i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Ridiculous arguement, it's like saying you don't want refugees so you should go to the refugee camps and tell them that they can't come to the UK yourself personally.
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
I opened the door the other day and there was a panda there that the WWF had sent around. Does anyone have any bamboo they need to get rid of?
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
The government is now looking to cut costs in the NHS by forcing anyone who supports free healthcare to allow GP practices and operating theatres be set up in their houses.
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
Right, let's go through this slowly then. It is not a valid argument, because it places responsibility for action at an individual level. Nobody is calling upon people to take action on an individual level to house refugees. What some people are arguing for is that as a country, as a nation, as a collective we should do more. You know and I know that there are very good reasons why for the majority of people personally housing a refugee is not a practical or desirable course of action. However, this is not relevant to the argument, because no-one is calling for this level of individual action. If people were going around stating that everyone should take in refugees personally and then didn't do it themselves, your argument would be a perfectly valid way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are all mouth and no trousers. But that's not the case is it. What people are arguing is that we should take collective action because collectively we have more resources, less exposure to risk and better access to expertise should we encounter any difficulties. There is absolutely no reason why someone who says this, should be expected to take action on an individual level. The reason that your particular argument is invalid is not because I, or anyone else, wants it to be invalid. It is invalid because it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is in fact a bit of smoke and mirrors, a particular type of smoke and mirrors called a false syllogism. You are setting out (whether intentionally or accidentally) to confuse the argument by railing against something that nobody is calling for.
Back to the original post, if when I return in December to see a few games, if someone nearby is holding up some political banner, I shall be very angry. I read about political issues all day, I watch it on the TV news. When I go to watch a game at the Valley, it is the one time that I, and I suspect many others, can temporarily forget about work problems, health problems, family problems, world problems. I do not want to see banners about global warming, gay marriage, refugees or anything else. There is a place for political demonstrations and it isn't a football ground. The Red Black & White campaign was different because it was actually about football crowds. This is a dangerous route to go down IMO and could potentially lead to friction between fans who object to having their afternoon interrupted by some political issue they may or may not agree with. Allow people to escape the woes of the world for just 90 minutes of their week, it's not too much to ask.
It's a ridiculous argument, or not a valid argument, because it doens't agree with your point of view.
So would you be up for going to the refugee camps in the Middle East and telling a mother and their children to their faces they can't come to the UK because "we're full"? It's using the same arguement but from the other side.
It's a ridiculous argument, or not a valid argument, because it doens't agree with your point of view.
So would you be up for going to the refugee camps in the Middle East and telling a mother and their children to their faces they can't come to the UK because "we're full"? It's using the same arguement but from the other side.
If there was an option for extreme LOL, I would award you one for that.
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
Right, let's go through this slowly then. It is not a valid argument, because it places responsibility for action at an individual level. Nobody is calling upon people to take action on an individual level to house refugees. What some people are arguing for is that as a country, as a nation, as a collective we should do more. You know and I know that there are very good reasons why for the majority of people personally housing a refugee is not a practical or desirable course of action. However, this is not relevant to the argument, because no-one is calling for this level of individual action. If people were going around stating that everyone should take in refugees personally and then didn't do it themselves, your argument would be a perfectly valid way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are all mouth and no trousers. But that's not the case is it. What people are arguing is that we should take collective action because collectively we have more resources, less exposure to risk and better access to expertise should we encounter any difficulties. There is absolutely no reason why someone who says this, should be expected to take action on an individual level. The reason that your particular argument is invalid is not because I, or anyone else, wants it to be invalid. It is invalid because it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is in fact a bit of smoke and mirrors, a particular type of smoke and mirrors called a false syllogism. You are setting out (whether intentionally or accidentally) to confuse the argument by railing against something that nobody is calling for.
I disagree. If I was about to hold up a banner somewhere advocating welcoming large numbers of refugees into my country, the first question I would ask myself before doing so is "would I be prepared to open my home to help at least one of these people". If I could not answer that question positively, I could not in good conscience advocate, and then expect, this burden to be placed on fellow citizens. This collective burden, or responsibility, that you speak of, is not simply restricted to providing accommodation, it involves stretching already under resourced and underfunded services such as healthcare, transport infrastructure, schools etc. It's not good enough to actively campaign to bring these people into the country, then stand back and say "nothing to do with me, it's up to the country to look after them". Personal responsiblity seems to be very lacking in today's world.
