FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Who Should We Let In?
Who Should We Let In?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? " I didn't see it but we should certainly let the Gurkhas and thier family's in if they want to come ! | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? " UK government's fault - nothing to do with the EU rules. We are a sovereign state - just we aren't run very well! | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? I didn't see it but we should certainly let the Gurkhas and thier family's in if they want to come !" We already do. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't think we should take the best and the brightest from the poorest countries.We are just fucking up their countries and fucking up their health care and wealth.The brain drain is devastating for developing countries and costing us in the long run." . Poor countries are built on young hard working men's labour, China didn't get to be the world's biggest economy by bringing in geniuses from around the world, sure they might need to do that now there economy is progressing up the ladder (although I doubt it, they plan these things extremely well) | |||
"I think the easier answer is who we shouldn't let in, it's shorter and easier to deal with. People in Calais People who are here illegally People who we don't need(no skills) People with no education and can't speak English" I didn't see the programme, so not sure what exactly they were referring to... but are you on about people above not coming here to live and work, or coming here on holiday? How do you plan to differentiate the two? -Matt | |||
 | |||
"I didn't see the programme either "Your answers make that quite clear  | |||
"I didn't see the programme either
Your answers make that quite clear "Have to say I haven't seen the program.(yet) However who would you allow entry to | |||
"I don't think we should take the best and the brightest from the poorest countries.We are just fucking up their countries and fucking up their health care and wealth.The brain drain is devastating for developing countries and costing us in the long run." Good Point ?? | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? " This is not complex. The British and Irish governments control the numbers of natives who are able to study medicine. Then they complain they need more staff because they would prefer not to give experience to staff who will opt to go private. Trainee doctors are paid minimum wage or min wage and 3 pounds if I remember. They tend to live in expensive cities because the hospitals are there. It is a complete mystery. Somebody help me make sense of this complex situation. | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? This is not complex. The British and Irish governments control the numbers of natives who are able to study medicine. Then they complain they need more staff because they would prefer not to give experience to staff who will opt to go private. Trainee doctors are paid minimum wage or min wage and 3 pounds if I remember. They tend to live in expensive cities because the hospitals are there. It is a complete mystery. Somebody help me make sense of this complex situation. " All Self inflicted and this shower are going to make "global Britain" work! Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? This is not complex. The British and Irish governments control the numbers of natives who are able to study medicine. Then they complain they need more staff because they would prefer not to give experience to staff who will opt to go private. Trainee doctors are paid minimum wage or min wage and 3 pounds if I remember. They tend to live in expensive cities because the hospitals are there. It is a complete mystery. Somebody help me make sense of this complex situation. All Self inflicted and this shower are going to make "global Britain" work! Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery." It's really time you chaps spat on your hands, hoisted the black flag and got to work. I recommend starting with the journalists, moving onto to the politicians and then just purging entire post codes of pedophiles and non-tea drinkers. It's the only way to be sure. | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? This is not complex. The British and Irish governments control the numbers of natives who are able to study medicine. Then they complain they need more staff because they would prefer not to give experience to staff who will opt to go private. Trainee doctors are paid minimum wage or min wage and 3 pounds if I remember. They tend to live in expensive cities because the hospitals are there. It is a complete mystery. Somebody help me make sense of this complex situation. All Self inflicted and this shower are going to make "global Britain" work! Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. It's really time you chaps spat on your hands, hoisted the black flag and got to work. I recommend starting with the journalists, moving onto to the politicians and then just purging entire post codes of pedophiles and non-tea drinkers. It's the only way to be sure." what about the Irish, you missed them out | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? This is not complex. The British and Irish governments control the numbers of natives who are able to study medicine. Then they complain they need more staff because they would prefer not to give experience to staff who will opt to go private. Trainee doctors are paid minimum wage or min wage and 3 pounds if I remember. They tend to live in expensive cities because the hospitals are there. It is a complete mystery. Somebody help me make sense of this complex situation. All Self inflicted and this shower are going to make "global Britain" work! Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. It's really time you chaps spat on your hands, hoisted the black flag and got to work. I recommend starting with the journalists, moving onto to the politicians and then just purging entire post codes of pedophiles and non-tea drinkers. It's the only way to be sure. what about the Irish, you missed them out "We're there to help you build the gulags you so badly require. Myself and friends Vlad, Jinping and "fuck them all to death" Mr Garrison are on the same page. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. " The Roman Empire tried that once. We relearned to read a thousand years later. | |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. The Roman Empire tried that once. We relearned to read a thousand years later." So what are you saying lol | |||
| |||
"We should only let qualified people to fill vacancies such as doctors,nurses,engineers etc.It should not matter where they come from. We should however be training our own people for the future and long term good of this country. " But we don't. In the program they say that they can't recruit doctors becuase of immigration caps. | |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. The Roman Empire tried that once. We relearned to read a thousand years later. So what are you saying lol" Overwhelming levels of migration are strongly suspected to have destroyed many empires before. The Romans are an example but also we know most of the world went into a Dark Age during the Bronze Age because of it, the 'Sea Peoples'. Countries, nations, civilizations, whatever you want to call them - any organized group is only so stable and should the balance slip out of favour then it's irreversible. This eludes most people because we live short lives but social organization is fragile, our human networks have a lot in common with an ecology and ecological collapses. We should not take comfort from the existence of the Internet and electricity, because the Romans could just as easily pointed out the Roads and other infrastructure. I urge you to read the letters of late Roman Empire citizens. They sound just like you and me. Then there's this 500 year period where a single book is written (Beowulf). Reading between the liens - some horrifying shit went down that never got into recorded history. tldr; History is the best horror novel. | |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. The Roman Empire tried that once. We relearned to read a thousand years later. So what are you saying lol Overwhelming levels of migration are strongly suspected to have destroyed many empires before. The Romans are an example but also we know most of the world went into a Dark Age during the Bronze Age because of it, the 'Sea Peoples'. Countries, nations, civilizations, whatever you want to call them - any organized group is only so stable and should the balance slip out of favour then it's irreversible. This eludes most people because we live short lives but social organization is fragile, our human networks have a lot in common with an ecology and ecological collapses. We should not take comfort from the existence of the Internet and electricity, because the Romans could just as easily pointed out the Roads and other infrastructure. I urge you to read the letters of late Roman Empire citizens. They sound just like you and me. Then there's this 500 year period where a single book is written (Beowulf). Reading between the liens - some horrifying shit went down that never got into recorded history. tldr; History is the best horror novel." If unchecked immigration is a bad thing why do so many people get triggered when people question it? | |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. The Roman Empire tried that once. We relearned to read a thousand years later. So what are you saying lol Overwhelming levels of migration are strongly suspected to have destroyed many empires before. The Romans are an example but also we know most of the world went into a Dark Age during the Bronze Age because of it, the 'Sea Peoples'. Countries, nations, civilizations, whatever you want to call them - any organized group is only so stable and should the balance slip out of favour then it's irreversible. This eludes most people because we live short lives but social organization is fragile, our human networks have a lot in common with an ecology and ecological collapses. We should not take comfort from the existence of the Internet and electricity, because the Romans could just as easily pointed out the Roads and other infrastructure. I urge you to read the letters of late Roman Empire citizens. They sound just like you and me. Then there's this 500 year period where a single book is written (Beowulf). Reading between the liens - some horrifying shit went down that never got into recorded history. tldr; History is the best horror novel." Romans complaining about immigration.Thats comedic brilliance.If only they'd stayed in Rome and never built an Empire.  | |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. The Roman Empire tried that once. We relearned to read a thousand years later. So what are you saying lol Overwhelming levels of migration are strongly suspected to have destroyed many empires before. The Romans are an example but also we know most of the world went into a Dark Age during the Bronze Age because of it, the 'Sea Peoples'. Countries, nations, civilizations, whatever you want to call them - any organized group is only so stable and should the balance slip out of favour then it's irreversible. This eludes most people because we live short lives but social organization is fragile, our human networks have a lot in common with an ecology and ecological collapses. We should not take comfort from the existence of the Internet and electricity, because the Romans could just as easily pointed out the Roads and other infrastructure. I urge you to read the letters of late Roman Empire citizens. They sound just like you and me. Then there's this 500 year period where a single book is written (Beowulf). Reading between the liens - some horrifying shit went down that never got into recorded history. tldr; History is the best horror novel." Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence?" And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way." So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. " I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. " Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that? | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that?" Easily to be honest. Imagine a tidal wave caused people to flee from Scotland, Wales and Ireland into England. It wouldn't be easy but we'd basically get along. We know what each other are about. The main conflicts would be over competition due to similarity, not differences e.g. available work, but this would be a temporary phenomenon until society sorted itself (literal, not metaphorical meaning). The same is true of countries like Jordan. Now place those same white refugees from our islands into the Middle East. It would be a epic fuck up. This is because we are animals, and animals are adapted to niches. You can't pick us up as huge groups and plop us anywhere on earth. That only works in either small numbers or as colonizers (because a colony is where the foreigner adapts the native environment to their preferences i.e. they're not really adapted per se if they are changing what is around them). If open borders worked as a philosophy, it would have to explain two things. 1. Why doesn't moving poor people from one zip code and placing them in a richer zip code increase the median wealth? That it increases 'GDP' is obvious - but just having warm bodies would do that e.g. higher resource requirements change prices, it doesn't imply being profitable at all. A lot of people don't grasp this elemental fact of economics and magazines like The Economist skip over such complications as a routine. 2. If it works, then why it's it already the default? Why don't there exist nations becoming immensely wealthy by importing vast numbers of people? Why do nations in every country offer citizenship programs with very high fees e.g. five million to become a US citizen, similar for other countries. This strongly implies the true calculus and costs of migration are not anything like some of the news media are suggesting they are. Conclusion: maybe this is something extremely complicated that is pretending to be simple, a little like saying on average the ocean is flat and while this is a fact it is not important when the key details of importance are the wind and wave changes. | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that?" Surviving being the key word. Maybe it's the 16 bank holidays they have each year that attracts all those immigrants...or it could be because of the close proximity of numerous war zones? | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that?" . Not the greatest example to quote, Lebanon and Jordon are experiencing huge amounts of anti immigration, you might call them hate crimes (and there pretty much culturally the same)!. There surviving alright but they ain't fucking keen on it | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that? Easily to be honest. Imagine a tidal wave caused people to flee from Scotland, Wales and Ireland into England. It wouldn't be easy but we'd basically get along. We know what each other are about. The main conflicts would be over competition due to similarity, not differences e.g. available work, but this would be a temporary phenomenon until society sorted itself (literal, not metaphorical meaning). The same is true of countries like Jordan. Now place those same white refugees from our islands into the Middle East. It would be a epic fuck up. This is because we are animals, and animals are adapted to niches. You can't pick us up as huge groups and plop us anywhere on earth. That only works in either small numbers or as colonizers (because a colony is where the foreigner adapts the native environment to their preferences i.e. they're not really adapted per se if they are changing what is around them). If open borders worked as a philosophy, it would have to explain two things. 