Are refugees inherently bad people?
A refugee is someone who usually flees adverse circumstances. The Geneva convention defines this as "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
(edited 7 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
No but UKIP voters are
They can be good and they can be bad. Just like any person on this planet.
Spoiler
Are you inherently a bad person?
Original post by 41b
A refugee is someone who usually flees adverse circumstances. The Geneva convention defines this as "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
Cleverly you have made no reference to the so called "refugees" flooding Europe.
Were St Mary, Mother of God, and St Joseph inherently bad people?
Original post by jambojim97
They can be good and they can be bad. Just like any person on this planet.
Spoiler
Refugees are people who have decided to flee. They can come from any race, religion, greed and background, but they have all acted to run away. Hence there is nothing arbitrary or stereotypical about this question.
Original post by 41b
Refugees are people who have decided to flee. They can come from any race, religion, greed and background, but they have all acted to run away. Hence there is nothing arbitrary or stereotypical about this question.
Yes and the alternative being persecution and/or death...
Original post by jambojim97
Yes and the alternative being persecution and/or death...
Not at all. They can always fight back, but have chosen not to. Many have abandoned women and children in their homelands to flee. In a civil war, every man becomes a soldier, whether he volunteered or not. Thus they may be argued as moral deserters. Do host countries owe anything to people who many argue are cowards, traitors etc? And is it wise to invite such people into a country?
Original post by 41b
A refugee is someone who usually flees adverse circumstances. The Geneva convention defines this as "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
Since you didn't state I'm guessing you're talking about Syria?
Not everyone thinks the way you do, i'm sure you've never held a gun or killed someone have you? the psychological trauma can harm a person beyond comprehension.
Why must young children be tainted by conflicts of the older generation. Shouldn't they have the right to dream to become something other than a child solider and fight for a cause they don't fully understand.
Cowards - easy to say when you aren't the one facing the unpleasant sight
Original post by BinyQuan
Since you didn't state I'm guessing you're talking about Syria?
Not everyone thinks the way you do, i'm sure you've never held a gun or killed someone have you? the psychological trauma can harm a person beyond comprehension.
Why must young children be tainted by conflicts of the older generation. Shouldn't they have the right to dream to become something other than a child solider and fight for a cause they don't fully understand.
Cowards - easy to say when you aren't the one facing the unpleasant sight
Not everyone thinks the way you do, i'm sure you've never held a gun or killed someone have you? the psychological trauma can harm a person beyond comprehension.
Why must young children be tainted by conflicts of the older generation. Shouldn't they have the right to dream to become something other than a child solider and fight for a cause they don't fully understand.
Cowards - easy to say when you aren't the one facing the unpleasant sight
I have used many firearms and hunted many animals for food.
That is not true. Men have evolved to be killing machines. Before the 1980s, it was widely recognised in the West that a male's primary purpose is to fight. Only nuclear weapons and the prohibitive cost of conflict has allowed people to forget that most generations of men have fought a war.
It is their duty. Without their parents they would not exist, and if they run away then their country will be destroyed. Boys 10-11 are not young children. They are not old enough to fight but can be sent to training, so that by the time they arrive at fighting age they are ready to defend their country.
Here is George S. Patton, famous US general, who was shot in combat, talking about people with post traumatic stress disorder:
It has come to my attention that a very small number of soldiers are going to the hospital on the pretext that they are nervously incapable of combat. Such men are cowards and bring discredit on the army and disgrace to their comrades, whom they heartlessly leave to endure the dangers of battle while they, themselves, use the hospital as a means of escape. You will take measures to see that such cases are not sent to the hospital but dealt with in their units. Those who are not willing to fight will be tried by court-martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy.
— Patton directive to the Seventh Army, 5 August 1943
His opinion of male refugees fleeing conscription would have been much harsher. Most fighting men would agree with him.
Original post by 41b
Not at all. They can always fight back, but have chosen not to. Many have abandoned women and children in their homelands to flee. In a civil war, every man becomes a soldier, whether he volunteered or not. Thus they may be argued as moral deserters. Do host countries owe anything to people who many argue are cowards, traitors etc? And is it wise to invite such people into a country?
M8, when a whopping great militant group is ruling the land, I hardly think you're in a position to right back. Straw man argument.
Original post by 41b
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy?
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy?
What if they reject the nationalist idea of being proud of their country, and instead reach the rational realisation that they were born in that country out of sheer chance?
Then there's the practical issue to take into account: if people storm your community with AKs and all you've got is water balloons, I don't think fighting back would be high on your list of priorities.
What kind of value will such people add to the host country?
An alive doctor is better than a dead doctor.
Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
They don't owe them anything. And it's at this point that morality and practicality start to enter a conflict. Morality suggests that a country should accept every refugee on the grounds of human compassion, practicality suggests that it's not feasible to do so.
But seriously dude, you make it sound like everyone is merely waiting for their time to be conscripted. Doesn't match up to reality.
If England descends into a warzone overnight, my first thought would be how me and my own are going to survive, not how I'm going kill every invader I come across with pointy sticks and stones from the beach.
I've played enough COD to realise that I'd be balla at quickscoping, but where I am gonna get a Barrett on short notice?
