Wrist Bands For Asylum Seekers

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:


uhm...that made sense...not  

oh and look after your own is, once again, NOT a specifically "hitler" argument either.....(i think thats what you are trying (wrongly) to imply)

(cf the grave digger/road digger)

plenty of other, quite reasonable people have also used it...

More gibberish, Hitler talked of his own as in Germans, you thus either English or British, so nice try but sorry Victor you are not escaping out of your racial reasoning. Its fundamentally an argument used by Hitler, are you denying that?
Not only that the whole reason to label them was to then deny the homeless food, even more idiotic.

the idiocy you descibe here is undisputed, non the less it is real

AND, you would STILL have to identify the homeless too...(which might answer the problem if you think about it a bit) to stop "free loaders"


So show me how such a racial view of ours can never apply to Hitler racial reasoning?

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

More gibberish, Hitler talked of his own as in Germans, you thus either English or British, so nice try but sorry Victor you are not escaping out of your racial reasoning. Its fundamentally an argument used by Hitler, are you denying that?
Not only that the whole reason to label them was to then deny the homeless food, even more idiotic.

the idiocy you descibe here is undisputed, non the less it is real

AND, you would STILL have to identify the homeless too...(which might answer the problem if you think about it a bit) to stop "free loaders"


So show me how such a racial view of ours can never apply to Hitler racial reasoning?

its not a case of whether identifying for the purposes above is hitlerist, which would be absurd, but of the fact that hitler used this form of identification (for wrongful reasons)

morally the two are NOT comparable

hitler used it to DENY a race things
these bands are used to PROVIDE a group with something

somewhat different motives my (not very clear thinking) friend

NOw...if you are saying that they are in fact having unfortunate "side effects" then perhaps we may agree.......

BUT  

obvioulsy SOME form of ID IS needed.....and one which is both secure AND is "inexpensive"....I have just given the tax office permission to raid my "pile" for a considerable amount

I already pay enough (or rather the govt does on my behalf) to foreign deserving (and some not so deserving) cases, via foreign aid....

so I really done see why I should be expected to stump up more still......

Lord Foul wrote:yep...and???

all that is meaningless in this context...

Lord Foul wrote:I'm enjoying you looking a donkey didge

so what you are saying in fact is that we have a nazi govt then???

these bands are NOT there to "identify to the public"

they are there to facilitate a service to them

NOW...

if in doing that primary purpose they are also having the unfortunate side effect of "identifying to the public"
then perhaps there is a case for something different....

BUT the fact remains that your whole hysterical "hitler crying" is both false and irritating....
you make a case for intended malice where non was contemplated....

lets face it. wrist bands are now commonly used to identify, well , almost anyone you like....if a need for id is warranted...

and since govt officials generally dont suffer from cripling paranoia, I dont suppose anyone even thought of the issue in this light untill someone brought it up...

Lord Foul wrote:I'm enjoying you looking a donkey didge

so what you are saying in fact is that we have a nazi govt then???

these bands are NOT there to "identify to the public"

they are there to facilitate a service to them

NOW...

if in doing that primary purpose they are also having the unfortunate side effect of "identifying to the public"
then perhaps there is a case for something different....

BUT the fact remains that your whole hysterical "hitler crying" is both false and irritating....
you make a case for intended malice where non was contemplated....

lets face it. wrist bands are now commonly used to identify, well , almost anyone you like....if a need for id is warranted...

and since govt officials generally dont suffer from cripling paranoia, I dont suppose anyone even thought of the issue in this light untill someone brought it up...

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:I'm enjoying you looking a donkey didge

so what you are saying in fact is that we have a nazi govt then???

these bands are NOT there to "identify to the public"

they are there to facilitate a service to them

NOW...

if in doing that primary purpose they are also having the unfortunate side effect of "identifying to the public"
then perhaps there is a case for something different....

BUT the fact remains that your whole hysterical "hitler crying" is both false and irritating....
you make a case for intended malice where non was contemplated....

lets face it. wrist bands are now commonly used to identify, well , almost anyone you like....if a need for id is warranted...

and since govt officials generally dont suffer from cripling paranoia, I dont suppose anyone even thought of the issue in this light untill someone brought it up...

Never claimed we had a Nazi Government, false application to not what was stated

Desperation by Victor number 1

They are to identify them from the general public, as can someone walk in and obtain food without them in the general public?

isnt that rather the point ???

Desperation number 2 from Victor


They are there to identify them as a group easily identifiable as asylums seekers

that is NOT THE PRIME PURPOSE, it is not the motive behind them

Desperation of Victim number 3


The point is why use a physical identification when it is not necessary, only something visual to identify then makes it comparable to where Jews had to be identifiable from the rest of the populace, as a marginalized group the same applies here

Its not false and I knows its getting right up your arse seeing you get more agitated, because you know you have no leg to stand on

ts hilarious

Seriously put Tommys dunce hat on because you really need it

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Never claimed we had a Nazi Government, false application to not what was stated

Desperation by Victor number 1

They are to identify them from the general public, as can someone walk in and obtain food without them in the general public?

isnt that rather the point ???