1. Why doesn't moving poor people from one zip code and placing them in a richer zip code increase the median wealth? That it increases 'GDP' is obvious - but just having warm bodies would do that e.g. higher resource requirements change prices, it doesn't imply being profitable at all. A lot of people don't grasp this elemental fact of economics and magazines like The Economist skip over such complications as a routine. 2. If it works, then why it's it already the default? Why don't there exist nations becoming immensely wealthy by importing vast numbers of people? Why do nations in every country offer citizenship programs with very high fees e.g. five million to become a US citizen, similar for other countries. This strongly implies the true calculus and costs of migration are not anything like some of the news media are suggesting they are. Conclusion: maybe this is something extremely complicated that is pretending to be simple, a little like saying on average the ocean is flat and while this is a fact it is not important when the key details of importance are the wind and wave changes. " How about the United Arab Emirates? Only 13% of the population are UAE citizens. 50% are South Asian, so significantly different culture and language. | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that? Easily to be honest. Imagine a tidal wave caused people to flee from Scotland, Wales and Ireland into England. It wouldn't be easy but we'd basically get along. We know what each other are about. The main conflicts would be over competition due to similarity, not differences e.g. available work, but this would be a temporary phenomenon until society sorted itself (literal, not metaphorical meaning). The same is true of countries like Jordan. Now place those same white refugees from our islands into the Middle East. It would be a epic fuck up. This is because we are animals, and animals are adapted to niches. You can't pick us up as huge groups and plop us anywhere on earth. That only works in either small numbers or as colonizers (because a colony is where the foreigner adapts the native environment to their preferences i.e. they're not really adapted per se if they are changing what is around them). If open borders worked as a philosophy, it would have to explain two things. 1. Why doesn't moving poor people from one zip code and placing them in a richer zip code increase the median wealth? That it increases 'GDP' is obvious - but just having warm bodies would do that e.g. higher resource requirements change prices, it doesn't imply being profitable at all. A lot of people don't grasp this elemental fact of economics and magazines like The Economist skip over such complications as a routine. 2. If it works, then why it's it already the default? Why don't there exist nations becoming immensely wealthy by importing vast numbers of people? Why do nations in every country offer citizenship programs with very high fees e.g. five million to become a US citizen, similar for other countries. This strongly implies the true calculus and costs of migration are not anything like some of the news media are suggesting they are. Conclusion: maybe this is something extremely complicated that is pretending to be simple, a little like saying on average the ocean is flat and while this is a fact it is not important when the key details of importance are the wind and wave changes. How about the United Arab Emirates? Only 13% of the population are UAE citizens. 50% are South Asian, so significantly different culture and language. " You don't half pick some good examples! That is because those 13% get the other 87% to do all the work...and the 50% from South Asia are slave labour in all but name. | |||
| |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that? Easily to be honest. Imagine a tidal wave caused people to flee from Scotland, Wales and Ireland into England. It wouldn't be easy but we'd basically get along. We know what each other are about. The main conflicts would be over competition due to similarity, not differences e.g. available work, but this would be a temporary phenomenon until society sorted itself (literal, not metaphorical meaning). The same is true of countries like Jordan. Now place those same white refugees from our islands into the Middle East. It would be a epic fuck up. This is because we are animals, and animals are adapted to niches. You can't pick us up as huge groups and plop us anywhere on earth. That only works in either small numbers or as colonizers (because a colony is where the foreigner adapts the native environment to their preferences i.e. they're not really adapted per se if they are changing what is around them). If open borders worked as a philosophy, it would have to explain two things. 1. Why doesn't moving poor people from one zip code and placing them in a richer zip code increase the median wealth? That it increases 'GDP' is obvious - but just having warm bodies would do that e.g. higher resource requirements change prices, it doesn't imply being profitable at all. A lot of people don't grasp this elemental fact of economics and magazines like The Economist skip over such complications as a routine. 