Original post by 41b
A refugee is someone who usually flees adverse circumstances. The Geneva convention defines this as "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
But what kind of person flees a warzone when his country and community is being attacked?
I don't think women or female children, and male children under 10 or 11, should be prevented from fleeing warzones, as long as they aren't abandoning people who are fighting the conflict who depend on them (e.g. as ammunition transporters). But male children should be sent back as soon as they are of fighting or training age.
If it is a man who flees, he should capable of fighting until his late 40s. Should countries accept people who are unwilling to fight even to defend their own community? Is letting people who many would considers cowards into the country a good policy? What kind of value will such people add to the host country? Do countries owe anything to people whom the countries of origin (and most honourable people) would regard as cowards and deserters?
No, people are inherently bad, coming from a crap culture just shows it more
Posted from TSR Mobile
Anyone can be a refugee.
But the current wave of "refugee" migrants don't really have the capacity to be good or bad, they just follow their instincts.
But the current wave of "refugee" migrants don't really have the capacity to be good or bad, they just follow their instincts.
I think you raise an interesting point actually.
I wouldn't say that inherently bad is the right way to say it but I am inclined to agree with the premise.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I wouldn't say that inherently bad is the right way to say it but I am inclined to agree with the premise.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Um, I get your point, but you're simplifying things too much by saying "why don't the men just fight?"
One, as mentioned before, they may not have the appropriate equipment.
Second, they never asked for this war. It was supposed to be a series of demonstrations, maybe a revolution like Egypt or Tunisia, but not a gigantic mess of terrorism and chemical weapons. Even if we're talking neutrally, with no reference to Syria, we know that the majority just want to carry on their normal lives without conflict. The men likely hoped that they'd just go to university and settle into a comfortable job, not fight a gruesome war. Sure, it's nothing wrong with expecting men to be brave. Men, like women, should be brave....but in a war that creates refugees like the Holocaust killing jews, homosexuals, Romanis, etc and ISIS killing EVERYONE they hate even Sunni muslims (if they don't support ISIS) is not something we expect everyone to be brave about. Dude.
Many refugees have initially tried to stay away from the conflict within Syria as well. Refugees have mentioned that they've tried to stop talking about politics to keep themselves neutral and out the radar–doesn't help. Either ISIS or Assad's Army will still attack them on suspicion.
Refugees aren't inherently bad people, but no doubt some are bad. There are definitely some cowards in every refugee population. But dude, if Americans started taking refuge in Canada, do you really think rapists and cowards won't come? You'd be lying if you said no.
Perhaps, you could argue, certain refugee populations are backward compared to their destination. Now that's another topic all together. I'm iffy on that.
if you care, though, I just think refugees should be welcome to regular background checks and not complain about how anti PC it is, and they should be allowed in if they agree to it
One, as mentioned before, they may not have the appropriate equipment.
Second, they never asked for this war. It was supposed to be a series of demonstrations, maybe a revolution like Egypt or Tunisia, but not a gigantic mess of terrorism and chemical weapons. Even if we're talking neutrally, with no reference to Syria, we know that the majority just want to carry on their normal lives without conflict. The men likely hoped that they'd just go to university and settle into a comfortable job, not fight a gruesome war. Sure, it's nothing wrong with expecting men to be brave. Men, like women, should be brave....but in a war that creates refugees like the Holocaust killing jews, homosexuals, Romanis, etc and ISIS killing EVERYONE they hate even Sunni muslims (if they don't support ISIS) is not something we expect everyone to be brave about. Dude.
Many refugees have initially tried to stay away from the conflict within Syria as well. Refugees have mentioned that they've tried to stop talking about politics to keep themselves neutral and out the radar–doesn't help. Either ISIS or Assad's Army will still attack them on suspicion.
Refugees aren't inherently bad people, but no doubt some are bad. There are definitely some cowards in every refugee population. But dude, if Americans started taking refuge in Canada, do you really think rapists and cowards won't come? You'd be lying if you said no.
Perhaps, you could argue, certain refugee populations are backward compared to their destination. Now that's another topic all together. I'm iffy on that.
if you care, though, I just think refugees should be welcome to regular background checks and not complain about how anti PC it is, and they should be allowed in if they agree to it
Original post by childofthesun
Says the person who hasn't got the slightest idea what it's like to be in a war-zone. Just carry on living your priviledged life hun
Spot on!
Original post by paul514
Crap culture?
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Were St Mary, Mother of God, and St Joseph inherently bad people?
Yes.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Massive accidental lie on UCAS application
- Asylum seeker dies on bibby Stockholm barge
- essay question
- Questions on "The Ultimate Safari" by Nadine Gordimer
- Body count of 5 at 16
- GCSE Drama Devising piece help
- Imperial College London for Maths with Stats
- "The best thing about the course is the placements." - Emily, Public Health
- Lse or Kcl for refugee studies?
- essay question - sociology
- Sixth form/college life
- Asylum seeker status transition to refugee status
- gym etiquette question
- could someone mark this politics edexcel alevel essay please?
- Do I need to have a bf before I have sex ?
- Is Puppy yoga bad
- Oxford MSc Refugee And Forced Migration
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- 5 careers for Working with Children, Young People & Families graduates
- Personal Statement help?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?