Doctors Without Borders doesn't take money from EU anymore

Post by k-mcgrady » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:50 AM UTC

Freestyler_3 wrote: post #27

I do not wish harm for any innocent people. If they want they can get what we have in their own country, they need to make that possible though, if needed with our help. (I think there should be more focus on taking care of refugees and the like in the region... or at least more in countries that support their culture) Only when really necessary we need to take refugees into europe for protection, usually those are p…

Post by dalke » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:53 AM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #22

dalke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are "limits" and there are "limits". If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit. Somehow I don't think that's the limit you are talking about, but that's the only obvious one I can think of. What do you think is the limit, and why do you think the EU countries already past or even near to that limit?

The limit is the receiving countries not becoming what they're fleeing from, obviously If you disagree, my suggestion is that you take in your house as many refugees as the number of people that currently live in it. > If the receiving country has no room, is broke, and its citizenry are on the edge of starvation, then that's one limit. Oh of course, let's destroy whole countries otherwise people like you will think…

Post by thecopy » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:54 AM UTC

jlg23 wrote: post #32

curiousgal wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw, not from countries affected by war Exactly this. The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others and proceed to help the refugees because there's no question about that. Edit: Wait, I take it by the downvotes that you think people should not be screened and that everyone who shows up at the borders is a distressed refugee fleeing war?…

>> Most people coming to Europe are economic migrantw [sic] Source for that statement? > The reasonable thing to do would've been to differentiate refugees from others This is exactly what we are doing, but this requires actual checks, not just a look at a person's face.

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:55 AM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #23

raverbashing wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on why not being charitable, solidaric, or however you want to call it is immoral and shortsighted Which is a very nice strawman > if you accept human dignity as an inalienable right (one of the tenets of humanism) then you have already created an ethics in which you either care or are immmoral Nice way in making people guilty and only seeing black and white. You are as intolerant as ISIS, you're just not killing p…

> Which is a very nice strawman I'm curious as to what is a strawman in that statement? You are arguing charity should be optional, he said "not being charitable". Where in that sentence is he misrepresenting the position he is claiming is immoral and shortsighted? Is the word solidaric that much of a sticking point? I've found quite a few arguments against allowing the influx of migrants from the middle east to cont…

Post by nxzero » Sat, Jun 18, 2016, 11:58 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #34

Uh, regardless of your stance on the specific topic (refugee handling), isn't this simply a tactical mistake? Let's say the EU is your enemy. They offer you money. Is it tactically smarter to flatly refuse the money (you are poorer, your enemy is marginally richer, nothing has changed) or rather to accept the money and then use it to fight the donor (you are richer, your enemy is marginally poorer and you are effecti…