Petition for J.K. Rowling to take in muslim refugees in her 18 spare bedrooms

[Allybeboba]

Who in the world needs 18 bedrooms anyway? I mean seriously this is why I don't understand why these rich people feel the need to spend their money on such huge mansions if they're not even going to be using like half the house. Is it not enough to just settle for a nice fancy house?

Anyway I think the petition is a bit ridiculous. I mean unless she was actually serious about it but seeing how there is a petition for it she probably meant it as a joke and everyone took it seriously. It's her house not anyone else's. People are acting like they can just do with her house whatever the hell they want. Those people need to fuck off and build some kind of fucking sanctuary for these Muslims if they're so god damn worried about it. They're always voicing how much they care about these Muslims but they do nothing about it. Instead they want someone else to deal with it. These people don't care they just want to be part of something to feel important and pretend that they care.

Sort of like Barbara Streisand telling people to live "green" and to reduce the carbon footprint when she lives in a 22,000 square foot house. And that is only one of her houses. The do as I say not as I do mentality of celebrities is appalling. I do not understand why people worship them.

[Orange Joe]

Given something that I can never ever give back, the most precious commodity, my own time. I am a volunteer.
What have you done?

Not sure why I'm being ask what I have done. Have I made any demands of anyone here?

[Aurgjelme]

PLenty of open houses. Why should they have to stay at hers? She has done plenty already to help her country. What have you done?

Why shouldnt they? People in europe are losing their long time homes to fit in refugees, or are being stuffed together in tighter and tighter ghettos, why should she be granted more personal space? Because she is rich? Because she is better tha the rest? Because you loved the potter books?

No, it usually falls to the normal, dirt faced plebs who already live in poor places to take the burden.

[ati87]

Why should some people be forced to pay more for the exact same government?

And in my country, we aren't democratic at all. We've already decided that some people's votes are worth more than others. They did not base it on wealth, they based it on which state they live in.

Because rich people benefit more from the system then people that aren't rich.

See it like this, I have my fictional monolopy income of lets say 2K a month because I work for a internet company
That company's CEO makes a fictional of 2M a month because of the İnternet

The US government had a direct hand in funding and development of the system we call the internet today but one person benefits financially more from the internet then the other person.

I have a job because of things because the government funds thinks like roads but my benefit is allot less then lets say that of the CEO and this is also the reason why allot of countries taxes more from certain people then from others (as a percentage) because we don't all benefit equally either.

-----

Also to assholes like the OP.

When Warren Buffet says ''Rich people should all pay more taxes'' and the idiots on the rich respond with '' here is the website pay it'' then you really don't provide a good argument.

The reason why people like Buffet says ''the government should do XYZ'' (just like in this case) is because certain things need to be done by the government. You have people that volunteer or donate to certain charity causes without any benefit for themselves which you can applaud but in the end to get real change the government has to take the lead.

Let say if she took in lets say 60 people (around 3 people per room), we are talking about potentially millions of people worldwide that are displaced right now (turkey has the most), it's a drop in the bucket if she and others like-minded would take a few people in. Real change needs to come from the government not from people.

[Liftbrul]

People like Rowling can fuck off. It's easy to advocate for mass immigration from third world shitholes when you don't have to live anywhere near the consequences of your actions. Just look down from your ivory tower, smug and high from huffing your own shit.

If you're pro-refugee but you're unwilling to actually accommodate any and instead think it's the state's job to do so, what does that make you if not a hypocrite and a coward? You want them in your country. Why won't you house them? I'm sure you've got room at least for one. That cunt Rowling? She's got no excuses.

[Orange Joe]

Why shouldnt they? People in europe are losing their long time homes to fit in refugees, or are being stuffed together in tighter and tighter ghettos, why should she be granted more personal space? Because she is rich? Because she is better tha the rest? Because you loved the potter books?

No, it usually falls to the normal, dirt faced plebs who already live in poor places to take the burden.

Gonna need a source on this claim.

[Allybeboba]

Not sure why I'm being ask what I have done. Have I made any demands of anyone here?

