Comments | tienelle: Talking to myself again

tienelle

Talking to myself again

Apr 27, 2004 12:27

Showed up at the CTS meeting just before it finished. Then, showed up at GamesEvening just before it finished. Now, as I feel I ought to babysit this code compiling (the last attempt failed. I have no idea how, as it decided to put a very large log file on the already-strained /var partition, and I foolishly decided "Everything will be fine" and ( Read more... )

Comments 11

foreverdirt April 28 2004, 08:22:38 UTC

We have plenty of unskilled labour, with minimal grasp of the English language, of our own. We have no particular duty to accept any more, just because it's worse where they come from.

...rushing off to a tute, but this left me boggling. You don't believe we have a duty to help people because we can? What's your view on common-or-garden altruism, then?

tienelle April 28 2004, 15:47:11 UTC

I don't think the Government does - its duty is to look out for us, and we don't need these people. I think that, while it might be flattering to our national ego to be viewed as a land of plenty people will face great hardship to reach, letting a few of the vast numbers of people seeking an easier life in *isn't* really going to help ( ... )

ewx April 28 2004, 19:42:14 UTC

Economists seem to think that economic migration turns out to be a net benefit for both the migrant and the country they move to. So if we're doing things solely for our own good, we should move the economic migrants to the end of the queue.

(The comment has been removed)

tienelle April 28 2004, 15:50:53 UTC

I'm not at all sure. What you do is doubtless quite irritating to them, but they could ask you to leave and don't, so to an extent it's consensual.

Also, it's quite entertaining, and it's possible you might help some poor CICCU-ite think their way out of the cage their attitude puts around their thoughts. Unlikely, though - it's quite resilient.

(The comment has been removed)

naath April 29 2004, 00:06:33 UTC

Yes, we all get to take the piss out of Nick.

(BecausewearescumwhoareveryveryverycynicalaboutthiswholethingIsaidwewerescumright)

^^is not a we containing you, necesserally, but it is a we containing me and some other people, so it's a we.

Thread 8

naath April 29 2004, 00:15:45 UTC

I believe G-d's objections to randomly shagging people is that *obviously* you *need to know* who the father is, because we are *obviously* patriachal and patrilineal (even though the Jews *aren't*) and the father is the breadwinner and *obviously* doesn't want to care for someoneelse's (shudder) children ( ... )

tienelle April 29 2004, 16:29:09 UTC

The explanation you give is, as you note, rather silly. I'm assuming the position's proponents have a better explanation, even if this is their real reason.

Prostitution is the worst case of casual sex, which I've given an incoherent explanation of my problems with.

naath April 30 2004, 14:12:14 UTC

It happens to be the actuall reported reason for the seclusion of women in many societies (that they absolutely *must* be faithfull, because the property is inherited by the son of the father).
People tend to come up with stupid arguments about 'virtue' and how great it is, but these people are mostely the men who are locking their women up and not letting them see anyone.

And it's a *really* *really* stupid reasons. I mean, for a start, isn't it much much easier to know who the mother of a child is than a father? Why can't stuff be matrilineal?