Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:06 am

First topic message reminder :

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

The chief executive of HIV/Aids charity Terrence Higgins Trust accused Mr Farage of stooping to a "new level of ignorance" and Labour MP David Lammy said he was "trying to revive the very worst bigotry" of the 1980s.

In an interview with Newsweek Europe, Mr Farage set out the changes he would like to see, including a block on convicted killers being allowed into the UK, referring to the prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.

Convicted killer Arnis Zalkalns, from Latvia, was found hanged in Boston Manor Park, west London, on October 4, near where Alice was last seen on August 28 as she walked back to her family home in Hanwell.

"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage said.

Mr Farage said Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.

The Daily Mail reported that, asked by Newsweek whether "quality" meant people without a murder conviction, he answered: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."

He went on to say: "I have never said that we should not take refugees. We have a proud record of accepting refugees, and that must be continued."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/farage-ban-hiv-migrants-from-uk-1.620778

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:33 pm

Nems wrote:Unchristian?
Steady!

It is very unchristian, as where does Jesus advocate not sharing or not helping thy neighbour, or not hellping the poor?

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:57 pm

Can someone tell me why I as a non christian should be worried by "unchristian argument"?

Lets try reality again. If I do not look after myself, feed myself, shelter myself, heal myself first then I cannot do any of these things for others - any others.

Unless and until this country has fixed and sorted its own problems it cannot presume to try and fix everyone elses.

If you insist on Christianity try Matthew 7:5 and Luke 6:42.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:00 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Nems wrote:Unchristian?
Steady!

It is very unchristian, as where does Jesus advocate not sharing or not helping thy neighbour, or not hellping the poor?

Where does he advocate destroying oneself to help others? What rules does the bible give on deciding who of all the needy are helped first? What does the bible say about the impossibility of helping everyone?

Why exactly is it wrong to say the child born in this country should be helped to walk before the man from another country should have his life extended?

by nicko Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:00 pm

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Nems wrote:Unchristian?
Steady!

It is very unchristian, as where does Jesus advocate not sharing or not helping thy neighbour, or not hellping the poor?

Its wrong because it presupposes only Christians can do the right thing!

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:14 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

It is very unchristian, as where does Jesus advocate not sharing or not helping thy neighbour, or not hellping the poor?

Where does he advocate destroying oneself to help others? What rules does the bible give on deciding who of all the needy are helped first? What does the bible say about the impossibility of helping everyone?

Why exactly is it wrong to say the child born in this country should be helped to walk before the man from another country should have his life extended?

Where is the evidence we would be destroying ourselves?
There is none but a fantasy dream up to attempt to deny others.
There should be no distinction, each should be given help, there is no moral argument to say otherwise

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:16 pm

Nems wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

It is very unchristian, as where does Jesus advocate not sharing or not helping thy neighbour, or not hellping the poor?

Its wrong because it presupposes only Christians can do the right thing!

Sorry that is very wrong, it does not propose any such thing.
What it states is that UKIP have no Christian values, because as seen, if they did, they would not discriminate, or deny sharing with others. They claim they have, but as seen have none, as they class British values based on Judaeo-Christian values.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:18 pm

So I notice nobody made any such point in how they teach their children about selfishness and sharing. Is it because the fact is your arguments are wrong, based on the opposite view that you teach your children?

by Raggamuffin Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:10 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Because it wouldn't be true.

So, Baggs'...

WHERE AND WHEN did you study your microbiology, biochemistry, epidemiology, genetics, physiology and virology ?

OH ! That's right, you didn't..

SO, tell us again, Raggs' ~ HOW is it that you know better than all of the world's medical researchers, pray tell ?

Still waiting for you to tell me about the "cure".

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Where does he advocate destroying oneself to help others? What rules does the bible give on deciding who of all the needy are helped first? What does the bible say about the impossibility of helping everyone?

Why exactly is it wrong to say the child born in this country should be helped to walk before the man from another country should have his life extended?