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
Right, let's go through this slowly then. It is not a valid argument, because it places responsibility for action at an individual level. Nobody is calling upon people to take action on an individual level to house refugees. What some people are arguing for is that as a country, as a nation, as a collective we should do more. You know and I know that there are very good reasons why for the majority of people personally housing a refugee is not a practical or desirable course of action. However, this is not relevant to the argument, because no-one is calling for this level of individual action. If people were going around stating that everyone should take in refugees personally and then didn't do it themselves, your argument would be a perfectly valid way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are all mouth and no trousers. But that's not the case is it. What people are arguing is that we should take collective action because collectively we have more resources, less exposure to risk and better access to expertise should we encounter any difficulties. There is absolutely no reason why someone who says this, should be expected to take action on an individual level. The reason that your particular argument is invalid is not because I, or anyone else, wants it to be invalid. It is invalid because it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is in fact a bit of smoke and mirrors, a particular type of smoke and mirrors called a false syllogism. You are setting out (whether intentionally or accidentally) to confuse the argument by railing against something that nobody is calling for.
I disagree. If I was about to hold up a banner somewhere advocating welcoming large numbers of refugees into my country, the first question I would ask myself before doing so is "would I be prepared to open my home to help at least one of these people". If I could not answer that question positively, I could not in good conscience advocate, and then expect, this burden to be placed on fellow citizens. This collective burden, or responsibility, that you speak of, is not simply restricted to providing accommodation, it involves stretching already under resourced and underfunded services such as healthcare, transport infrastructure, schools etc. It's not good enough to actively campaign to bring these people into the country, then stand back and say "nothing to do with me, it's up to the country to look after them". Personal responsiblity seems to be very lacking in today's world.
You seem to think healthcare should be provided from government funds. In that case, would you agree to let a GP practice be set up in your living room?
My answer on the 'refugee in your home' question is yes. I don't have a spare room but it's probably still a yes. I've had to sleep on the floor for months before due to my landlord's stinginess, so am prepared to do it again.
There's certainly More room over at the wet spam Olympic stadium, and Newham get loads of free tickets so it would not cost the tax payer any more money. Plus there is a park there that could be used as a temp camp
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
Right, let's go through this slowly then. It is not a valid argument, because it places responsibility for action at an individual level. Nobody is calling upon people to take action on an individual level to house refugees. What some people are arguing for is that as a country, as a nation, as a collective we should do more. You know and I know that there are very good reasons why for the majority of people personally housing a refugee is not a practical or desirable course of action. However, this is not relevant to the argument, because no-one is calling for this level of individual action. If people were going around stating that everyone should take in refugees personally and then didn't do it themselves, your argument would be a perfectly valid way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are all mouth and no trousers. But that's not the case is it. What people are arguing is that we should take collective action because collectively we have more resources, less exposure to risk and better access to expertise should we encounter any difficulties. There is absolutely no reason why someone who says this, should be expected to take action on an individual level. The reason that your particular argument is invalid is not because I, or anyone else, wants it to be invalid. It is invalid because it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is in fact a bit of smoke and mirrors, a particular type of smoke and mirrors called a false syllogism. You are setting out (whether intentionally or accidentally) to confuse the argument by railing against something that nobody is calling for.
I disagree. If I was about to hold up a banner somewhere advocating welcoming large numbers of refugees into my country, the first question I would ask myself before doing so is "would I be prepared to open my home to help at least one of these people". If I could not answer that question positively, I could not in good conscience advocate, and then expect, this burden to be placed on fellow citizens. This collective burden, or responsibility, that you speak of, is not simply restricted to providing accommodation, it involves stretching already under resourced and underfunded services such as healthcare, transport infrastructure, schools etc. It's not good enough to actively campaign to bring these people into the country, then stand back and say "nothing to do with me, it's up to the country to look after them". Personal responsiblity seems to be very lacking in today's world.
I am sorry to disagree with you QA. I can legitimately support the notion of my country supporting refugees without housing themselves for the following reasons
1} As a UK taxpayer I may be content for my taxes to be used to support said refugees 2} If other priorities must suffer as a result , I can be prepared to support that too 3} I can support the notion of troops being sent to X or Y without suiting up and going myself 4} I can support extra money being spent on midwifery without offering to deliver babies myself 4} I can support public monies being used to fund any number of things without needing to exemplify my support by becoming a surrogate professional
The nature of our society is that we pay taxes and specialist agencies to undertake many services on our behalf. That said this approach doesn't mean that I would not offer to house a family of refugees but rather , if I did not choose to do so it would not negate the argument that I wish my government to prioritise its resources to do so.
What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
i and my partner will have a 'refugees welcome' banner on saturday and to those who say keep politics out of football, what was all that 'give a red card to racism' about if not about politics? Well done charlton for being an all inclusive club in the very truest sense
Are you on the list to take a refugee into your home?
Jeez, how many more times does it have to be said, this is not a valid argument.
Unfortunately it IS a valid argument. Its just that well meaning banner waving idiots hate the reality.
Right, let's go through this slowly then. It is not a valid argument, because it places responsibility for action at an individual level. Nobody is calling upon people to take action on an individual level to house refugees. What some people are arguing for is that as a country, as a nation, as a collective we should do more. You know and I know that there are very good reasons why for the majority of people personally housing a refugee is not a practical or desirable course of action. However, this is not relevant to the argument, because no-one is calling for this level of individual action. If people were going around stating that everyone should take in refugees personally and then didn't do it themselves, your argument would be a perfectly valid way of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are all mouth and no trousers. But that's not the case is it. What people are arguing is that we should take collective action because collectively we have more resources, less exposure to risk and better access to expertise should we encounter any difficulties. There is absolutely no reason why someone who says this, should be expected to take action on an individual level. The reason that your particular argument is invalid is not because I, or anyone else, wants it to be invalid. It is invalid because it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. It is in fact a bit of smoke and mirrors, a particular type of smoke and mirrors called a false syllogism. You are setting out (whether intentionally or accidentally) to confuse the argument by railing against something that nobody is calling for.
I disagree. If I was about to hold up a banner somewhere advocating welcoming large numbers of refugees into my country, the first question I would ask myself before doing so is "would I be prepared to open my home to help at least one of these people". If I could not answer that question positively, I could not in good conscience advocate, and then expect, this burden to be placed on fellow citizens. This collective burden, or responsibility, that you speak of, is not simply restricted to providing accommodation, it involves stretching already under resourced and underfunded services such as healthcare, transport infrastructure, schools etc. It's not good enough to actively campaign to bring these people into the country, then stand back and say "nothing to do with me, it's up to the country to look after them". Personal responsiblity seems to be very lacking in today's world.
I am sorry to disagree with you QA. I can legitimately support the notion of my country supporting refugees without housing themselves for the following reasons
1} As a UK taxpayer I may be content for my taxes to be used to support said refugees 2} If other priorities must suffer as a result , I can be prepared to support that too 3} I can support the notion of troops being sent to X or Y without suiting up and going myself 4} I can support extra money being spent on midwifery without offering to deliver babies myself 4} I can support public monies being used to fund any number of things without needing to exemplify my support by becoming a surrogate professional
The nature of our society is that we pay taxes and specialist agencies to undertake many services on our behalf. That said this approach doesn't mean that I would not offer to house a family of refugees but rather , if I did not choose to do so it would not negate the argument that I wish my government to prioritise its resources to do so.
You make some great points Holyjo. I too support the notion of my country supporting the genuine refugees. But this doesn't have to involve active campaigning, it can be left to the democratically elected government to make decisions on our behalf. The point I was making revolved around taking personal responsiblity and a principled approach before actively campaigning for something that may have an adverse effect on my fellow countrymen. Would you for example be happy to actively campaign for sending our troops off to war and possible death? (Genuine question). Personally I couldn't do that unless I too was willing to give my life for my country. Of course it's easy to actively support and campaign for the positive things like spending more money on midwifery and other such things that benefit everyone. But accepting large numbers of refugees is not something that everyone is happy about.
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees. I read there are over 4 million refugees and there are probably even more potential ones, so the numbers don’t seem to add up. What surely is needed is money and planning and not knee jerk reactions to an admittedly heart wrenching occurrence. Money, to pay for secure temporary solutions for those people in camps in nearby land and planning to work out a way to give them the training and schooling they will need to pick up the pieces when the time comes to do so. The part this country should be playing here, amongst others including rich friendly Arab states, is a financial one. The refugees should be housed in camps in safe areas in the region and those countries need to benefit financially for housing them. They would probably prefer to go to Germany or Britain, but that shouldn’t be an option. Simply because by making it one, everybody will feel that is achievable and when say the German’s decide they have taken enough, you don’t have the confusion and chaos that will entail.
Then we have to help sort the problem out. We have to accept the part we have played in this through encouraging the Arab Spring uprisings. I’m not saying it was morally wrong to do this, but the landscape has become far more complicated because those fighting the Syrian regime were both secular and Islamist organisations. Past conflicts have dulled our appetite to go in a sort the mess out – but this has become a mess that requires sorting out. Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
It's a ridiculous argument, or not a valid argument, because it doens't agree with your point of view.
So would you be up for going to the refugee camps in the Middle East and telling a mother and their children to their faces they can't come to the UK because "we're full"? It's using the same arguement but from the other side.
If there was an option for extreme LOL, I would award you one for that.
Which is exactly my point. It's a ludicrous arguement.
What I've found very strange about this thread is that for many of you, bigstemarra's post ended the debate. For after I challenged it on a number of issues, the only reply I got was a huffy defence of The Guardian. Am I to assume that you are all simply bored of this?
Because my views are slightly right of centre I'm not clever enough to take part.
Here is the definitive solution. We should allow refugees on a temporary basis (let's say 3 years) and if their country is stable after that time, they go home. If not, they stay, subject to a further review down the line.
Here is the definitive solution. We should allow refugees on a temporary basis (let's say 3 years) and if their country is stable after that time, they go home. If not, they stay, subject to a further review down the line.
There's certainly More room over at the wet spam Olympic stadium, and Newham get loads of free tickets so it would not cost the tax payer any more money. Plus there is a park there that could be used as a temp camp
Maybe it is just me but I am confused as to how the UK, Germany or any other European country is going to make the situation any better by opening their doors to a few thousand refugees. I read there are over 4 million refugees and there are probably even more potential ones, so the numbers don’t seem to add up. What surely is needed is money and planning and not knee jerk reactions to an admittedly heart wrenching occurrence. Money, to pay for secure temporary solutions for those people in camps in nearby land and planning to work out a way to give them the training and schooling they will need to pick up the pieces when the time comes to do so. The part this country should be playing here, amongst others including rich friendly Arab states, is a financial one. The refugees should be housed in camps in safe areas in the region and those countries need to benefit financially for housing them. They would probably prefer to go to Germany or Britain, but that shouldn’t be an option. Simply because by making it one, everybody will feel that is achievable and when say the German’s decide they have taken enough, you don’t have the confusion and chaos that will entail.
Then we have to help sort the problem out. We have to accept the part we have played in this through encouraging the Arab Spring uprisings. I’m not saying it was morally wrong to do this, but the landscape has become far more complicated because those fighting the Syrian regime were both secular and Islamist organisations. Past conflicts have dulled our appetite to go in a sort the mess out – but this has become a mess that requires sorting out. Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
Comments
And honestly I can't see why anyone would be that bothered if a Syrian refugee family did move in down the road.
My answer on the 'refugee in your home' question is yes. I don't have a spare room but it's probably still a yes. I've had to sleep on the floor for months before due to my landlord's stinginess, so am prepared to do it again.
1} As a UK taxpayer I may be content for my taxes to be used to support said refugees
2} If other priorities must suffer as a result , I can be prepared to support that too
3} I can support the notion of troops being sent to X or Y without suiting up and going myself
4} I can support extra money being spent on midwifery without offering to deliver babies myself
4} I can support public monies being used to fund any number of things without needing to exemplify my support by becoming a surrogate professional
The nature of our society is that we pay taxes and specialist agencies to undertake many services on our behalf. That said this approach doesn't mean that I would not offer to house a family of refugees but rather , if I did not choose to do so it would not negate the argument that I wish my government to prioritise its resources to do so.
Would you for example be happy to actively campaign for sending our troops off to war and possible death? (Genuine question). Personally I couldn't do that unless I too was willing to give my life for my country. Of course it's easy to actively support and campaign for the positive things like spending more money on midwifery and other such things that benefit everyone. But accepting large numbers of refugees is not something that everyone is happy about.
Then we have to help sort the problem out. We have to accept the part we have played in this through encouraging the Arab Spring uprisings. I’m not saying it was morally wrong to do this, but the landscape has become far more complicated because those fighting the Syrian regime were both secular and Islamist organisations. Past conflicts have dulled our appetite to go in a sort the mess out – but this has become a mess that requires sorting out. Rather than let a small number join our countries, we need to give all of the refugees their country back. This is going to require military intervention. But the longer we wait, the more difficult it is going to be to do this.
But no "likes" thus far....
Two birds with one stone ?