2. If it works, then why it's it already the default? Why don't there exist nations becoming immensely wealthy by importing vast numbers of people? Why do nations in every country offer citizenship programs with very high fees e.g. five million to become a US citizen, similar for other countries. This strongly implies the true calculus and costs of migration are not anything like some of the news media are suggesting they are. Conclusion: maybe this is something extremely complicated that is pretending to be simple, a little like saying on average the ocean is flat and while this is a fact it is not important when the key details of importance are the wind and wave changes. How about the United Arab Emirates? Only 13% of the population are UAE citizens. 50% are South Asian, so significantly different culture and language. You don't half pick some good examples! That is because those 13% get the other 87% to do all the work...and the 50% from South Asia are slave labour in all but name." And is it leading to the 'downfall of empire' mentioned above? | |||
"Immigration CCLC style... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/abu-dhabi-migrant-workers-conditions-shame-west " I'm not advocating that system, I'm just countering the assertion that immigration destroys 'empire's | |||
| |||
"You want to try living there, the Arabs treat the (they're mainly Bangladeshis) appallingly and I mean appallingly. If one falls off a building 38 floors up they don't even stop construction work, ooh it's only a bangy. No Arab does Jack shit because works beneath them, they just have loads of wives and kids and "shop" work (providing it's selling gold jewelry or cars) is just about acceptable. So yeah they need immigration because there rolling in money and refuse to do anything. Hmmm sounds familiar "So the 'empire' is thriving, rather than collapsing, as a result of immigration then.  | |||
"You want to try living there, the Arabs treat the (they're mainly Bangladeshis) appallingly and I mean appallingly. If one falls off a building 38 floors up they don't even stop construction work, ooh it's only a bangy. No Arab does Jack shit because works beneath them, they just have loads of wives and kids and "shop" work (providing it's selling gold jewelry or cars) is just about acceptable. So yeah they need immigration because there rolling in money and refuse to do anything. Hmmm sounds familiar
So the 'empire' is thriving, rather than collapsing, as a result of immigration then. ". Till the oil runs out or stops getting used they'll be ok. Do you know what Saudi Arabia's second biggest export is?. Seems immigration ain't turned them into Germany | |||
"You want to try living there, the Arabs treat the (they're mainly Bangladeshis) appallingly and I mean appallingly. If one falls off a building 38 floors up they don't even stop construction work, ooh it's only a bangy. No Arab does Jack shit because works beneath them, they just have loads of wives and kids and "shop" work (providing it's selling gold jewelry or cars) is just about acceptable. So yeah they need immigration because there rolling in money and refuse to do anything. Hmmm sounds familiar
So the 'empire' is thriving, rather than collapsing, as a result of immigration then. .
Till the oil runs out or stops getting used they'll be ok.
Do you know what Saudi Arabia's second biggest export is?.
Seems immigration ain't turned them into Germany "So the fall of the 'empire' won't be immigration, it will be a depletion of natural resources. | |||
"You want to try living there, the Arabs treat the (they're mainly Bangladeshis) appallingly and I mean appallingly. If one falls off a building 38 floors up they don't even stop construction work, ooh it's only a bangy. No Arab does Jack shit because works beneath them, they just have loads of wives and kids and "shop" work (providing it's selling gold jewelry or cars) is just about acceptable. So yeah they need immigration because there rolling in money and refuse to do anything. Hmmm sounds familiar
So the 'empire' is thriving, rather than collapsing, as a result of immigration then. .
Till the oil runs out or stops getting used they'll be ok.
Do you know what Saudi Arabia's second biggest export is?.
Seems immigration ain't turned them into Germany
So the fall of the 'empire' won't be immigration, it will be a depletion of natural resources. ". They've got the money to hire people, they pay well as a western male your treated actually quite well, society is just dandy, there's practically no crime, prices are cheap and you can do what you want, Jedda is rather lovely in the spring, nice bit of coast. It's hog heaven... Well if you don't like a drink. Of course they have strict quotas on who comes in and who doesn't, I believe there having a bit of a purge over the last few years as money's gone tight. | |||
"You want to try living there, the Arabs treat the (they're mainly Bangladeshis) appallingly and I mean appallingly. If one falls off a building 38 floors up they don't even stop construction work, ooh it's only a bangy. No Arab does Jack shit because works beneath them, they just have loads of wives and kids and "shop" work (providing it's selling gold jewelry or cars) is just about acceptable. So yeah they need immigration because there rolling in money and refuse to do anything. Hmmm sounds familiar
So the 'empire' is thriving, rather than collapsing, as a result of immigration then. .
