted. What are they gonna do back in Libya? Walk back to wherever they came from? They are gonna try again. You dont take them in, they go in illegally.[/QUOTE] And when you take them in more people will continue to drown in the sea because you are literally rewarding that risk. You can't have it both ways. You don't stop people from doing stupid things by rewarding them for it.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50439304]Maybe risking their lives to cross the sea in shitty makeshift boats is better than staying behind no matter what help they expect to recieve.[/QUOTE] Literaly dying vs dying, at this point. How about not traveling thousands of miles through dangerous "roads"

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50439296]You encourage it by taking them in. I'm not saying don't save them, but ship them back. Tell them that it doesn't work that way, tell them not to try to cross the ocean to illegally enter Europe. Arrest anyone caught taking money to smuggle people over seas. If you take them in you are encouraging more people to risk their lives crossing the sea in shitty makeshift boats. How is it not obvious to you that by accepting this as a means of immigration only encourages more people to do it?[/QUOTE] Yes I am sure it's not famines, war and terror driving people on those boats. I'm sure they have this wonderful image of Europe and it's not the horrible conditions back there where these boats still seem like the better option. If only we could ask them. Oh wait we can. [url]http://www.badil.org/en/publication/periodicals/al-majdal/item/2078-article-8.html[/url] [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gol8FL-rbLQ[/url] [url]http://rightnow.org.au/topics/children-and-youth/interviews-with-refugees/[/url]

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50439400]Do you think less people will come in if you don "take them in" whatever that means.[/QUOTE] That seems pretty obvious, yes. I'd much rather see our countries providing foreign aid to stop people from needing to flee their countries in the first place than trying to harbor everyone in the world who manages to make it within our borders. Obviously actual refugees fleeing war need to be cared for but the way that's been done so far has been "Short Sighted" from my perspective. The way Europe's politicians have handled this so far almost seems like a joke. [QUOTE=Killuah;50439480]Yes I am sure it's not famines, war and terror driving people on those boats. I'm sure they have this wonderful image of Europe and it's not the horrible conditions back there where these boats still seem like the better option. If only we could ask them.[/QUOTE] And how exactly is the solution to Famine, war, and terror to just take in everyone affected who makes it to your border? It would be much better to solve these problems where they are, rather than trying to cope with the population of people that can physically reach your border. I don't like seeing people suffer anymore than you do, but your solutions don't actually do anything to stop suffering, all the problems that are causing people to flee are still starving and killing people in those countries, our resources should be spent trying to fix those problems instead, it would save so many more people and be infinitely less controversial than what's being done right now.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50439485]That seems pretty obvious, yes. I'd much rather see our countries providing foreign aid to stop people from needing to flee their countries in the first place than trying to harbor everyone in the world who manages to make it within our borders. Obviously actual refugees fleeing war need to be cared for but the way that's been done so far has been "Short Sighted" from my perspective. The way Europe's politicians have handled this so far is almost seems like a joke.[/QUOTE] Except we are not harbouring [I]everyone in the world[/I] but actually a very small percentage of the refugees.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50436911]My proposed solution expedite movement taking it out of the hands of criminal smugglers, making it safer for us and the refugees/migrants, easier to regulate, less money spent on search and rescue and less money going to criminals and terrorists. If someone from a foreign country commits a crime while in your country they should be considered for deportation (unless its terrorism and organised crime in which case its safer to keep them locked up). Let successful asylum seekers stay in the country and get jobs, encourage integration, don't let them move to ghettos, spread them across the country ideally with local volunteers to act as a kind of buddy system, there are precedents for this successfully working in Canada. Put priority for such integration programs towards families, especially families with children. Stop right wing groups from controlling the narrative, they flood the media with lies to destabilise europe and gain more support, get more money and spread hate. Using european ships to take control of people's movement in the med would save those lives, its not an emotional appeal, its a logical one. People are dying, here is the solution which just happens to fix several other issues. Stopping the smugglers would mean we can spend less on search and rescue operations, that money can be directed toward moving people, doing security checks and providing support for refugees. I also believe all countries in europe should agree to share refugees. 1 country refusing might be itself better off, but then those refugees are still in europe and someone else has to take the burden; the more spread out refugees are the lower impact they will have, economically and culturally. It's not a problem of if they are coming and how we can stop them, its a problem of they are coming and how can be best handle the situation. You might call it an emotional argument to mention people are dying, but they are infact dying and it would be nice to have a solution rather than some nebulous "we gotta stop the invaders!" rhetoric thats being pushed by some.[/QUOTE] So what do you do with the ones that commit no crimes, but are basically dead weight (don't work and take benefits)? Currently you can't kick those out, the EU court makes sure of that. What do you do in between the time the laws are changed, if they are even capable of being changed that is?

[QUOTE=Killuah;50439496]Except we are not harbouring [I]everyone in the world[/I][b] who manages to make it within our borders.[/b][/QUOTE] Are you really going to strawman that blatantly by cutting half the sentence off of what I said?

[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;50439546]So what do you do with the ones that commit no crimes, but are basically dead weight (don't work and take benefits)? Currently you can't kick those out, the EU court makes sure of that. What do you do in between the time the laws are changed, if they are even capable of being changed that is?[/QUOTE] The same that we are doing with non-immigrant "dead weight"(god how do you not feel dirty using that phrase for humans) Aid gets down to levels ensuring basic human existance [editline]1st June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=soulharvester;50439548]Are you really going to strawman that blatantly by cutting half the sentence off of what I said?[/QUOTE] *edits post he quoted* I was just replying to that because I was talking about that loaded rhetoric of yours, no need to quote the rest.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50439559]I was just replying to that because I was talking about that loaded rhetoric of yours, no need to quote the rest.[/QUOTE] "The rest" was a part of the thought, the argument. If you only see what you want to see and argue with the portions that are convenient then no wonder it's so easy for you to push this agenda without seeing any issues with it. You have no integrity.

That's ok but that still doesn't make the phrase "harbouring everyone on the world" any less demagogic and loaded and the rest of your post didn't do anything to clarify what you meant with that manipulative phrasing. Fact is we are not "harbouring", we are giving refuge. And it's not "everyone in the world", it's a small percentage of the refugees.