You asked "what have you done?" I told you.
I inturn asked "what have you done?"
So... What have you done to help people?

[Krawu]

It just means that it's not really a democracy at all. You point at the fundamental problem of democracy, the forced inequality by the results. A simple majority can vote away the freedoms of a minority, which is a problem. That majority could then just vote away the voting rights of that minority, and they can never legally fight back. Democracy is the surest path to oppression.

Compared to what? A quote comes to mind, but I don't recall where it's from: Democracy is a flawed system, but it's the best form of government we've come up with so far.
In a functioning democracy, at least the majority gets to decide. Other forms of government can't even boast that. To say that it's the surest path to oppression is just false. I'm from Germany, I know what I'm talking about.

On some issues democracy will naturally work better than on others. But rich people can't both pay taxes at the same rate as someone on minimum wage and at a higher rate.
But If we assume a base line for what resources people need to survive, taxing the rich at a higher rate than poor people will still hurt them significantly less than taxing poor people at the same rate as the rich will hurt the poor. And no, I have no clue how to further unjumble that sentence.

[Machismo]

Because rich people benefit more from the system then people that aren't rich.

See it like this, I have my fictional monolopy income of lets say 2K a month because I work for a internet company
That company's CEO makes a fictional of 2M a month because of the İnternet

The US government had a direct hand in funding and development of the system we call the internet today but one person benefits financially more from the internet then the other person.

I have a job because of things because the government funds thinks like roads but my benefit is allot less then lets say that of the CEO and this is also the reason why allot of countries taxes more from certain people then from others (as a percentage) because we don't all benefit equally either.

-----

Also to assholes like the OP.

When Warren Buffet says ''Rich people should all pay more taxes'' and the idiots on the rich respond with '' here is the website pay it'' then you really don't provide a good argument.

The reason why people like Buffet says ''the government should do XYZ'' (just like in this case) is because certain things need to be done by the government. You have people that volunteer or donate to certain charity causes without any benefit for themselves which you can applaud but in the end to get real change the government has to take the lead.

Let say if she took in lets say 60 people (around 3 people per room), we are talking about potentially millions of people worldwide that are displaced right now (turkey has the most), it's a drop in the bucket if she and others like-minded would take a few people in. Real change needs to come from the government not from people.

How much more has someone like J.K Rowling used of government resources compared to you or I?

If it's really about usage, then charge for government based on actual usage.

[Allybeboba]

Gonna need a source on this claim.

His eyeballs.

[Mehrunes]

My government is a constitutional republic, and is hardly democratic. The Electoral College guarantees that. By your logic, if the government decided wealthy people had more votes, then it would be every bit as democratic as taxing them more, or deciding that people from Wyoming had more voting power.

"More taxes" can be thought of in two ways. You can base it on total paid, or you can base it on percentage of income paid. In both cases, I'm sure she is far about the average. In both cases, the distribution is not "equal" at all.

Is the president the lawmaker of the US? Welp, it is not. Electoral College has nothing to do with elections to your lawmaker. And while the president does have some authority on tax issues, for a good while they don't entertain it at all. Besides, you can bring the EC (which I haven't even defended) all you want, but what of it? Yes, it is an undemocratic element. What of it? Where's the link between that and your fantasy that different tax rates are undemocratic? I've heard that containing oneself to things actually relevant to the topic is a fun activity. So do give it a try. And really? By my logic if the government decided wealthy people had more votes it would be democratic? I'm thrilled to see you completely disregarded the "The amount of taxation is irrelevant to the topic of democracy. Granting more voting power to those who pay more taxes is not." Thank you for being so clear your posts are disingenuous horseshit. What's next? Will you say that "by my logic" it will be democratic when the government reforms itself into an absolute monarchy? I can't wait to see where your dishonesty will take us on this amazing adventure. And JK Rowling is treated equal as every other taxpayer by the very nature of tax brackets. And since flat sum tax isn't particularly feasible or even practiced anywhere important, it's yet another thing of no consequence.