Till the oil runs out or stops getting used they'll be ok.
Do you know what Saudi Arabia's second biggest export is?.
Seems immigration ain't turned them into Germany
So the fall of the 'empire' won't be immigration, it will be a depletion of natural resources. .
They've got the money to hire people, they pay well as a western male your treated actually quite well, society is just dandy, there's practically no crime, prices are cheap and you can do what you want, Jedda is rather lovely in the spring, nice bit of coast.
It's hog heaven... Well if you don't like a drink.
Of course they have strict quotas on who comes in and who doesn't, I believe there having a bit of a purge over the last few years as money's gone tight."It's not really my cup of tea. | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? I didn't see it but we should certainly let the Gurkhas and thier family's in if they want to come ! We already do. " What's ghurkas? | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? " I was in fits lol they hit the nail on the head | |||
"You want to try living there, the Arabs treat the (they're mainly Bangladeshis) appallingly and I mean appallingly. If one falls off a building 38 floors up they don't even stop construction work, ooh it's only a bangy. No Arab does Jack shit because works beneath them, they just have loads of wives and kids and "shop" work (providing it's selling gold jewelry or cars) is just about acceptable. So yeah they need immigration because there rolling in money and refuse to do anything. Hmmm sounds familiar
So the 'empire' is thriving, rather than collapsing, as a result of immigration then. .
Till the oil runs out or stops getting used they'll be ok.
Do you know what Saudi Arabia's second biggest export is?.
Seems immigration ain't turned them into Germany
So the fall of the 'empire' won't be immigration, it will be a depletion of natural resources. .
They've got the money to hire people, they pay well as a western male your treated actually quite well, society is just dandy, there's practically no crime, prices are cheap and you can do what you want, Jedda is rather lovely in the spring, nice bit of coast.
It's hog heaven... Well if you don't like a drink.
Of course they have strict quotas on who comes in and who doesn't, I believe there having a bit of a purge over the last few years as money's gone tight.
It's not really my cup of tea. ". Never say never, from what I can remember of it, it was rather charming, I'd like to go back and see how it's changed over the last 30 years, there'd just put the expressway in from Riyadh to Jeddah, four lanes and you could drive for two hours without seeing another car, only a 50mph limit though and everybody had a v8. Rather bonkers thinking back | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? I didn't see it but we should certainly let the Gurkhas and thier family's in if they want to come ! We already do. What's ghurkas?" Ghurkas (in this context) are Nepalese soldiers who fight for the British | |||
.
The Saudis used to turn a blind eye to it providing that
1 it never left the compound (ooh yes we weren't allowed to live with the Arabs).
2 you never appeared d*unk when leaving the compound.
3 you never ever ever gave any to Saudis, no matter how much they begged you too | |||
"Did anyone see the Panorama of the above title? It was interesting to see a head of a hospital complaining that they have vacancies for doctors, and candidates that they want to hire and want to work here, but they can't bring them here becuase of government caps. What was your most interesting case study from the programme? I didn't see it but we should certainly let the Gurkhas and thier family's in if they want to come ! We already do. What's ghurkas? Ghurkas (in this context) are Nepalese soldiers who fight for the British " Ahh right.. | |||
| |||
" If people stopped replicating like rabbits our services wouldn't be under pressure .A one child policy would help manage resources on this little island. "If you want to complain about population growth, the UAE is a great example, in the 1960s their population was 95,000, since 2013, it's been over 9,000,000  | |||
" If people stopped replicating like rabbits our services wouldn't be under pressure .A one child policy would help manage resources on this little island.