Where is the evidence we would be destroying ourselves?
There is none but a fantasy dream up to attempt to deny others.
There should be no distinction, each should be given help, there is no moral argument to say otherwise

Again with the "shoulds"

In the real world in which we live it is not possible do to what should be done (I am not arguing with you that is should be done) and the arguments are not moral ones they are practical ones.

If every person in the UK stopped having medical treatment for anything except HIV there would still not be enough facilities and money to treat every person in the world with HIV. In the meantime the diabetics, asthmatics, cancer sufferers etc who would have been able to carry on living and helping others will die because they are not treated - which will lead to less money available so less HIV cases can be treated.

I will continue to believe that the best way to help the largest number of people is to first make sure I am at my best (if I am not I cannot help anyone) and then to help those closest to me and get them to help those closest to them. I will not step over the homeless man, deny the child their operation, let the elderly person starve or freeze, in order to help the HIV positive person from another country first. I will first help the homeless man, make sure the child is operated on, and that the elderly have food and warmth. Then I will help the HIV+ person.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:20 pm

All irrelevant, you are just giving excuse to deny people.
The reality is you are basing a view point you should decide, based again around what you think you are better placed to have solely on you rights, due to being born to a piece of land. Yes this is the real world, one which you wish to live by selfishness, on that is quite abhorrent to any moral based view point, of which you have no right to deny others, based on nothing more than where you were born.

We can change the world, but you and others clearly are trying to deny change, you give excuses as to why not to, never seeing that you actually can. I will help any person that needs medical help, being born onto a piece of land does not supersede the morality of helping any human. You are basing a view, that this is an exclusive club, even though we are all human and that you do not own the club. You are lucky to be a member of this club based on birth rite, thinking incorrectly you have the right to decide who else can be omitted to this club, which shows how illogical your view is. There should not be a discriminating view based off where somebody is born to deny access, it has no rational to it.

by Raggamuffin Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:28 pm

It's natural for people to group together and look after each other, but that doesn't really extend to the whole world.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's natural for people to group together and look after each other, but that doesn't really extend to the whole world.

Of course it should, if you believe in the principle of people to group together, you cannot then decide it has set limits, the principle would be to help everybody.

by Raggamuffin Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:33 pm

Think about tribes.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Think about tribes.

Tribes is nothing more than an extension of a family.
Humans are all one family, being as we are all descended from the same one mother.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 2:49 pm

Brasidas wrote:All irrelevant, you are just giving excuse to deny people.
The reality is you are basing a view point you should decide, based again around what you think you are better placed to have solely on you rights, due to being born to a piece of land. Yes this is the real world, one which you wish to live by selfishness, on that is quite abhorrent to any moral based view point, of which you have no right to deny others, based on nothing more than where you were born.

We can change the world, but you and others clearly are trying to deny change, you give excuses as to why not to, never seeing that you actually can. I will help any person that needs medical help, being born onto a piece of land does not supersede the morality of helping any human. You are basing a view, that this is an exclusive club, even though we are all human and that you do not own the club. You are lucky to be a member of this club based on birth rite, thinking incorrectly you have the right to decide who else can be omitted to this club, which shows how illogical your view is. There should not be a discriminating view based off where somebody is born to deny access, it has no rational to it.

No I am pointing out that in reality some people will have to be denied - the question is how to decide who.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:01 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:All irrelevant, you are just giving excuse to deny people.
The reality is you are basing a view point you should decide, based again around what you think you are better placed to have solely on you rights, due to being born to a piece of land. Yes this is the real world, one which you wish to live by selfishness, on that is quite abhorrent to any moral based view point, of which you have no right to deny others, based on nothing more than where you were born.

We can change the world, but you and others clearly are trying to deny change, you give excuses as to why not to, never seeing that you actually can. I will help any person that needs medical help, being born onto a piece of land does not supersede the morality of helping any human. You are basing a view, that this is an exclusive club, even though we are all human and that you do not own the club. You are lucky to be a member of this club based on birth rite, thinking incorrectly you have the right to decide who else can be omitted to this club, which shows how illogical your view is. There should not be a discriminating view based off where somebody is born to deny access, it has no rational to it.

No I am pointing out that in reality some people will have to be denied - the question is how to decide who.

