If Daman's comments weren't his genuine beliefs, that's trolling, and it's a great way to become unwelcome in online communities real fast.
I can't believe that's third year communications, it reads more like Phil 101 students arguing about the existence of God in the letters page of a student newspaper: "Lo, I have opinions. Let me share them. Why do you not instantly agree? Y U so mad? Just kidding, lolz."
That's the absolute antithesis of communications, and it's also pretty distasteful, using people's personal tragedies and our response as a country to that tragedy as casual online debating practice.
I am not as familiar with this topic as some of these people here, they are obviously experts and have been doing this for a while. And in terms of my education, I can use any source I like to gain information. For this blog, I wanted to find out more information, which never happened because people are more focused on attacking instead of guiding.
Everything I’ve said is genuine, and my main goal was to post an argument, which I did. This was not a debating practice, it was a learning process. I have provided sources, but then again, you guys are picky, and hate on national and key. So it is pointless to argue.
It is very evident, that you older lot, are constantly hating on younger people and their education, it is evident on other blogs too. I wonder what you do for a living? and wonder even if your educated. Attacking the youth and their education is never right, and here you are talking about Syrians, you can’t even respect people from your own country.
Thank you and Goodbye.
My comment is a direct reflection of my views on the situation. I was responding to what I read in the main blog post, there was nothing unethical about what I said or how I conducted myself.
Steve, these were not opinions. I had collected information from the internet, which one does. Now I don’t know if there are specific allocated academic journals for this blog that everyone uses? ??
But thank you anyway, you did a good job at least proving useful information, my job was to further the discussion which I did by pointing to things which concerned me personally.
If you’re serious about furthering the discussion
Drawing attention to the same underlying easily forgotten issues:
Per head of population, Australia has accepted about twice as many refugees as New Zealand. Same with the US.
Some reading here:
HR puff 'n' huff...
...and wonder even if your educated. Attacking the youth and their education is never right, and here you are talking about Syrians, you can’t even respect people from your own country.
Thank you and Goodbye.
Good luck with the 'Communications' course, I hope you get the hang of it eventually...
You'll find respect is earned
not wheedled or demanded...
I am not as familiar with this topic as some of these people here, they are obviously experts and have been doing this for a while.
So, open your ears and learn. research what you are being told. Then you can debate an issue if you can back up why you disagree or spit the dummy as you wish.
Age has nothing to do with it other than you are showing it. There ain't no cotton wool here.
Steve, these were not opinions.
But you said "Why is it that everyone here is disputing my views" what are views if not opinions?.
I had collected information from the internet, which one does.
The internet is bigger that Kiwiblog and even Yahoo Answers, honest, have a big look.
are specific allocated academic journals for this blog
As for "specific allocated academic journals" well, not specific and not allocated but there are journals, too many to list here.
But thank you anyway, you did a good job at least proving useful information
my job was to further the discussion which I did by point to things which concerned me personally.
Sorry? you had a job?. Now, I wonder who gave you that job, care to enlighten us or is this a one way street?.
...or is this a one way street?.
Why is it that everyone here is disputing my views and not going out there and helping ?
You are making an ad hominem attack by assuming we cannot do both.
It is very evident, that you older lot, are constantly hating on younger people and their education, it is evident on other blogs too
As someone who does enough guiding and advising of people that I am a google autocomplete for it (that would be a self referential appeal to authority, but you actually questioned people's credentials in that regard so it isn't) can I suggest you entertain the possibility that it might be issues with your own discourse that might be leaving you feeling like everyone is against you rather than inate characters of everyone else.
In particular, as a blog that the discussion tends to favour evidence based arguement, and has a lot of people familiar with rhetorical strategies and their misuse, the introduction of "but what if" hypothetical non-sequiturs tends to be met negatively, similarly rhetoric that makes the assumption that people can only do one thing/care about one thing is going to be seen as flawed because you are starting your arguement from false premises.