Desperation number 2 from Victor


They are there to identify them as a group easily identifiable as asylums seekers

that is NOT THE PRIME PURPOSE, it is not the motive behind them

Desperation of Victim number 3


The point is why use a physical identification when it is not necessary, only something visual to identify then makes it comparable to where Jews had to be identifiable from the rest of the populace, as a marginalized group the same applies here

Its not false and I knows its getting right up your arse seeing you get more agitated, because you know you have no leg to stand on

ts hilarious

Seriously put Tommys dunce hat on because you really need it

round and round we go

Tommy Monk wrote:The twisting here is almost unbelievable!!!


Asylum seekers are again being put up in a top hotel and being paid for to have full board all inclusive privileges at the hotel... they are being given the privileged full board wristbands to show to the restaurant to get the luxury treatment... all paid for by the taxpayer!!!


And they are twisting it round to try to make out they are somehow 'victims'!!!!



You couldn't make it up!!!

Lord Foul wrote:bullshit didge...

you are being an asinine fool....

the berk that thought the wristband idea up never intended or foresaw the "side effect"
you cannot ascribe "nazi motives or intent (which you have, via the application of such an argument)

it was intended as an easy way to make sure that what was provided for the refugees , went to the refugees, and no one else

the whole "nazi" argument is nothing but hysterical airypersiflage, by nutters with an agenda....

yes the jews have throughout history been "marked", hitler being perhaps the latest
though they also mark themselves (via their distinctive dress)
and also throughout history priviliged groups have ALSO marked themselves via clothing or the right to wear for example a sword
many wear marks unintended, such as some tradesmen bear the marks of their professions...(often characteristic injuries scars etc)

so...

whilst wearing these bands MAY have the bad side effect of "marking" them for the public it is an UNINTENDED side efect, and therfor has NO relationship to nazism, in any shape or form

there is NO NEED to climb the nazi tree....

It is sufficient to point out that by making them wear this, it IS thus identifying them, and thus putting them at risk from idiots in the general public.  Hitler doesnt even need to be mentioned unless you are an hysterical twerp

Lord Foul wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The fact that some think asylum seekers need to thank the host nation is the attitude of a selfish kcunt.

I suppose you expect a "thank you" when you give someone some charity?

as a matter of general politeness yes ...

it may have passed YOU by, but in our culture it is generally considered polite to say thank you when given something....whether asked for or not....

I even once said "thank you" to a ruddy ATM  

Didge wrote:Now i shall leave you to sulk Victor as you clearly are doing lol

It was too easy for me as well, the student easily becomes the master on this here and that is what pisses you off the most

Thanks for all your wisdom, but I do not need it anymore. I have learnt all I can learn from you and now must open up to learn from others who know more than you. Thanks though its been useful, of that I do not deny, but you have served your purpose now

Cheers

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The fact that some think asylum seekers need to thank the host nation is the attitude of a selfish kcunt.

I suppose you expect a "thank you" when you give someone some charity?

as a matter of general politeness yes ...

it may have passed YOU by, but in our culture it is generally considered polite to say thank you when given something....whether asked for or not....

I even once said "thank you" to a ruddy ATM  

I'm going to make a few points (can't think, long night ahead):

1. If you expect something in return, even gratitude, then it's not charity.
2. You should give becuase it's the right thing to do. The fact that you have more than others is just a coincidence, so your money doesn't really belong to you. You're just an administrator of funds. Administrating part of those funds to feed and house those less fortunate should be an obligation on your part.
3. As for expecting a "thank you", lol!!! If you give a starving man food, do you really expect him to be civil? He's frigging starving, haven't eaten or drank anything for days. He's more likely to step over someone else's child and snatch the food from your hand and shovel it down like an animal. And then he'll probably come back for more. That's reality.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Now i shall leave you to sulk Victor as you clearly are doing lol

It was too easy for me as well, the student easily becomes the master on this here and that is what pisses you off the most

Thanks for all your wisdom, but I do not need it anymore. I have learnt all I can learn from you and now must open up to learn from others who know more than you. Thanks though its been useful, of that I do not deny, but you have served your purpose now

Cheers

Lol! No offence (seriously) but you really come off as a total dick sometimes. Are you like this offline too, with all this Jedi-Padawan BS?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

as a matter of general politeness yes ...

it may have passed YOU by, but in our culture it is generally considered polite to say thank you when given something....whether asked for or not....