Really?
It seems the view point of UKIP was to decide to discriminate against people coming who come to this country. It is easy how to decide, those most in need to medical care. If countless people did not clog up the time of the NHS with minor issues, the system would run very well, sadly, anyone with the most minor condition thinks they need to be seen, when countless of them do not. You might want to start looking at the real problems a health system is facing and rectify them. Not ignore these problems of which there is many by making policies which again will not fix the main issue.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:09 pm

To me - and many others, it is simple.

We are paying for medical care - just because it is free at point of need does not mean it is free or that it is not paid for.

Therefore the people who have paid for it should get priority over those who have not.

by Raggamuffin Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:09 pm

sphinx wrote:To me - and many others, it is simple.

We are paying for medical care - just because it is free at point of need does not mean it is free or that it is not paid for.

Therefore the people who have paid for it should get priority over those who have not.

I agree.

by Raggamuffin Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:13 pm

Mind you, why do people go to the doctor when they have a cold or flu?

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:14 pm

sphinx wrote:To me - and many others, it is simple.

We are paying for medical care - just because it is free at point of need does not mean it is free or that it is not paid for.

Therefore the people who have paid for it should get priority over those who have not.

Your view point is simple and backwards.
Your argument again is based off levels which means those who pay more then by this parameter you have set thus get priority over countless others that are poorer, meaning the rich are even more privileged. This what you are arguing for based upon the reasoning you are choosing.
If people come here and work, they thus get the same as everyone else on health care, that is equality, you propose inequality and discrimination.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Mind you, why do people go to the doctor when thy have a cold or flu?

Well done, you are starting to identify a real problem.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:19 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:To me - and many others, it is simple.

We are paying for medical care - just because it is free at point of need does not mean it is free or that it is not paid for.

Therefore the people who have paid for it should get priority over those who have not.

Your view point is simple and backwards.
Your argument again is based off levels which means those who pay more then by this parameter you have set thus get priority over countless others that are poorer, meaning the rich are even more privileged. This what you are arguing for based upon the reasoning you are choosing.
If people come here and work, they thus get the same as everyone else on health care, that is equality, you propose inequality and discrimination.

Person one is poor but has paid NI to receive health care (among other things)
Person two is poor but has not paid NI.

Both have medical needs that will cost £20000 out of this years budget.
Only £20000 remains in this years budget.

Who gets treated.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Mind you, why do people go to the doctor when they have a cold or flu?

Probably because they have seen all the public health advertisements warning them to be on the outlook for diseases such as meningitis which mimic the symptoms of flu, and have read in the news that the first symptoms of Ebola are like flu, and they heard the one about the guy who thought he only had a cold and did not go to the doctor and died.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Your view point is simple and backwards.
Your argument again is based off levels which means those who pay more then by this parameter you have set thus get priority over countless others that are poorer, meaning the rich are even more privileged. This what you are arguing for based upon the reasoning you are choosing.
If people come here and work, they thus get the same as everyone else on health care, that is equality, you propose inequality and discrimination.

Person one is poor but has paid NI to receive health care (among other things)
Person two is poor but has not paid NI.

Both have medical needs that will cost £20000 out of this years budget.
Only £20000 remains in this years budget.

Who gets treated.

Both of them, money is not a moral measure to deny people, you are again stating those who have money should take priority over people who have no money, which includes, unemployed, people with disabilities, children, elderly more so with women who have never worked, all of which you have just placed into a bracket which would place them at a disadvantage.
Again you are using now wealth as a view point to discriminate others.
Not everyone can work and pay the NI.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:26 pm

It is not discrimination dodge, it is looking after our own.

Same as every other country is supposed to do.

We don't want or need any more immigrants.

And it is only common sense that we don't allow disease ridden foreigners in to bleed our NHS dry of scarce resources intended for our own people who have worked and paid into the tax system for years, a, have their parents and grandparents etc, and to prevent them spreading their disease to other UK citizens too.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Mind you, why do people go to the doctor when they have a cold or flu?

