Hypothetical questions

[LadyOnArooftop]

You see rent-a-crowd at rallies with their banners 'refugees welcome here', 'no borders', etc. I made a flippant comment in another thread asking if they'd want them living next door. But it got me wondering... if you did ask the banner-wavers would they be happy if migrants moved in next door... they'd probably answer yes of course, because it's a hypothetical question. And with those type of questions you can give the high moral ground, politically correct answer. I wonder what the reaction would be if migrants actually did move in next door, would they feel as safe? I think not.
It's like when people say would you sleep with a stranger for £1,000,000?, the usual answer is No. But if the money was placed in front of them, would the answer be the same? Speaking for myself, for a million quid i'd sleep with the entire U.S 101st Airborne Division.

p.s is it hypothetical or hyperthetical? it's awful being so uneducated

 

[Raining_Roses]

You see rent-a-crowd at rallies with their banners 'refugees welcome here', 'no borders', etc. I made a flippant comment in another thread asking if they'd want them living next door. But it got me wondering... if you did ask the banner-wavers would they be happy if migrants moved in next door... they'd probably answer yes of course, because it's a hypothetical question. And with those type of questions you can give the high moral ground, politically correct answer. I wonder what the reaction would be if migrants actually did move in next door, would they feel as safe? I think not.
It's like when people say would you sleep with a stranger for £1,000,000?, the usual answer is No. But if the money was placed in front of them, would the answer be the same? Speaking for myself, for a million quid i'd sleep with the entire U.S 101st Airborne Division.

p.s is it hypothetical or hyperthetical? it's awful being so uneducated

Firstly- it's 'hypothetical'

The rest- you'll find that those waving the banners can say 'Yes' they don't mind them moving next door to them, because they know they never will. Those waving the banners are usually middle class, own their own properties and have the time and funds to protest. Yet immigrants won't be housed in those areas. You'll also get the small town liberals that come out in flocks (all classes), because they come from towns that don't have a high population of immigrants and thus, have no idea as to the amount of issues that arise due to mass dumping of humans.

I moved from a large town which has over 87% of the population with English as a 2nd language and because of it's proximity to London, is a popular place to dump people. I now live in a smaller town that has only started getting refugees and large groups of immigrants. The level of problems faced by the two towns are completely different, from crime to pressures on services, but the town I'm in now is starting to develop the issues my former town faces. The townsfolk though are walking blindly into it- putting up 'Refugees Welcome' signs in windows, as hotels around the area fill up. They have this idea that they're all women and children- that these are helpless, vulnerable humans escaping war and poverty. They're not. They're healthy men that, if they don't like their country should be there doing something to change it.

After spending 9 years in a house in a street filled with rentals of 'refugees', I can categorically state that the women and children are few and far between. What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways.

These eegits waving the banners- they see refugees as their pet projects. They feel all cute and fluffy at the thought of helping someone- the 'Saviour' complex- until they have to clean their sh!t up and change their cages.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Firstly- it's 'hypothetical'

The rest- you'll find that those waving the banners can say 'Yes' they don't mind them moving next door to them, because they know they never will. Those waving the banners are usually middle class, own their own properties and have the time and funds to protest. Yet immigrants won't be housed in those areas. You'll also get the small town liberals that come out in flocks (all classes), because they come from towns that don't have a high population of immigrants and thus, have no idea as to the amount of issues that arise due to mass dumping of humans.

I moved from a large town which has over 87% of the population with English as a 2nd language and because of it's proximity to London, is a popular place to dump people. I now live in a smaller town that has only started getting refugees and large groups of immigrants. The level of problems faced by the two towns are completely different, from crime to pressures on services, but the town I'm in now is starting to develop the issues my former town faces. The townsfolk though are walking blindly into it- putting up 'Refugees Welcome' signs in windows, as hotels around the area fill up. They have this idea that they're all women and children- that these are helpless, vulnerable humans escaping war and poverty. They're not. They're healthy men that, if they don't like their country should be there doing something to change it.

After spending 9 years in a house in a street filled with rentals of 'refugees', I can categorically state that the women and children are few and far between. What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways.