I even once said "thank you" to a ruddy ATM  

I'm going to make a few points (can't think, long night ahead):

1. If you expect something in return, even gratitude, then it's not charity.
2. You should give becuase it's the right thing to do. The fact that you have more than others is just a coincidence, so your money doesn't really belong to you. You're just an administrator of funds. Administrating part of those funds to feed and house those less fortunate should be an obligation on your part.
3. As for expecting a "thank you", lol!!! If you give a starving man food, do you really expect him to be civil? He's frigging starving, haven't eaten or drank anything for days. He's more likely to step over someone else's child and snatch the food from your hand and shovel it down like an animal. And then he'll probably come back for more. That's reality.

Tommy Monk wrote:What a load of waffle here from veya and Dodge. .. and Zack! !!

Stormee wrote:Would they rather wear a armband here or go go back from whence they came?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I'm going to make a few points (can't think, long night ahead):

1. If you expect something in return, even gratitude, then it's not charity.
2. You should give becuase it's the right thing to do. The fact that you have more than others is just a coincidence, so your money doesn't really belong to you. You're just an administrator of funds. Administrating part of those funds to feed and house those less fortunate should be an obligation on your part.
3. As for expecting a "thank you", lol!!! If you give a starving man food, do you really expect him to be civil? He's frigging starving, haven't eaten or drank anything for days. He's more likely to step over someone else's child and snatch the food from your hand and shovel it down like an animal. And then he'll probably come back for more. That's reality.

Which shows you have never understood someone who is starving because they will be as grateful as can be in the vast majority
Take the Maltese people as a nation, who have been for ever eternally grateful to the fact the British never allowed them to starve to death in WW2. It also shows you fail to understand suffering hardship together as a people under what was the longest continued bombing campaign during WW2. The main priority of sustaining Malta was military, to deny the Axis powers a strategic base, and if denied to the allies, making the Axis ability to supply North Africa that much easier and safer. Take the famines in Ethiopia, where many were eternally grateful for the help provided Your first point of call is to look at this as if charity, as are you claiming from the first moment you are born your parents fed you out of charity? The government has a requirement to feed asylum seekers, so is it really charity when its more a necessity in order to the obligations that nation has made in the past. You seem to be wrongly confusing where you should give freely not wanting something in return, where the person providing the food in person has no obligation and its just their job. So to say its reality shows you have no comprehension of people when they have been liberated and given food from their living nightmare. Only someone bitter does not feel gratitude for those who have helped them.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Which shows you have never understood someone who is starving because they will be as grateful as can be in the vast majority
Take the Maltese people as a nation, who have been for ever eternally grateful to the fact the British never allowed them to starve to death in WW2. It also shows you fail to understand suffering hardship together as a people under what was the longest continued bombing campaign during WW2. The main priority of sustaining Malta was military, to deny the Axis powers a strategic base, and if denied to the allies, making the Axis ability to supply North Africa that much easier and safer. Take the famines in Ethiopia, where many were eternally grateful for the help provided Your first point of call is to look at this as if charity, as are you claiming from the first moment you are born your parents fed you out of charity? The government has a requirement to feed asylum seekers, so is it really charity when its more a necessity in order to the obligations that nation has made in the past. You seem to be wrongly confusing where you should give freely not wanting something in return, where the person providing the food in person has no obligation and its just their job. So to say its reality shows you have no comprehension of people when they have been liberated and given food from their living nightmare. Only someone bitter does not feel gratitude for those who have helped them.

I never said someone would not be grateful once they have been helped but not necessarily while they're being helped. The person who actually helped may even never hear that thanks. Subtly is clearly missed on you.

And let's not pretend YOU know anything about starvation. Lol! When was the last time you missed a meal? HA HA!

Have you even done any charity work to feed starving people or do you spend too much time in online forums?

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:Would they rather wear a armband here or go go back from whence they came?

How about neither choice and carry on with just an identity card which is now being implimented

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:


How about neither choice and carry on with just an identity card which is now being implimented

They lose ID papers on purpose.

Lord Foul wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The fact that some think asylum seekers need to thank the host nation is the attitude of a selfish kcunt.

I suppose you expect a "thank you" when you give someone some charity?

as a matter of general politeness yes ...

it may have passed YOU by, but in our culture it is generally considered polite to say thank you when given something....whether asked for or not....

I even once said "thank you" to a ruddy ATM  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

as a matter of general politeness yes ...

it may have passed YOU by, but in our culture it is generally considered polite to say thank you when given something....whether asked for or not....

I even once said "thank you" to a ruddy ATM  

There's nothing wrong with having the grace and manners to say thank you, even to to a cash machine.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's nothing wrong with having the grace and manners to say thank you, even to to a cash machine.

I know, I know......cash machines have feelings too