If you want to complain about population growth, the UAE is a great example, in the 1960s their population was 95,000, since 2013, it's been over 9,000,000 "Their problem is water running out not oil.Being reliant on desalination is going to be a problem. | |||
" Isn't the biggest threat to the territorial integrity of the UK Scottish independence? And Northern Ireland, yes. Any nation that cannot assert sufficient power over its own borders basically becomes somebody's bitch. You see that even with the Gas pipeline politics with Russia in Europe, and that's a milder example in an exceptionally peaceful period. In the ideal world, we would have nations like 'Seasteads', that would be far more stable and productive in every way. So separatists are a much bigger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK than immigration. I didn't say it was the biggest threat, I agreed that it was a threat. Lebanon has a population of 6m, and 2.2m refugees. They seem to be surviving with a MUCH larger number of immigrants than the UK. How do you explain that? Easily to be honest. Imagine a tidal wave caused people to flee from Scotland, Wales and Ireland into England. It wouldn't be easy but we'd basically get along. We know what each other are about. The main conflicts would be over competition due to similarity, not differences e.g. available work, but this would be a temporary phenomenon until society sorted itself (literal, not metaphorical meaning). The same is true of countries like Jordan. Now place those same white refugees from our islands into the Middle East. It would be a epic fuck up. This is because we are animals, and animals are adapted to niches. You can't pick us up as huge groups and plop us anywhere on earth. That only works in either small numbers or as colonizers (because a colony is where the foreigner adapts the native environment to their preferences i.e. they're not really adapted per se if they are changing what is around them). If open borders worked as a philosophy, it would have to explain two things. 1. Why doesn't moving poor people from one zip code and placing them in a richer zip code increase the median wealth? That it increases 'GDP' is obvious - but just having warm bodies would do that e.g. higher resource requirements change prices, it doesn't imply being profitable at all. A lot of people don't grasp this elemental fact of economics and magazines like The Economist skip over such complications as a routine. 2. If it works, then why it's it already the default? Why don't there exist nations becoming immensely wealthy by importing vast numbers of people? Why do nations in every country offer citizenship programs with very high fees e.g. five million to become a US citizen, similar for other countries. This strongly implies the true calculus and costs of migration are not anything like some of the news media are suggesting they are. Conclusion: maybe this is something extremely complicated that is pretending to be simple, a little like saying on average the ocean is flat and while this is a fact it is not important when the key details of importance are the wind and wave changes. " | |||
" And is it leading to the 'downfall of empire' mentioned above? " The minute the money runs out to protect the elite. Same as with the Romans and the barbarians. You only require the conjunction of an economic crisis and an alienated subgroup in the population for civil strife, and if that population is foreign in some way then it's so much easier That process is sectarian - it happens because of differences. When money disappears it is a kind of stress test for any organization, from a marriage to a state. The thing that holds it all together is having enough in common that the 'other' is seen as family in some sense. For instance when there are riots in the streets, it may be so that different ethnic groups cooperate. But... if you have a subgroup that does not identify as 'British', 'American' - which is quite likely with a large foreign presence, alienation from the indigenous - all of which is likely if you've had a bout of mass migration. I see plenty of predatory behavior from subgroups in the British population, should you suffer economic calamity those become exaggerated as would the side affects. That seesaw of tit for tat turns into formal sectarianism fast. There's nothing more intrinsic to human nature than 'us vs them'. These problems always exist in every society, even ones as homogenous as the Japanese or Chinese, but mass migration will turn those dials up to eleven. Another concept is that the presence of the migrants themselves, such there be enough mouths requiring feeding - could itself generate the economic upset, so these ideas are intertwined. | |||
| |||
