Defending SA?

Man-love over boy-sex? Semen better than Astroglide? Your mother's naked body more horrifying than a 747 full of infants exploding in mid-air and the debris raining down through razor sharp mesh wire? Discuss it here!
Locked
BadBoy
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1046
Joined: December 1, 2003, 5:27 pm
Location: Behind and slightly to the right

Defending SA?

Post by BadBoy » May 19, 2008, 1:27 pm

Thoughtless unprovoked violence cannot be condoned, but the law allows for violence in the case of self defence.

Are these attacks defending SA? look at some of the effects of these immigrants assume that only 50% of them are employed that’s 2 million jobs if that amount of south Africans were employed it would drop unemployment by at least 5% these South Africans are turning to crime because they have no jobs. Conservatively these immigrants are sending a billion rand a month “back home”, That is money that should remain in our economy creating jobs instead of propping up mad Bob’s dictatorship. So are the xenophobes defending SA?
Don't mess in the affairs of dragons cos u r crunchy and taste good with mustard

User avatar
Drac
THREAD KILLER
Posts: 450
Joined: February 21, 2006, 1:02 pm

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Drac » May 20, 2008, 10:23 am

One cannot help but agree with this statement, however the violence that has occurred is outrageous.

I can understand that the South Africans are upset at not having work and litteraly, food is being taken from their mouths. My argument remains that if they are unwilling to work for say R60 a day where the leaches are, they have no right to complain. The problem starts because the South Africans are unwilling to work for anything less than R80. Fair enough, they need to make money, however if you are starving, you will make a plan and any amount that can put some food in your stomach should be acceptable. The laziness of the locals coupled with their need to jump onto the gravy train as many of their politicians have done, does not justify the need to rape and pillage. Agreed, they need to get rid of the invaders that are crippling our economy but at the same time, they should be willing to make a compromise with regards to their wages, to force the immigrants out in a peaceful manner.

User avatar
Paelleon
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1214
Joined: August 1, 2005, 11:41 am
Location: On the side of the street

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Paelleon » May 27, 2008, 2:04 pm

No. You cannot condone the attacks with any argument. If the argument that the immigrants are stealing jobs were to hold any water, then those South Africans who have moved to the UK are in serious danger, as are the millions of foreign workers around the world.

Plus, at least some of the foreigners working here had started businesses which employed local staff, and rented property from local landowners, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Take them away, and you flood the market with even more workers, and less jobs to put them in.

It is a crisis, and a poorly handled one. The government is partly to blame. A lot of the resentment is due to the poor handling of the low economic housing solutions. houses which poor locals have had their name on long lists for have been given to non locals with the help of some good old-fashioned bribery. That should never had happened, but I don't think it was the root cause. It did accelerate the situation, but these attacks would have occured in any event. With half your population living below the bread line you must expect something to blow.
They float. They always flooaaatttt ....

BadBoy
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1046
Joined: December 1, 2003, 5:27 pm
Location: Behind and slightly to the right

Re: Defending SA?

Post by BadBoy » May 28, 2008, 12:20 pm

No. You cannot condone the attacks with any argument
What a silly statement of course you can and i don<b>[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]</b>t have the time to dream up some to show how wrong this statement is
If the argument that the immigrants are stealing jobs were to hold any water, then those South Africans who have moved to the UK are in serious danger, as are the millions of foreign workers around the world.
Big diffrence between skilled migrants into low unemployment countries and us
Plus, at least some of the foreigners working here had started businesses which employed local staff, and rented property from local landowners, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Take them away, and you flood the market with even more workers, and less jobs to put them in.
2 million odd i don<b>[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]</b>t think so
but these attacks would have occured in any event. With half your population living below the bread line you must expect something to blow.
it dosent help that 10% of your population is not supposed to be here commiting crimes ( nice job on not commenting on that one) and bleeding us of currency, and yes taking (not stealing) jobs
Don't mess in the affairs of dragons cos u r crunchy and taste good with mustard

User avatar
Paelleon
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1214
Joined: August 1, 2005, 11:41 am
Location: On the side of the street

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Paelleon » May 28, 2008, 1:32 pm

By condoning the violence, you are condoning murder. I still challenge you to dream up a statement that condones murder. In certain specific instances - like catching a multiple murderer redhanded, and about to escape - there are arguments in which the utility could be seen to increase by the removal of an element from society. But in general murder cannot be condoned by any normal (defined as the average) person. Laws are simply an expression of the will of the majority, or should be. Laws that defend murder in self-defense are very specific to the circumstances. Burning someone alive in their shack for the heinous crime of being from Zambia is not one of the particular tenents in the self-defense law.

If you accept that argument, then all other arguments pro the xenophobes are null and void.