These eegits waving the banners- they see refugees as their pet projects. They feel all cute and fluffy at the thought of helping someone- the 'Saviour' complex- until they have to clean their sh!t up and change their cages.

Interesting that you define men as bad, but women and children as good.

 

[fonzie]

You see rent-a-crowd at rallies with their banners 'refugees welcome here', 'no borders', etc. I made a flippant comment in another thread asking if they'd want them living next door. But it got me wondering... if you did ask the banner-wavers would they be happy if migrants moved in next door... they'd probably answer yes of course, because it's a hypothetical question. And with those type of questions you can give the high moral ground, politically correct answer. I wonder what the reaction would be if migrants actually did move in next door, would they feel as safe? I think not.
It's like when people say would you sleep with a stranger for £1,000,000?, the usual answer is No. But if the money was placed in front of them, would the answer be the same? Speaking for myself, for a million quid i'd sleep with the entire U.S 101st Airborne Division.

p.s is it hypothetical or hyperthetical? it's awful being so uneducated

keep it short were all illiterate like you

 

[Moriarty]

Firstly- it's 'hypothetical'

The rest- you'll find that those waving the banners can say 'Yes' they don't mind them moving next door to them, because they know they never will. Those waving the banners are usually middle class, own their own properties and have the time and funds to protest. Yet immigrants won't be housed in those areas. You'll also get the small town liberals that come out in flocks (all classes), because they come from towns that don't have a high population of immigrants and thus, have no idea as to the amount of issues that arise due to mass dumping of humans.

I moved from a large town which has over 87% of the population with English as a 2nd language and because of it's proximity to London, is a popular place to dump people. I now live in a smaller town that has only started getting refugees and large groups of immigrants. The level of problems faced by the two towns are completely different, from crime to pressures on services, but the town I'm in now is starting to develop the issues my former town faces. The townsfolk though are walking blindly into it- putting up 'Refugees Welcome' signs in windows, as hotels around the area fill up. They have this idea that they're all women and children- that these are helpless, vulnerable humans escaping war and poverty. They're not. They're healthy men that, if they don't like their country should be there doing something to change it.

After spending 9 years in a house in a street filled with rentals of 'refugees', I can categorically state that the women and children are few and far between. What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways.

These eegits waving the banners- they see refugees as their pet projects. They feel all cute and fluffy at the thought of helping someone- the 'Saviour' complex- until they have to clean their sh!t up and change their cages.

I used to live in a Yorkshire town in the middle of a Pakistani neighbourhood.
I worked in Bradford which was very non white.
I never had a problem with anyone I lived near or worked with.
Hell my neighbours knew I loved curry and would invite me over for a meal 2 or 3 times a week.
They always said "You british dont know how to make a good curry".
Damn they were right lol

That was 25 years ago, I very much doubt that sentiment, camaraderie, curiosity and love of food is there today.
We have lost that culture, that "inclusive" idea that we were all here to work, get good grades for the kids and co-exist without friction.

We have forgotten how to learn from each other.
Immigrants today are very different from those who I call my friends from all those years ago.

 

[Raining_Roses]

Interesting that you define men as bad, but women and children as good.

Can you highlight how I've defined 'men as bad' and 'women and children as good'?
What I said was:
"They have this idea that they're all women and children- that these are helpless, vulnerable humans escaping war and poverty. They're not. They're healthy men that, if they don't like their country should be there doing something to change it."

Meaning that women and children are vulnerable- not good or bad. Women and children are vulnerable- both women and children are more likely to be subjected to rape and assault during war nor do they have the same physical capacity to defend themselves or fend for themselves. Given a woman's physical limitations in regards to body mass, etc and reproduction processes, they cannot fight nor labour in the same manner as men. Also, given the countries that most of these people are 'fleeing' from, women are seen as objects, so exactly how is it useful to leave them in a war torn, poverty stricken country where they have no say or ability to change anything?

"After spending 9 years in a house in a street filled with rentals of 'refugees', I can categorically state that the women and children are few and far between. What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways."

I was giving an account of my experiences over the space of 9 years in a town with one of the highest populations of immigrants in the UK. Not once have I said the words 'good' or 'bad'. This is something you have deduced, because that's the way you think- not me. The women are few and far between. Over 60% of those seeking asylum in the UK are men of working age. That's less than 40% of a mixture of women of all ages and children under the age of 18. And it's hardly a state secret that the countries the majority of these men are coming from have very different attitudes to women and how they are treated to what is allowed by law in this country. A massive surprise, I know, but those attitudes and the behaviour that comes with them doesn't get left in the Channel with the iPhones they use to get through France. I mean, these are men that leave their wives and children in war torn countries, after all, but lest us not forget- there might be a budding doctor in there...somewhere!

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Can you highlight how I've defined 'men as bad' and 'women and children as good'?
What I said was:
"They have this idea that they're all women and children- that these are helpless, vulnerable humans escaping war and poverty. They're not. They're healthy men that, if they don't like their country should be there doing something to change it."

Meaning that women and children are vulnerable- not good or bad. Women and children are vulnerable- both women and children are more likely to be subjected to rape and assault during war nor do they have the same physical capacity to defend themselves or fend for themselves. Given a woman's physical limitations in regards to body mass, etc and reproduction processes, they cannot fight nor labour in the same manner as men. Also, given the countries that most of these people are 'fleeing' from, women are seen as objects, so exactly how is it useful to leave them in a war torn, poverty stricken country where they have no say or ability to change anything?

"After spending 9 years in a house in a street filled with rentals of 'refugees', I can categorically state that the women and children are few and far between. What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways."

I was giving an account of my experiences over the space of 9 years in a town with one of the highest populations of immigrants in the UK. Not once have I said the words 'good' or 'bad'. This is something you have deduced, because that's the way you think- not me. The women are few and far between. Over 60% of those seeking asylum in the UK are men of working age. That's less than 40% of a mixture of women of all ages and children under the age of 18. And it's hardly a state secret that the countries the majority of these men are coming from have very different attitudes to women and how they are treated to what is allowed by law in this country. A massive surprise, I know, but those attitudes and the behaviour that comes with them doesn't get left in the Channel with the iPhones they use to get through France. I mean, these are men that leave their wives and children in war torn countries, after all, but lest us not forget- there might be a budding doctor in there...somewhere!

The point you made was a distinction between the attitudes of two classes of people. "Refugees" and refugees. The diversion of focus to how people misread these groups, you classify as "they all think they're women and children", as if, if it was, there'd be no reason for you to say, "What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways." So, women don't poo in plastic bags, nor pee in alley ways? Do they instead ask a genie to send them a flying carpet with a portaloo on it?

Your comment discriminated good and bad by separating women and children from men. You had no regard for the men who had stood by while having their limbs mutilated, and possibly watching horrors happen to their families because they were peaceloving people. Instead, you painted them all as lazy bastards who crap everywhere on your precious streets. And on top of that, you make out that women and children don't do such things. Nor did you comment on the ungrateful women who can be part of those "refugees". Just the same. So maybe your tangential twisting should be more well-hidden.

For the record, there are genuine refugees who are grateful for help, and there are genuine refugees who have disdain for where they go. Both male and female. Also, there may be fake ones amongst them, which for the most part, the government of your land will be doing their best to sort out.

 

[TheBabayaga]

You see rent-a-crowd at rallies with their banners 'refugees welcome here', 'no borders', etc. I made a flippant comment in another thread asking if they'd want them living next door. But it got me wondering... if you did ask the banner-wavers would they be happy if migrants moved in next door... they'd probably answer yes of course, because it's a hypothetical question. And with those type of questions you can give the high moral ground, politically correct answer. I wonder what the reaction would be if migrants actually did move in next door, would they feel as safe? I think not.
It's like when people say would you sleep with a stranger for £1,000,000?, the usual answer is No. But if the money was placed in front of them, would the answer be the same? Speaking for myself, for a million quid i'd sleep with the entire U.S 101st Airborne Division.

p.s is it hypothetical or hyperthetical? it's awful being so uneducated

It really comes down to what is in that persons heart. You will never really know unless you rip it out of em and even then, it won't give anything anyway. Personaly and it might come across as a little biased considering my parents were imigrants, I fruckin turned out damn good If I do say so myself. Helped a poor old lady up after she fellie down, all these " non immagrants" walked past didnt give a fruckin sh**. Apologies for the bad language but it does pish me owwf how old folk are treated. Think might have vera'd away from the subject matter..oh arr yerss that's it..will everyone just stop being Goddam Rayshilist !!!

