withoutaface said:
You questioned my statement that without welfare they wouldn't be able to afford to abuse solvents, I provided a counter argument and all you've been able to do is feign ignorance.
And in saying that they all abuse solvents, you're basing your argument on shit.. Which is suitable, seeing as your argument IS shit.
withoutaface said:
FIrstly, you've done nothing to establish why they're old fashioned. Secondly, it's an appeal to novelty, and that is a fallacy.
Firstly, old fashioned paternalism has been shown to not work. ESPECIALLY when it's for the wrong reasons like what you are promoting. No, not racial abuse, but racial abuse justified for Economics reasons. Because being a liberal supporter, that's all you really care about.
withoutaface said:
Give reasons why. Wikipedia tells me that there are lower levels of abuse and unemployment in the city,
1) Wikipedia. Seriously accurate business. 2) Link?
withoutaface said:
so unless there's a very good reason for keeping them away I can't see why you're arguing against me.
Because it's their homeland? And you have no evidence that moving them into the cities is going to improve their lifestyle ENOUGH to justify it. ie. redfern.
withoutaface said:
My argument is that people are generally better off when they earn their own money, because it gives them a sense of self worth, a reason not to abuse themselves and a grasp of what they're spending is actually worth.
And if it was that easy then i am sure that they would. But we know that it's not that easy.
withoutaface said:
You've stated that it is because of underlying problems in the community, seemingly refuting my point, except for the fact that I conceded that the initial situation was mostly due to European intervention.
So what is your solution again? I believe its more European intervention. Excellent.
withoutaface said:
So bottle-to-mouth is a reflex now?
In what circumstances would you CHOOSE to live like they do?
withoutaface said:
Unless there's going to be racism from other people of their own race, then I can't see how it will happen.
Lucky we have you on their side then. You really have it in to protect their interests. Much like all the other wankers on this thread who are normally conservative try-hards.
withoutaface said:
What precludes them from getting back into it?
You tell me.
withoutaface said:
I'm saying that if they want welfare from a capitalist society, they should actively seek work in said society.
It's not as easy as that.
withoutaface said:
That's not a big ask, is it?
No it's not to much to ask. Just ask them to continue conforming to White society. Get a job. Don't abuse solvents. Just.. BE Like us. Not because i'm a white supramacist, but because it's more economically sound in my opinion.
withoutaface said:
To attempt to contribute back to the society which is giving you a leg up?
Giving them a leg up straight after they have knocked them down?
withoutaface said:
So hang on, here you are saying that indigenous people are on par with the mobility of the disabled and the intelligence of children, and yet I'm the racist?
I said that they are on par with disabled?
I said that there are numerous examples of people who receive money without the imaginary obligation to pay it back that you say there is.
Karl Marx said:
I think what Justin is saying is that Aboriginals are too stupid to hold jobs, too stupid to look after their family, too stupid to live in big cities. They can't do anything without welfare. They have to self-control to anything "white man" invented.
He's the racist.
umm uh... i don't really know how to reply to this without getting my self banned from BOS. So I wont. I'll also add you to my ignore list.