If you are arguing that foreigners are taking jobs or increasing crime, and that immigration should be more controlled, then I agree 100%. I'm simply saying that the xenophobic attacks are reprehensible. Saying that the xenophobes are "defending" South Africa by committing murder is wrong. That's cutting off your nose because it itches ...
They float. They always flooaaatttt ....

BadBoy
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1046
Joined: December 1, 2003, 5:27 pm
Location: Behind and slightly to the right

Re: Defending SA?

Post by BadBoy » May 28, 2008, 2:32 pm

Burning someone alive in their shack for the heinous crime of being from Zambia is not one of the particular tenents in the self-defense law
I now see you have the ability to read the minds of the people commiting the attacks, what if the crispy was here to detonate a nuke and the only weapon the hero had to hand was a golf club (or a litre of petrol and a goodyear)? we can go on being silly here or you can admit that "any" is a big word and should of not been used.
If you are arguing that foreigners are taking jobs or increasing crime, and that immigration should be more controlled, then I agree 100%. I'm simply saying that the xenophobic attacks are reprehensible. Saying that the xenophobes are "defending" South Africa by committing murder is wrong. That's cutting off your nose because it itches ...
so stopping them getting in here is ok, but chasing them out once in is not.

the question here is not how morally acceptable the attacks are but rather are they defending SA?
Don't mess in the affairs of dragons cos u r crunchy and taste good with mustard

User avatar
Paelleon
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1214
Joined: August 1, 2005, 11:41 am
Location: On the side of the street

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Paelleon » May 28, 2008, 2:43 pm

BadBoy wrote:
Burning someone alive in their shack for the heinous crime of being from Zambia is not one of the particular tenents in the self-defense law
I now see you have the ability to read the minds of the people commiting the attacks, what if the crispy was here to detonate a nuke and the only weapon the hero had to hand was a golf club (or a litre of petrol and a goodyear)? we can go on being silly here or you can admit that "any" is a big word and should of not been used.

How am I reading their minds? Are you honestly suggesting that there is some other reason they are burning the shacks? I thought we were only discussing the xenophobic attacks?
BadBoy wrote:
If you are arguing that foreigners are taking jobs or increasing crime, and that immigration should be more controlled, then I agree 100%. I'm simply saying that the xenophobic attacks are reprehensible. Saying that the xenophobes are "defending" South Africa by committing murder is wrong. That's cutting off your nose because it itches ...
so stopping them getting in here is ok, but chasing them out once in is not.
Yes. It is actually more acceptable to stop someone from entering a place than to attack them once in and force them out. If they entered illegally, then you have the right to attempt to remove them. If they are here legally, then how can you justify kicking them out? Can someone say "Hitler and the Nazi Regime."? The Nazis justified persecuting Jews by saying that Jews were stealing German people's jobs, and taking their money.
BadBoy wrote:the question here is not how morally acceptable the attacks are but rather are they defending SA?
As I said before: "Saying that the xenophobes are "defending" South Africa by committing murder is wrong."
They float. They always flooaaatttt ....

User avatar
Mr Dildo
Gay As Hell
Posts: 732
Joined: September 30, 2004, 3:04 pm
Location: right behindja

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Mr Dildo » May 29, 2008, 8:17 am

Township dwellers are in effect just copying the behaviour of their "black diamond" bruthas and sistas in the more affluent world. the only difference really is their method of execution.
Black diamonds are insisting that all the best positions / contracts should be transferred to them by right through AA/BEE
The less affluent cousins are taking what they believe to be theirs(jobs, women, houses... etc) back through violence

It's all about this culture of entitlement that has been fostered in both lots of lazy fuckers.

The perpetually disadvantaged are never going to get over their belief that local blacks must get in line first for everything at any cost.
Where the "educated and enlightened" continue to feel the need to implement BEE and AA "until the second coming of Jesus Christ" to wrest all that wealth and status from the whiteys (and a few indians of course), the masses of unemployed can only implement their own version of the culture of entitlement on fellow africans who are "stealing opportunities, jobs and women"

If we are really honest it's just a case of the masses duplicating BEE/AA in their own special way.
Feel free to disagree with me if you think I'll give a shit

BadBoy
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1046
Joined: December 1, 2003, 5:27 pm
Location: Behind and slightly to the right

Re: Defending SA?

Post by BadBoy » May 29, 2008, 8:41 am

BadBoy wrote:
the question here is not how morally acceptable the attacks are but rather are they defending SA?
As I said before: "Saying that the xenophobes are "defending" South Africa by committing murder is wrong."
god dam english must not be your first language :sadshake:

let me make this easy for you please answer with a yes or no. The question is, are the "xenos" defending SA? if you feel up to it please let us know what bad/good effects the attacks may have FOR SA AS A WHOLE AFTER YOU HAVE SAID YES OR NO
Don't mess in the affairs of dragons cos u r crunchy and taste good with mustard

User avatar
Rebel Pope
Cock Throttler
Posts: 3520
Joined: August 27, 2004, 8:23 am
Contact:

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Rebel Pope » May 29, 2008, 9:11 am

I think it's pretty clear his answer is, "No they are not defending South Africa". The implication is that anything which harms the economy of the country or indeed the very well being of the people who live there can never be deemed to be defending the country.