[Zenfoldor]

Rich, educated people who feel guilty about their success because people are suffering. Live among those who suffer, suffer yourself, don't volunteer your fellow man to do the same until you have done it yourself JK.

[Machismo]

Compared to what? A quote comes to mind, but I don't recall where it's from: Democracy is a flawed system, but it's the best form of government we've come up with so far.
In a functioning democracy, at least the majority gets to decide. Other forms of government can't even boast that. To say that it's the surest path to oppression is just false. I'm from Germany, I know what I'm talking about.

On some issues democracy will naturally work better than on others. But rich people can't both pay taxes at the same rate as someone on minimum wage and at a higher rate.
But If we assume a base line for what resources people need to survive, taxing the rich at a higher rate than poor people will still hurt them significantly less than taxing poor people at the same rate as the rich will hurt the poor. And no, I have no clue how to further unjumble that sentence.

The majority does not get to decide. In our country, a minority just decided the President.

The reason rich people are taxed at a higher rate, is because they can afford a higher rate. It's not really based on usage, it's about how much you can fleece from people, before they revolt.

[Aurgjelme]

PLenty of open houses. Why should they have to stay at hers? She has done plenty already to help her country. What have you done?

Well, we had to take care of family that lost their home that was taken over by the town council to house child refugees.
Nothing wrong with housing child refugees, sucks for the other family though.

Other than that, pay taxes that uphold the states opportunity to help refugees and I voted left :P

[Mehrunes]

People saying she needs to give herself.... Do you idiots research anything before speaking? Did you know she has lost her billionaire status because she gives a lot of money to charity already.

You have expectations towards the alt right. This is a mistake.

[Orange Joe]

You asked "what have you done?" I told you.
I inturn asked "what have you done?"
So... What have you done to help people?

I asked AveMaria, is that your name?



To answer your question. I don't demand anyone to do anything I don't do.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, we had to take care of family that lost their home that was taken over by the town council to house child refugees.
Nothing wrong with housing child refugees, sucks for the other family though.

Other than that, pay taxes that uphold the states opportunity to help refugees and I voted left :P

I call bullshit on them taking someones home. Can you provide any evidence of this happening?

[Machismo]

Is the president the lawmaker of the US? Welp, it is not. Electoral College has nothing to do with elections to your lawmaker. And while the president does have some authority on tax issues, for a good while they don't entertain it at all. Besides, you can bring the EC (which I haven't even defended) all you want, but what of it? Yes, it is an undemocratic element. What of it? Where's the link between that and your fantasy that different tax rates are undemocratic? I've heard that containing oneself to things actually relevant to the topic is a fun activity. So do give it a try. And really? By my logic if the government decided wealthy people had more votes it would be democratic? I'm thrilled to see you completely disregarded the "The amount of taxation is irrelevant to the topic of democracy. Granting more voting power to those who pay more taxes is not." Thank you for being so clear your posts are disingenuous horseshit. What's next? Will you say that "by my logic" it will be democratic when the government reforms itself into an absolute monarchy? I can't wait to see where your dishonesty will take us on this amazing adventure. And JK Rowling is treated equal as every other taxpayer by the very nature of tax brackets. And since flat sum tax isn't particularly feasible or even practiced anywhere important, it's yet another thing of no consequence.

The EC does have to do with electing lawmakers. It's based off the same premise for how we decide the representation allotted to each state.

If the entire premise is that the people vote on it, so it's democratic, then people voting to give one group more voting rights would be democratic, right? Right now, people in Wyoming have more voting power. Why not give wealthy people more voting power, it's the same thing? I'm going to side with freedom over democracy, thanks.

[Mehrunes]

What a horrible false equivalency. Refugees don't come into your homes. They find homes of their own.

Yes, but those homes should have belonged to the locals! They terk er homes (sorry, don't know the Redneckian word for "homes")!

[Orange Joe]

His eyeballs.

That is not a credible source sorry.

[Xandrigity]

Sounds like a good idea, as should KatyPerry, madonna and lady Gaga.