That's true, but when you expect others to live out your principles other people have the right to tell you what they think as feedback.

That's what I've done.

The criticism I've applied to you on this is just as valid for them on any matter of concepts and laws they vote on that affects my life.

All of us have a right to comment on that.

I think it's a thoughtless action to design immigration on emotion. I highly doubt you agreed with the figure of three thousand and no doubt thought it should be much higher.....So agreement on these matters is in reality subject to the slippery slope reality of a immigration policy designed on emotion.....where justification for half the planet living here could be made.

I do have sympathy but I believe in helping those near their cultures of origin. We are doing that. I have charities I support and no doubt you do too.

That doesn't make sense. Those with the inclination can already adopt and we have plenty of children waiting for it. As for Syrian children....well, there are children from war torn countries all over the globe. Indeed, if you really want to you can go out and start a process to adopt one of these children.

So in reality you are suggesting either that there are a bit under three thousand adopters who specifically want to adopt these foreign children rather than children from their own communities.....When again, they can welcome refugees into their homes now...but curiously don't......or you are suggesting that people should be made to adopt these people because they should be forced to live out your principles.

Principles you have excuses for not living yourself but you are ok with requiring in others.

I've always agreed that this country has a set moral obligation as a western country to accept a certain number of refugees.

People are starving to death and dying in war torn places all over the world constantly. This world has always been this way.

Yet this situation is in vogue for you.

The west has dramatically reduced poverty around the world in recent times through organizations like the UN...one of the few things it's good for....The US funds this far more than any other country....despite the hate the left have for it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Nov 2017 7.16pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Research. Try it sometime.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

You made the claim, back it up or accept the charge that it is made up.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There are no solutions, there are only worldviews.

What you suggest isn't only insincere but has a whole heap of selective unethical implications itself.

None of which you address, despite it being spelt out, because it's far easier to make superfluous sanctimonious statements like, 'do the right thing' than to think through or address the implications of what you say.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Nov 2017 9.07pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What are the implications of giving 3,000 children a secure home?

Do you think that 3,000 UK born kids also needing a home would never commit any crimes when older? Do you also think a 6 year old British child is more worthy than a 6 year old Syrian child?

The answer for you is a sad 'yes' if you need any assistance.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

hedgehog50 on the thread entitled "Our wonderful progressive society" (that he started), posted "Male couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Oh, and same sex marriage is a travesty." on 09 Oct 17 5.15pm.