Even if you do bring genuine experience or context to the discussion and add to its overall worth, you should still expect people to disagree with you and add qualifiers, because they have different life experience and perspectives, and yours is no more privileged to be the sole source of opinion than theirs. For instance Bart chipped in with family history, contextualising and adding in one way, and TracyMac added a qualifier about ethnicity contextualising it in another way. In a community of knowledge never expect things to be unchallenged.
Looking back over the past couple of pages of postings, can I suggest that you in a "teachable moment" engage in some self reflective evaluation that if your goal was to somewhat derail the thread, then that was the temporary outcome. If your goal was to make the discussion about what you bring, that succeeded to the extent that weaknesses in what you were bringing got discussed and dismissed, and if your goal was to add depth and understanding then I would have to say that was not a success due to rhetorical and logical weaknesses.
For example, when you raise "old people picking on young people like yourself"- no one knew your age so all people had to go on we're your arguments. In order for that to be accepted as a valid viewpoint, there would need to be magic method that everyone knows your age but you don't know anyone's. So I suggest reflectively considering how what you have put out might have influenced what you got back.
I can use any source I like to gain information.
A fallacy of entitlement, if you’re including “any online community” within that range of sources. In a community, you can ask anybody to help you seek information. But the locals may choose to help, or not. Dunno about you, but doing homework for someone who is not clear about what they want and why, and who doesn’t seem quite to get that there are real people on the other side of the screen, doesn’t sound a very productive use of time to me.
Net migration to NZ was approx 60000 last year. "Where are they all going to live? What will they do? What about the language barrier?"
And we're squabbling about a few hundred refugees; shameful and pathetic. We could take tens of thousands, if we just cut back a little on normal immigration.
This is what I meant, when I talked about where are they going to live, once they are back on their feet
Now I've provided quotes/ evidence, so don't cry.
" Migrants and refugees identified a range of housing-related issues in the Auckland region. These included: • socio-economic and affordability considerations; • host community attitudes and perceptions; • the availability of suitable housing for refugees in their preferred locations"
"While some migrants bring considerable capital and are able to immediately purchase a house, many others are not in this position"
This can be because the capital they had previously in their home country doesn't translate into sufficient New Zealand dollars, "or they must live on this capital during the stand-down period for government income support or during a period of under- or unemployment."
"The cost of housing, compared to their income level, means they may pay a very high proportion of their income on rent, or rent an unsuitable house in terms of size, quality or location"
"Consequently, some migrants find it financially difficult to maintain their rental accommodation, or to meet the credit criteria to gain and sustain a mortgage."
"Housing affordability is also a key issue for refugees who are in the private sector rental market or looking to purchase their own homes, and who may be unemployed or under-employed in low paying jobs as a result of their pre-migration experiences or face increased challenges in obtaining a job."
All I'm getting there is that migrants encounter the same or similar issues as the general population do and that refugees will most probably encounter the same issues as migrants. See Maz above.
Also you’ve provided no citations for those quotes so who knows where they’ve been. For linking, there is a key below the posting window.
At least some of that is the Auckland regional settlement strategy a report on migration and Auckland housing.
While it discusses both migrants and refugees, let's keep in mind that this thread is about refugees, and the report is treating those as separate categories- migrants have a problem with Auckland housing affordability (just like everyone else) but the only problem with regards to refugees in a quick skim of the report is that there may not be a state house available in the preferred part of Auckland.
Oblivious to obvious...
Now I’ve provided quotes/ evidence, so don’t cry.
I don't think you've quite got a full grip on what offering "quotes" and 'evidence' constitutes and necessitates.
Citations; repeatable access to source and context, even as footnotes, really helps your case.
The petulant patronising tone, not-so-much.
I thought we were better than that but then…. maybe not.
And this “If New Zealand were your home instead of United Kingdom you would experience 12.07% more of a class divide”. What in hades happened here?
I think ifitweremyhome have a data error, the GINI coefficient for NZ is lower (lower is more equal) than the United Kingdom.
Ha Ha Ha, Funny thing is, I haven’t seen you provide one piece of evidence. At least I am trying. This topic is so new that there is no way any credible study or information can be found, which will be specific to Syria’s refugees. All I can do is look at older studies, which I think won’t be considered “credible”
I am in favour of the refugees, and am questioning the government’s quota. But how does one come to a conclusion, because there is hardly any legitimate proof. One can only hypothesize.
In no way I am trying to persuade people using rhetoric, instead of continuing to argue, which I can do ALL DAY LONG, maybe we should focus on the thread, and further the discussion. That way I can see the facts and do my own research based on that.
I'm glad to hear that David, thanks, I was about to sound the bugle.
I don’t think you’ve quite got a full grip on what offering “quotes” and ‘evidence’ constitutes and necessitates.
Yeah, so much so that I think it's a bit mean to continue on the assumption that this is deliberate trolling. I actually think Daman is just someone who really is quite young and inexperienced at debate, but was trying good faith.
Is this the case Daman? How old are you? I don't want to be patronizing, maybe you're not young. The average age here is probably around 45 years old. Are these the people you wanted to have a discussion with?
At least I am trying.
I am finding that more with every post of yours, trying my patience that is...
Oh, and by the way, Ian doesn't do evidence, he is an Artist.
Being an Artist means conveying your meaning in an abstract form, being subjective, rather than offering rehashed soundbites in an effort to get "Your Views" across to those that you claim to want to have a discussion with.
If you really wanted to learn and then share your accumulated knowledge, then I would suggest, as I have earlier, that you spend a little more time listening and gaining real, verifiable knowledge, before you try and jump in with the "grownups" and claim, at the same time, that the "Youth" are never listened to.
Like it or not, you will get older and, unless you are totally closed minded, or die, you will find that, as a youth, you know little.
There is a tale about that...
"At the age of 18 I was astounded at how little my father knew. Now I am in my thirties I am, equally, astounded at how much he has learned"
I could go on, as I am prone to do, and note that there is more to that tale...
"When I was in my forties I found out how little I knew. Life is not about how much you own, it is about how much you understand.
*sigh* I take it, from the similar posting history and discourse structures employed, Shannon C is a classmate doing the same Comms assignment?
Nah. They are just the young Nat's kids that hang out with David Farrah at the Blue Light Disco.
Not that there's anything wrong with that I must say.
Here's the thing:
We know that poorer countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know that smaller countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know that countries that turn away migrants are taking more refugees than us.
We know denser populated countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know lighter populated countries are taking more refugees than us.
We know NZ (per head of population) took more refugees in the past when we were fewer.
We know NZ (per head of population) took more refugees in the past when we were poorer.
From all of those things (true even after the government moved to be closer to mainstream opinion), as discussed in the initial post, New Zealand has the potential to take more refugees. It is a matter of political will.
As to how the particular Syrian refugees would do that choose to come here (and remember they are choosing) that is an unknowable because it is too specific and hasn't happened yet so it is hypothetical problems which could all have hypothetical solutions if the political will was present, for instance by settling them outside of Auckland- as it is the government is expecting Wellington to be the main destination due to the Syrian community so problems about Auckland housing are moot.
"Earlier this week, Mr Woodhouse's spokeswoman had said many of the extra refugees were expected to be transferred from Mangere to Wellington, because of the existing infrastructure and Syrian community in the capital."
but hypothetically if the government was interested it could settle people in other than Waikato, Wellington, Manawatu and Nelson.
What we do know, from refugees generally, and have no reason to believe it is the slightest different in this case is that the people consider themselves to have benefitted, and the state tends to "make" more in taxation from these motivated hard working refugees than the costs in resettlement. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-800-why-welcoming-more-refugees-makes-economic-sense-for-europe/ But reducing a moral issue to an economic one is a bit creepy.
I think ifitweremyhome have a data error, the GINI coefficient for NZ is lower (lower is more equal) than the United Kingdom.
Maybe so, I haven't checked, I'll take your word for it but the site itself...
IfItWereMyHome is a rich source of information that is, otherwise, not easily accessed. A bit like wikipedia, a great starting point.