Probably because they have seen all the public health advertisements warning them to be on the outlook for diseases such as meningitis which mimic the symptoms of flu, and have read in the news that the first symptoms of Ebola are like flu, and they heard the one about the guy who thought he only had a cold and did not go to the doctor and died.

Absurd, because the reality is there is differences on fatal conditions, which can be detected by phoning a health line, where again it would rule out those who do not have signs that would be fatal.
Mistakes have been made even when doctors have seen patients, to send them home, so to claim they need to see the doctor as they are unsure, when there is facilities to help is incorrect.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Person one is poor but has paid NI to receive health care (among other things)
Person two is poor but has not paid NI.

Both have medical needs that will cost £20000 out of this years budget.
Only £20000 remains in this years budget.

Who gets treated.

Both of them, money is not a moral measure to deny people, you are again stating those who have money should take priority over people who have no money, which includes, unemployed, people with disabilities, children, elderly more so with women who have never worked, all of which you have just placed into a bracket which would place them at a disadvantage.
Again you are using now wealth as a view point to discriminate others.
Not everyone can work and pay the NI.

Ok then both need a certain medicine - only one dose exists.
Who gets it?
If you give less than a full dose to anyone they die.

2 dying people.
1 does of medicine.
1 person has paid for the medicine
1 person has not.

You can choose to give the dose to 1 person - result 1 lives and the other dies
You can choose to give half a dose to each person - result both die
You can choose to give neither the dose - result both die.

My prediction is that you will refuse to face the dilemma by deciding it should not exist and there is some magic way both can survive.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:52 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Both of them, money is not a moral measure to deny people, you are again stating those who have money should take priority over people who have no money, which includes, unemployed, people with disabilities, children, elderly more so with women who have never worked, all of which you have just placed into a bracket which would place them at a disadvantage.
Again you are using now wealth as a view point to discriminate others.
Not everyone can work and pay the NI.

Ok then both need a certain medicine - only one dose exists.
Who gets it?
If you give less than a full dose to anyone they die.

2 dying people.
1 does of medicine.
1 person has paid for the medicine
1 person has not.

You can choose to give the dose to 1 person - result 1 lives and the other dies
You can choose to give half a dose to each person - result both die
You can choose to give neither the dose - result both die.

My prediction is that you will refuse to face the dilemma by deciding it should not exist and there is some magic way both can survive.

I would give half to each, thus still providing them with an opportunity, one that has hope, you may disagree it does not matter and here is why your view has no validity.
You make the most appalling views to back discrimination, that is the reality of you now using extreme examples, of which there would little reality of, to then back a view to discriminate.
You have detracted from your main view, which was first of racial, based on where people are born, to then wealth, where people who are unable to pay NI are discriminated against to now an argument born from rarity.
Again you have no moral ground, and you are trying to use wealth, race as views points to discriminate.

by Frazzled Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:57 pm

I don't think there is anything discriminatory, uncharitable (or unchristian) in expecting immigrants to take out some form of health insurance to contribute towards the cost of their healthcare until they have worked and paid taxes for, say, 5 years. The NHS is under a huge amount of pressure at the moment and there is simply a limit to how far they can stretch the budget.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:01 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Ok then both need a certain medicine - only one dose exists.
Who gets it?
If you give less than a full dose to anyone they die.

2 dying people.
1 does of medicine.
1 person has paid for the medicine
1 person has not.

You can choose to give the dose to 1 person - result 1 lives and the other dies
You can choose to give half a dose to each person - result both die
You can choose to give neither the dose - result both die.

My prediction is that you will refuse to face the dilemma by deciding it should not exist and there is some magic way both can survive.

I would give half to each, thus still providing them with an opportunity, one that has hope, you may disagree it does not matter and here is why your view has no validity.
You make the most appalling views to back discrimination, that is the reality of you now using extreme examples, of which there would little reality of, to then back a view to discriminate.
You have detracted from your main view, which was first of racial, based on where people are born, to then wealth, where people who are unable to pay NI are discriminated against to now an argument born from rarity.
Again you have no moral ground, and you are trying to use wealth, race as views points to discriminate.