I have stayed silent on this because I would largely have been replicating what Alex was saying. I too believe that murder is almost never acceptable. Tearing someone's home down, stealing their posessions and burning them to death can never be condoned or deemed to be a positive action in anyway. A civilisation which allows such actions is not civil at all and can not exist within the modern world.

Quite apart from the harm these actions have done to the foreigners themselves it has actually cost South Africa a great deal of economic growth as well. There is that old saying that for every 8 tourists to SA a job is created - how many tourists will think twice before coming here now? Big Business will now view SOuth Africa as being even more unstable than they did before and less investment will be ploughed into the country, once again impacting on the number of jobs available. The economic backlash is devestating for our country.

Absolutely nothing positive, from either an economic or humanitarian perspective, can or will come from these attacks so how is it possible to say these people were "defending South Africa". In fact, taking the damage they have done to our society, the xenophobes are in fact the harmful element which needs defending against. They are the attackers.
"Boxers don't have sex before a fight, do you know why that is? They don't fancy each other."
- Jimmy Carr

BadBoy
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1046
Joined: December 1, 2003, 5:27 pm
Location: Behind and slightly to the right

Re: Defending SA?

Post by BadBoy » May 29, 2008, 11:01 am

Rebel Pope wrote:I think it's pretty clear his answer is, "No they are not defending South Africa". The implication is that anything which harms the economy of the country or indeed the very well being of the people who live there can never be deemed to be defending the country.

I have stayed silent on this because I would largely have been replicating what Alex was saying. I too believe that murder is almost never acceptable. Tearing someone's home down, stealing their posessions and burning them to death can never be condoned or deemed to be a positive action in anyway. A civilisation which allows such actions is not civil at all and can not exist within the modern world.

Quite apart from the harm these actions have done to the foreigners themselves it has actually cost South Africa a great deal of economic growth as well. There is that old saying that for every 8 tourists to SA a job is created - how many tourists will think twice before coming here now? Big Business will now view SOuth Africa as being even more unstable than they did before and less investment will be ploughed into the country, once again impacting on the number of jobs available. The economic backlash is devestating for our country.

Absolutely nothing positive, from either an economic or humanitarian perspective, can or will come from these attacks so how is it possible to say these people were "defending South Africa". In fact, taking the damage they have done to our society, the xenophobes are in fact the harmful element which needs defending against. They are the attackers.
Wow an actual answer with minimal emotional overtones thanks warren

I asked the question initillay becuase i felt all i was reading and hearing about these events seemed very biased in the other direction with no other side of the story being told.

Let me say my answer is Yes they are defending SA. I don<b>[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]</b>t have the time to re type my first post but take those points and they are my reasons.

To answer some of your arguments.
There is that old saying that for every 8 tourists to SA a job is created
Just cos its old dosent mean that it is true, what it should say is "that for every 8 tourists to SA within a year a job is created for that year" once this blows over the tourists and jobs will be back
Big Business will now view SOuth Africa as being even more unstable than they did before and less investment will be ploughed into the country
I happen to work for one of these Big Businesses (depending on who and when you ask the 20th biggest company on the planet) and we are considering investing a shit pot full of money into SA both directly and indirectly, the activity on this is at the moment is high, and not once have these attacks enterd into the discussion.

in short
Leave the xenos alone to get rid of them get them out and say oh sorry we will try and not have it happen again and lock down th borders and see the gain.
Don't mess in the affairs of dragons cos u r crunchy and taste good with mustard

User avatar
Paelleon
Penis Fancier
Posts: 1214
Joined: August 1, 2005, 11:41 am
Location: On the side of the street

Re: Defending SA?

Post by Paelleon » May 29, 2008, 3:19 pm

BadBoy - why the personal attacks? I have only a few things to say and then I'll leave it be. Wouldn't want to drown anyone in my emotional overtones.
BadBoy wrote:god dam english must not be your first language

let me make this easy for you please answer with a yes or no. The question is, are the "xenos" defending SA? if you feel up to it please let us know what bad/good effects the attacks may have FOR SA AS A WHOLE AFTER YOU HAVE SAID YES OR NO
From the third post. First word.
Paelleon wrote:No.
Thanks Warren for wading through the emotional tangle and distilling the essence of my argument. You can obviously argue with a lot more clarity than I can.
They float. They always flooaaatttt ....

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest