"Love, Love, Love...

[savagewind]

That is a disingenuous response as I never said any such thing. There's a difference between "hating refugees" versus not being willing to help them as you had posted.

Another disingenuous response as the word "If" was what I led into with (2nd paragraph, first sentence).

Because there's more refugees that need our help.

Not for me to decide because there are variables involved.

All your questions did was to try and obscure the simple fact of what you previously stated in regards to not letting them in. And now in your process all you've tried to do was to demonize me for somehow saying something immoral while it is you who have virtually ignored the teachings of Jesus and you who has lied in the process by putting words in my mouth.

So, I'll let this be my last post with you on this since you seem to have some problems that I recommend you work out for yourself.

He didn't say he would not let them in. I think he was illustrating a problem. On the one hand, some poeple would let all needy people in and on the other hand some people would vote to not let any in.
His question is; who gets to decide who should be let in and how many.

I think it is obvious that if all needy people were let in, the nation letting them in would falter under the weight. Already every nation is in dire straights taking care or what they have. I think that was the point for discussion.

I think you are aware that there are many needy nationals that do not have a decent standard of living. Add more people and see what happens. It can't be good.

 

[metis]

He didn't say he would not let them in. I think he was illustrating a problem. On the one hand, some poeple would let all needy people in and on the other hand some people would vote to not let any in.
His question is; who gets to decide who should be let in and how many.

I think it is obvious that if all needy people were let in, the nation letting them in would falter under the weight. Already every nation is in dire straights taking care or what they have. I think that was the point for discussion.

I think you are aware that there are many needy nationals that do not have a decent standard of living. Add more people and see what happens. It can't be good.

You might be right, and either way I've reached the end of the discussion.

 

[1robin]

That is a disingenuous response as I never said any such thing. There's a difference between "hating refugees" versus not being willing to help them as you had posted.

This is what you said: All I see with the above is a complete lack of compassion for those who are downtrodden, including children. It is just so telling that you seemngly divide the world up into we and they, with a "don't care" attitude about the latter.

A common saying is that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. I said nothing for which your response logically followed.

Another disingenuous response as the word "If" was what I led into with (2nd paragraph, first sentence).

Because there's more refugees that need our help.

Not for me to decide because there are variables involved.

All your questions did was to try and obscure the simple fact of what you previously stated in regards to not letting them in. And now in your process all you've tried to do was to demonize me for somehow saying something immoral while it is you who have virtually ignored the teachings of Jesus and you who has lied in the process by putting words in my mouth.

So, I'll let this be my last post with you on this since you seem to have some problems that I recommend you work out for yourself.

The only thing worse than virtue signaling is denying or trying to justify it. You apparently can't produce the foundations for any of your original claims because you don't have any. This well looks like it will only get dryer. I will leave you to it.