 

[asaultnviniger]

What if there were no hypothetical questions

 

[Raining_Roses]

The point you made was a distinction between the attitudes of two classes of people. "Refugees" and refugees. The diversion of focus to how people misread these groups, you classify as "they all think they're women and children", as if, if it was, there'd be no reason for you to say, "What they're welcoming is scores of men between the ages 17 and late 40's, who will spend their days standing outside their hotels/digs, harassing women on the street and spending their food allowance on scratch cards, cigarettes and alcohol. They also used to poo in plastic bags and leave them in the street and pee in people's alley ways." So, women don't poo in plastic bags, nor pee in alley ways? Do they instead ask a genie to send them a flying carpet with a portaloo on it?

Before I answer your questions, consider mine. Do you live in a town with a high population of recent refugees from Middle-Eastern & African countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, etc (last 10-15 yrs- I say recent for a reason)? If so, do you live near any hostels that house new refugees being processed? If not, how do you know the direct effect that this has on the community? Also, what two classes of people are you on about? You’ve written “Refugees” and refugees, which is exactly the same, only one has speech marks and the other doesn’t!

My point was that those- just like you- waving the ‘Welcome Refugee’ flags have a fluffy idea that you are virtuous for saving those that are desperate and vulnerable. Yet ironically, the majority of the ‘vulnerable’ refugees you are advocating for are men and not vulnerable at all.

We’re more likely to go behind bushes, but given your questions, I’ll give you some lee-way here. Indeed, I have seen a woman pee in a garage after a night out on the lash and a woman (oddly enough, she didn’t speak English) hitch up her long black dress and take a poo in a supermarket isle. But generally, no- we look for a public convenience, go behind a bush or quickly buy some incontinence pads from the local Premier. And just to point out, there were a couple of shops just seconds away from the houses I mentioned and they did sell incontinence pads. Oh, and don’t men have bigger bladders than women? So, they could have dashed to the public convenience in the park, down the road.

Your comment discriminated good and bad by separating women and children from men. You had no regard for the men who had stood by while having their limbs mutilated, and possibly watching horrors happen to their families because they were peaceloving people. Instead, you painted them all as lazy bastards who crap everywhere on your precious streets. And on top of that, you make out that women and children don't do such things. Nor did you comment on the ungrateful women who can be part of those "refugees". Just the same. So maybe your tangential twisting should be more well-hidden.

No, you saw my comment as separating women and children as good and men as bad. I separated them by vulnerability and need. I didn’t see many one-armed or one-legged men smoking and drinking outside the hostels, nor in the town centre when they stood around in groups, spitting and harassing young girls. Nor have I seen any on the news or in the tabloids, or at the protest at a recent hotel nearby when they were spitting and throwing drinks at locals.

Many are not coming from scenes of war. France is not at war and most (if not all) have crossed safe countries to come here, because they’ve been sold a celebrity lifestyle and so come for a ‘better life’. Do you know who I feel sorry for? The mothers who buy the story and ship their unaccompanied children over to this country, forking out every bit of money they can muster to people traffickers, who because of our soft approach to keeping them here, think it’s worth it. Only for the child to be sold in to sex work, halfway across Europe.

So, keep virtue signalling. Keep it going. That’s what you advocate for.

For the record, there are genuine refugees who are grateful for help, and there are genuine refugees who have disdain for where they go. Both male and female. Also, there may be fake ones amongst them, which for the most part, the government of your land will be doing their best to sort out.

Yes, I know, but those genuine refugees are not young, healthy men that can walk for miles and survive days (or weeks) on a dingy. Were there healthy young men being evacuated in WW1 or WW2? No- it was children. Preserved for the future of that population and because they’re vulnerable.

And no, the government of ‘my’ land is not doing their best to sort it out or else you wouldn’t have more and more of the population developing anti-refugee views. Before flooding us with the more recent influxes, those kind of views were considered ‘Far-right’ and personally, I’m the daughter of an immigrant- I have no UK DNA whatsoever- and was fed on the knowledge that the UK was built by immigrants. After WW2, immigration was vital to this country and it enriched the UK. The same can be said for the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Those coming in brought skills, culture, art, music; attitudes needed changing and that really started to come in the ‘90’s, but then came the late ‘90s- early 2000’s. All of a sudden, it was a door’s open policy- all you had to do was claim ‘refugee’ status.

This country needs to get a grip. It’s not about saving the world- it hasn’t been for a very long time.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Before I answer your questions, consider mine. Do you live in a town with a high population of recent refugees from Middle-Eastern & African countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, etc (last 10-15 yrs- I say recent for a reason)? If so, do you live near any hostels that house new refugees being processed? If not, how do you know the direct effect that this has on the community? Also, what two classes of people are you on about? You’ve written “Refugees” and refugees, which is exactly the same, only one has speech marks and the other doesn’t!

My point was that those- just like you- waving the ‘Welcome Refugee’ flags have a fluffy idea that you are virtuous for saving those that are desperate and vulnerable. Yet ironically, the majority of the ‘vulnerable’ refugees you are advocating for are men and not vulnerable at all.

We’re more likely to go behind bushes, but given your questions, I’ll give you some lee-way here. Indeed, I have seen a woman pee in a garage after a night out on the lash and a woman (oddly enough, she didn’t speak English) hitch up her long black dress and take a poo in a supermarket isle. But generally, no- we look for a public convenience, go behind a bush or quickly buy some incontinence pads from the local Premier. And just to point out, there were a couple of shops just seconds away from the houses I mentioned and they did sell incontinence pads. Oh, and don’t men have bigger bladders than women? So, they could have dashed to the public convenience in the park, down the road.

No, you saw my comment as separating women and children as good and men as bad. I separated them by vulnerability and need. I didn’t see many one-armed or one-legged men smoking and drinking outside the hostels, nor in the town centre when they stood around in groups, spitting and harassing young girls. Nor have I seen any on the news or in the tabloids, or at the protest at a recent hotel nearby when they were spitting and throwing drinks at locals.

Many are not coming from scenes of war. France is not at war and most (if not all) have crossed safe countries to come here, because they’ve been sold a celebrity lifestyle and so come for a ‘better life’. Do you know who I feel sorry for? The mothers who buy the story and ship their unaccompanied children over to this country, forking out every bit of money they can muster to people traffickers, who because of our soft approach to keeping them here, think it’s worth it. Only for the child to be sold in to sex work, halfway across Europe.

So, keep virtue signalling. Keep it going. That’s what you advocate for.

Yes, I know, but those genuine refugees are not young, healthy men that can walk for miles and survive days (or weeks) on a dingy. Were there healthy young men being evacuated in WW1 or WW2? No- it was children. Preserved for the future of that population and because they’re vulnerable.

And no, the government of ‘my’ land is not doing their best to sort it out or else you wouldn’t have more and more of the population developing anti-refugee views. Before flooding us with the more recent influxes, those kind of views were considered ‘Far-right’ and personally, I’m the daughter of an immigrant- I have no UK DNA whatsoever- and was fed on the knowledge that the UK was built by immigrants. After WW2, immigration was vital to this country and it enriched the UK. The same can be said for the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Those coming in brought skills, culture, art, music; attitudes needed changing and that really started to come in the ‘90’s, but then came the late ‘90s- early 2000’s. All of a sudden, it was a door’s open policy- all you had to do was claim ‘refugee’ status.

This country needs to get a grip. It’s not about saving the world- it hasn’t been for a very long time.

Feel free to explain all you like. I don't care. You're the one voting for this system. I hope you are enjoying the consequences of it.

 

[TheBabayaga]

Before I answer your questions, consider mine. Do you live in a town with a high population of recent refugees from Middle-Eastern & African countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, etc (last 10-15 yrs- I say recent for a reason)? If so, do you live near any hostels that house new refugees being processed? If not, how do you know the direct effect that this has on the community? Also, what two classes of people are you on about? You’ve written “Refugees” and refugees, which is exactly the same, only one has speech marks and the other doesn’t!

My point was that those- just like you- waving the ‘Welcome Refugee’ flags have a fluffy idea that you are virtuous for saving those that are desperate and vulnerable. Yet ironically, the majority of the ‘vulnerable’ refugees you are advocating for are men and not vulnerable at all.

We’re more likely to go behind bushes, but given your questions, I’ll give you some lee-way here. Indeed, I have seen a woman pee in a garage after a night out on the lash and a woman (oddly enough, she didn’t speak English) hitch up her long black dress and take a poo in a supermarket isle. But generally, no- we look for a public convenience, go behind a bush or quickly buy some incontinence pads from the local Premier. And just to point out, there were a couple of shops just seconds away from the houses I mentioned and they did sell incontinence pads. Oh, and don’t men have bigger bladders than women? So, they could have dashed to the public convenience in the park, down the road.

No, you saw my comment as separating women and children as good and men as bad. I separated them by vulnerability and need. I didn’t see many one-armed or one-legged men smoking and drinking outside the hostels, nor in the town centre when they stood around in groups, spitting and harassing young girls. Nor have I seen any on the news or in the tabloids, or at the protest at a recent hotel nearby when they were spitting and throwing drinks at locals.

Many are not coming from scenes of war. France is not at war and most (if not all) have crossed safe countries to come here, because they’ve been sold a celebrity lifestyle and so come for a ‘better life’. Do you know who I feel sorry for? The mothers who buy the story and ship their unaccompanied children over to this country, forking out every bit of money they can muster to people traffickers, who because of our soft approach to keeping them here, think it’s worth it. Only for the child to be sold in to sex work, halfway across Europe.

So, keep virtue signalling. Keep it going. That’s what you advocate for.

Yes, I know, but those genuine refugees are not young, healthy men that can walk for miles and survive days (or weeks) on a dingy. Were there healthy young men being evacuated in WW1 or WW2? No- it was children. Preserved for the future of that population and because they’re vulnerable.

And no, the government of ‘my’ land is not doing their best to sort it out or else you wouldn’t have more and more of the population developing anti-refugee views. Before flooding us with the more recent influxes, those kind of views were considered ‘Far-right’ and personally, I’m the daughter of an immigrant- I have no UK DNA whatsoever- and was fed on the knowledge that the UK was built by immigrants. After WW2, immigration was vital to this country and it enriched the UK. The same can be said for the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Those coming in brought skills, culture, art, music; attitudes needed changing and that really started to come in the ‘90’s, but then came the late ‘90s- early 2000’s. All of a sudden, it was a door’s open policy- all you had to do was claim ‘refugee’ status.

This country needs to get a grip. It’s not about saving the world- it hasn’t been for a very long time.

what the actual poo bag and pissin in a pond..fruck! How would you like to be welcomed when you go abroad. That's the question you should be asking yourselves. I've too seen guys pishing in the middle of the road, throwing up in shop doorways, pulling pants down and showing their wares to passin by families..and so on and so fowe-uth. Born an bred Brits. Maybe that's where they get it from these immagrants.
Monkey do what monkey see.

 

[Moriarty]

Before I answer your questions, consider mine. Do you live in a town with a high population of recent refugees from Middle-Eastern & African countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, etc (last 10-15 yrs- I say recent for a reason)?

This country needs to get a grip. It’s not about saving the world- it hasn’t been for a very long time.

I am selectively quoting your post, I'm sorry for that.
The reason why is.
In those countries you mentioned we have intentionally, along with the USA and NATO, used military force with no decleration of war.

Millions of barrels of Syrian Oil have been "Appropratied" by the USA and others, the Opium Poppy fields of Afghanistan which the Taliban shut down flourished under US, UK and NATO's occupation.

It's more complex than people tend to think about.
Do we owe them something for basically ruining thier countries?

Thats a question for each person to answer.

 

[Raining_Roses]

I am selectively quoting your post, I'm sorry for that.
The reason why is.
In those countries you mentioned we have intentionally, along with the USA and NATO, used military force with no decleration of war.

Millions of barrels of Syrian Oil have been "Appropratied" by the USA and others, the Opium Poppy fields of Afghanistan which the Taliban shut down flourished under US, UK and NATO's occupation.

It's more complex than people tend to think about.
Do we owe them something for basically ruining thier countries?

Thats a question for each person to answer.

I get where you're coming from and despite us occasionally rubbing each other up the wrong way, I will always take what you say into consideration.

I'm not going to pretend I know the depth of history to how the UK, along with other western countries, have exploited the middle east and Africa. I also recognise the level of ignorance, not just from myself but others, on the responsibility of the UK in respect of colonisation. The UK government and monarchy have a long bloody history of cruelty and domination in other countries that we shouldn't hold pride in.

But does that mean we should be paying the price forever? I see we've forgiven the Germans and broke bread (dag namit, nearly half the country wanted to be ruled by them not so long ago!), but us Brits are supposed to pay the price for decisions we didn't actually make and a history none of us was involved in? I don't owe these countries anything- I wasn't alive, was too young to vote or was possibly voting for the Green Party when those decisions were made. We don't get to vote on war and military action, so 'we' didn't ruin their countries, yet it will always be the working man that pays the price. It will be our services overstretched, our taxes that rise and us that have to assimilate.

So why aren't 'we' empowering the ordinary citizens of those countries? Sending aid and helping them survive on their own soil instead of taking them onto a tiny little island that is struggling to manage its own?

If our country insists on acting on their white guilt, perhaps empower the populations of those countries to take control, rather than escape.

 

[cidal]

Guilt. The answer to every single one of your questions. Guilt can lead to altruism, though. So there is that.

Imagine the OP posted this based on his or her own typical mindless point - migrants, kill 'em all!! Yet, you lot are having an actual back-and-forth. And even loving on each other and 'listening'. I bet the OP is a little sad now. So from a douche-like original post, came an actual discussion with good points...see, you Brits and your shitty past, many of you have come a long-ass way, while us lot in the former colonies still focus on how you fucked us over and everything is your fault. Yet now, most things are our own fault based on 'divide and conquer'. I mean, come on, it's not like it was that brilliant an idea - but it still works. Apparently, it is now taking over your western world.

How the **** people from all over can flood a country in the west while their originating countries still abuse the west, is beyond me. How many Muslim nations have helped out fellow Muslims from countries the west continue to **** up? Some of them are more focused on building a football league with their wealth, not housing, clothing and feeding their fellow Muslims. Nice.

My point - I have none about the topic. The OP is a *** is my only point. A hypothetical with trigger words thrown in to help morons like THE Son of God come up with more drivel. I was wrong to equate Moriarty to that douchebag. My bad.

 

[Moriarty]

I get where you're coming from and despite us occasionally rubbing each other up the wrong way, I will always take what you say into consideration.

I'm not going to pretend I know the depth of history to how the UK, along with other western countries, have exploited the middle east and Africa. I also recognise the level of ignorance, not just from myself but others, on the responsibility of the UK in respect of colonisation. The UK government and monarchy have a long bloody history of cruelty and domination in other countries that we shouldn't hold pride in.

But does that mean we should be paying the price forever? I see we've forgiven the Germans and broke bread (dag namit, nearly half the country wanted to be ruled by them not so long ago!), but us Brits are supposed to pay the price for decisions we didn't actually make and a history none of us was involved in? I don't owe these countries anything- I wasn't alive, was too young to vote or was possibly voting for the Green Party when those decisions were made. We don't get to vote on war and military action, so 'we' didn't ruin their countries, yet it will always be the working man that pays the price. It will be our services overstretched, our taxes that rise and us that have to assimilate.

So why aren't 'we' empowering the ordinary citizens of those countries? Sending aid and helping them survive on their own soil instead of taking them onto a tiny little island that is struggling to manage its own?

If our country insists on acting on their white guilt, perhaps empower the populations of those countries to take control, rather than escape.

Your right.
We should not take the sins of either our fore fathers or our political masters into our hearts.

I for one despise our government because of what it has done.
I have tried to show a, subjective yet I think moral, "Will of the people" stance against much of what the government does "In our name" as pure hypocrisy.

The problem is, as a government we now have a 2 party administration based on collective belief of a single state body.
There is no longer a seperation between the parties apart from virtue signalling the latest polls.

The UK government today is driven by external forces with percieved polling data given by paid "Experts" and spurious facts.

We are becoming the USA.