So there you go I was right. You avoided the dilemma by deciding that with hope half a dose would let both live. It didnt. Both are now dead. You had the chance to save a live. You failed.

You carry on living in your imaginary world where everything can be fixed just by wishing really really hard.

I will carry on living in reality where for whatever reason right or wrong brutal choices have to be made and are made. I will continue to prioritise those closest to me over those furthest away.

Incidentally if you had decided to give the dose to the person who had not paid for it you would still have been right. It was only possible to save one so the only wrong answer was to save neither. The choice you made.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:02 pm

Frazzled wrote:I don't think there is anything discriminatory, uncharitable (or unchristian) in expecting immigrants to take out some form of health insurance to contribute towards the cost of their healthcare until they have worked and paid taxes for, say, 5 years. The NHS is under a huge amount of pressure at the moment and there is simply a limit to how far they can stretch the budget.

According to brasisdas that pressure could all be removed if we stopped going to the doctor for minor things like colds and flue and no doubt spots that turn out to be skin cancer.

Then everyone in the world could be treated.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:03 pm

Frazzled wrote:I don't think there is anything discriminatory, uncharitable (or unchristian) in expecting immigrants to take out some form of health insurance to contribute towards the cost of their healthcare until they have worked and paid taxes for, say, 5 years. The NHS is under a huge amount of pressure at the moment and there is simply a limit to how far they can stretch the budget.

Of course it is discriminatory, as already explained countless times, your view is based on money and race, not equality. You are not giving a moral reason and no Christian doctrine states to not share equally.
So you can think all you like, it does not change the fact not only is your view morally wrong but selfish based off you only been lucky to be born here which as stated you have advantaged from others who have made the nation the way it is today.
That is not a valid argument, where again as stated earlier, it is like being a member of an exclusive club, which you gained membership solely through birth right and that you thus thinks you should be able to based on this judge who else can join.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:07 pm

sphinx wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I don't think there is anything discriminatory, uncharitable (or unchristian) in expecting immigrants to take out some form of health insurance to contribute towards the cost of their healthcare until they have worked and paid taxes for, say, 5 years. The NHS is under a huge amount of pressure at the moment and there is simply a limit to how far they can stretch the budget.

According to brasisdas that pressure could all be removed if we stopped going to the doctor for minor things like colds and flue and no doubt spots that turn out to be skin cancer.

Then everyone in the world could be treated.

I never stated once it could all be removed.
You see this is when you know the person you arr debating knows they have no valid argument, they make up lies disingenuously, to thus then turn the debate onto the poster as of they are making a wild claim.
I said it is one of the problems, one of many problems, not once did I say it was the only problem, hence your ability to now lie, now proves you have no validity to your case.

Shame on you, show some dignity in the face of being morally wrong.
Do not worry, I shall continue to defend against those who preach selfishness, but clearly this debate is now over since by this last post you conceded.

Have a good day.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:07 pm

Didge is deluded.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:22 pm

It's not about being lucky to be born here dodge, it is about our ancestors building up this great nation to what it is while others in other nations didn't bother.....

So now we have the fruits of their labour passed on to us to enjoy, not just give away to others who could have the same but were too lazy or stupid to bother.

We don't want or need any more immigrants.

And We especially don't want any who are riddled with disease.

by nicko Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:41 pm

Two soldiers, both badly wounded, both in terrible pain,one is your mate the other one of the enemy who was just trying to kill you. Enough morphine to allay the pain for one man,not enough for both,no point in giving half to each that would still leave both in agony. Who gets the Morphine? I had to make this choice.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:53 pm

nicko wrote:Two soldiers, both badly wounded, both in terrible pain,one is your mate the other one of the enemy who was just trying to kill you. Enough morphine to allay the pain for one man,not enough for both,no point in giving half to each that would still leave both in agony. Who gets the Morphine? I had to make this choice.

An interesting scenario, though one of which most people are unlikely to face and of which I would not like to make the call on, or be in your position to decide. Which to me is unfair to have people face such an impossible situation, through no design of their own. I am not knocking this situation Nicko, but showing it is not one that is common, or is a view to place extreme situations to base an argument from.
All that aside, I would try and again to give half each to both, by any means I could.
What ever choice you made, would be the right one, because you were helping at least one.

Right, have things to do, so catch up on this another time.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:09 pm

Nicko, hardly a choice, my mate would get it without a seconds thought.

by nicko Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:14 pm

That's what I did,the enemy was helped over his pain.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:21 pm

Brasidas wrote:
nicko wrote:Two soldiers, both badly wounded, both in terrible pain,one is your mate the other one of the enemy who was just trying to kill you. Enough morphine to allay the pain for one man,not enough for both,no point in giving half to each that would still leave both in agony. Who gets the Morphine? I had to make this choice.

An interesting scenario, though one of which most people are unlikely to face and of which I would not like to make the call on, or be in your position to decide. Which to me is unfair to have people face such an impossible situation, through no design of their own. I am not knocking this situation Nicko, but showing it is not one that is common, or is a view to place extreme situations to base an argument from.
All that aside, I would try and again to give half each to both, by any means I could.
What ever choice you made, would be the right one, because you were helping at least one.

Right, have things to do, so catch up on this another time.

See this is your problem. That type of decision is an every day occurrence at the top - who lives who dies who gets fired who keeps their job who is evicted who looses their home.

You want to pretend it is a very rare occurrence because you are not prepared to face it yourself (as seen by your "I would give them half each and hope" response earlier) and you do not want to think many others can do what you refuse to.

Whether you like it or not hard choices have to be made. Thankfully most of the adult population of this country has got further than your stance of closing your eyes and hoping someone else makes it all go away and does at least concede that the decisions need to be made. Once you concede they have to be made then the debate becomes simply who gets what first. That is what people vote for - to express their wishes in deciding who gets what first.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:22 pm

Brasidas wrote:
nicko wrote:Two soldiers, both badly wounded, both in terrible pain,one is your mate the other one of the enemy who was just trying to kill you. Enough morphine to allay the pain for one man,not enough for both,no point in giving half to each that would still leave both in agony. Who gets the Morphine? I had to make this choice.

An interesting scenario, though one of which most people are unlikely to face and of which I would not like to make the call on, or be in your position to decide. Which to me is unfair to have people face such an impossible situation, through no design of their own. I am not knocking this situation Nicko, but showing it is not one that is common, or is a view to place extreme situations to base an argument from.
All that aside, I would try and again to give half each to both, by any means I could.
What ever choice you made, would be the right one, because you were helping at least one.

Right, have things to do, so catch up on this another time.

Intriguing...like the lifeboat dilemma. Query: which one do you like more?

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:29 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

An interesting scenario, though one of which most people are unlikely to face and of which I would not like to make the call on, or be in your position to decide. Which to me is unfair to have people face such an impossible situation, through no design of their own. I am not knocking this situation Nicko, but showing it is not one that is common, or is a view to place extreme situations to base an argument from.
All that aside, I would try and again to give half each to both, by any means I could.
What ever choice you made, would be the right one, because you were helping at least one.

Right, have things to do, so catch up on this another time.

See this is your problem. That type of decision is an every day occurrence at the top - who lives who dies who gets fired who keeps their job who is evicted who looses their home.

You want to pretend it is a very rare occurrence because you are not prepared to face it yourself (as seen by your "I would give them half each and hope" response earlier) and you do not want to think many others can do what you refuse to.

Whether you like it or not hard choices have to be made. Thankfully most of the adult population of this country has got further than your stance of closing your eyes and hoping someone else makes it all go away and does at least concede that the decisions need to be made. Once you concede they have to be made then the debate becomes simply who gets what first. That is what people vote for - to express their wishes in deciding who gets what first.

So wrong it is really quite embarrassing for me to show where your views are so wrong. A daily occurrence is not met by the majority of people, where it is a rare occurrence for many people, , some individuals though have to endure this, nobody denies this or the difficult choices they make. That though does not back any view to argue over race and wealth, as it is nothing more than a side track from the debate.
The reality is this nation has not advanced to the point of eradicating selfishness, where you now think because a majority are as selfish as you is now a winning argument based off a majority. So a majority of wrong views is valid now?

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:30 pm

Oh and to add - as far as such decisions go the only wrong way is indecision. More lives are lost when a person cannot decide which to save and tries to save both.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:33 pm

sphinx wrote:Oh and to add - as far as such decisions go the only wrong way is indecision. More lives are lost when a person cannot decide which to save and tries to save both.

Nobody gave you any indecision, in fact I made a decision on every point you put to me.
Showing your further detract from the debate, looking now instead for any scrape of error to provide validity to a fail view point. Even worse you base again a view now on what is rare for many people, which has no substance to it.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:53 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:Oh and to add - as far as such decisions go the only wrong way is indecision. More lives are lost when a person cannot decide which to save and tries to save both.

Nobody gave you any indecision, in fact I made a decision on every point you put to me.
Showing your further detract from the debate, looking now instead for any scrape of error to provide validity to a fail view point. Even worse you base again a view now on what is rare for many people, which has no substance to it.

Your "decisions" were based on the fallacy that both could be saved and resulted in more suffering. You did not decide one or the other you ducked out and "hoped" (pretended) that everyone could have a happy ending when only one could and therefore ensured nobody did.

You might do better if you can say to yourself "MY decision meant 2 people died when I could have saved one" enough times you start to understand choices have to be made.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:58 pm

sphinx wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Nobody gave you any indecision, in fact I made a decision on every point you put to me.
Showing your further detract from the debate, looking now instead for any scrape of error to provide validity to a fail view point. Even worse you base again a view now on what is rare for many people, which has no substance to it.

Your "decisions" were based on the fallacy that both could be saved and resulted in more suffering. You did not decide one or the other you ducked out and "hoped" (pretended) that everyone could have a happy ending when only one could and therefore ensured nobody did.

You might do better if you can say to yourself "MY decision meant 2 people died when I could have saved one" enough times you start to understand choices have to be made.

Incorrect, my decision was made off not knowing what I could achieve or do, it was based around trying to help both and I never ducked out. I did what would be practical, when faced by anyone, where they do not have hindsight to know what their actions will do. they will act on instinct based on morality, of which in every scenario, unless you introduce a prejudice will allow for any one person to try and save both.
That is why again your theory has no validity, as it fails to factor in reality.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Your "decisions" were based on the fallacy that both could be saved and resulted in more suffering. You did not decide one or the other you ducked out and "hoped" (pretended) that everyone could have a happy ending when only one could and therefore ensured nobody did.

You might do better if you can say to yourself "MY decision meant 2 people died when I could have saved one" enough times you start to understand choices have to be made.

Incorrect, my decision was made off not knowing what I could achieve or do, it was based around trying to help both and I never ducked out. I did what would be practical, when faced by anyone, where they do not have hindsight to know what their actions will do. they will act on instinct based on morality, of which in every scenario, unless you introduce a prejudice will allow for any one person to try and save both.
That is why again your theory has no validity, as it fails to factor in reality.

No you pretended you did not know what you could achieve or do and fooled yourself you were helping both while actually succeeding in making both worse.

You did know. You were firmly told the facts. There is one dose. Only a full dose will work. Less than full dose results in death. You could not face those facts and decided to believe they might be wrong. You ended up with 2 dead when you could have saved a life.

Carry on dressing it up however you like. You refused to face unpalatable facts and make an unpleasant decision. You refuse to accept that decisions one or the other are common. You want the world to always give an option to save both. That is not the case.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:14 pm

Well the reality is we cant afford to pay for health care for all the world. Back to the point of the thread, Farage is completely right to say we shouldn't allow HIV immigrants unless they can afford their health care.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:18 pm

Nems wrote:Well the reality is we cant afford to pay for health care for all the world. Back to the point of the thread, Farage is completely right to say we shouldn't allow HIV immigrants unless they can afford their health care.

Who said so?
We can afford anything we want, take away money and apply togetherness, what need is their of what anyone can afford? You are failing to look at the real problems, money.
There is many an argument to counter that view, sorry.

by Sponsored content