" And is it leading to the 'downfall of empire' mentioned above? The minute the money runs out to protect the elite. Same as with the Romans and the barbarians. You only require the conjunction of an economic crisis and an alienated subgroup in the population for civil strife, and if that population is foreign in some way then it's so much easier That process is sectarian - it happens because of differences. When money disappears it is a kind of stress test for any organization, from a marriage to a state. The thing that holds it all together is having enough in common that the 'other' is seen as family in some sense. For instance when there are riots in the streets, it may be so that different ethnic groups cooperate. But... if you have a subgroup that does not identify as 'British', 'American' - which is quite likely with a large foreign presence, alienation from the indigenous - all of which is likely if you've had a bout of mass migration. I see plenty of predatory behavior from subgroups in the British population, should you suffer economic calamity those become exaggerated as would the side affects. That seesaw of tit for tat turns into formal sectarianism fast. There's nothing more intrinsic to human nature than 'us vs them'. These problems always exist in every society, even ones as homogenous as the Japanese or Chinese, but mass migration will turn those dials up to eleven. Another concept is that the presence of the migrants themselves, such there be enough mouths requiring feeding - could itself generate the economic upset, so these ideas are intertwined." So the immigration it's self doesn't cause collapse, but can act as a catalyst if there is an existential economic catastrophe? Is that what you are saying? | |||
" So the immigration it's self doesn't cause collapse, but can act as a catalyst if there is an existential economic catastrophe? Is that what you are saying? " Yes. There are a number of knobs that can be turned in the wrong directions with catastrophic results, such as inflation, interest rates, taxation, and migration levels are such a knob, probably one of the most exquisitely sensitive ones. Think of 1929 - I think most economists today believe the central bank made the wrong decision in response to the crisis, and this galvanized all kinds of fuckups around the globe as a side affect. Unfortunately it's more complex than this because humans and human groups are not interchangeable - it's perfectly possible to admit without bigotry that a large volume of Japanese people are unlikely to damage a society, but that a much smaller number of PNG natives are certain to create havoc, it is one of the most violent societies on the planet. Merkel's migration decisions are a 1929 like error for Liberalism, repercussions that continue to expand = Brexit, Visegrad, Trump - I don't believe those would have happened without that one decision. I think another event is coming up, the 'land reform' in South Africa has the potential to make a permanent rift in the West. | |||
" So the immigration it's self doesn't cause collapse, but can act as a catalyst if there is an existential economic catastrophe? Is that what you are saying? Yes. There are a number of knobs that can be turned in the wrong directions with catastrophic results, such as inflation, interest rates, taxation, and migration levels are such a knob, probably one of the most exquisitely sensitive ones. Think of 1929 - I think most economists today believe the central bank made the wrong decision in response to the crisis, and this galvanized all kinds of fuckups around the globe as a side affect. Unfortunately it's more complex than this because humans and human groups are not interchangeable - it's perfectly possible to admit without bigotry that a large volume of Japanese people are unlikely to damage a society, but that a much smaller number of PNG natives are certain to create havoc, it is one of the most violent societies on the planet. Merkel's migration decisions are a 1929 like error for Liberalism, repercussions that continue to expand = Brexit, Visegrad, Trump - I don't believe those would have happened without that one decision. I think another event is coming up, the 'land reform' in South Africa has the potential to make a permanent rift in the West. " I know your previous posts mention the fall of empires, but these days we are more accustomed to discussing countries. Which countries, if any, would you say have collapses as a result of immigration, in say, the last 100 years? | |||
" I know your previous posts mention the fall of empires, but these days we are more accustomed to discussing countries. Which countries, if any, would you say have collapses as a result of immigration, in say, the last 100 years? " What about the Arabs of Zanzibar? | |||
" So the immigration it's self doesn't cause collapse, but can act as a catalyst if there is an existential economic catastrophe? Is that what you are saying? Yes. There are a number of knobs that can be turned in the wrong directions with catastrophic results, such as inflation, interest rates, taxation, and migration levels are such a knob, probably one of the most exquisitely sensitive ones. Think of 1929 - I think most economists today believe the central bank made the wrong decision in response to the crisis, and this galvanized all kinds of fuckups around the globe as a side affect. Unfortunately it's more complex than this because humans and human groups are not interchangeable - it's perfectly possible to admit without bigotry that a large volume of Japanese people are unlikely to damage a society, but that a much smaller number of PNG natives are certain to create havoc, it is one of the most violent societies on the planet. Merkel's migration decisions are a 1929 like error for Liberalism, repercussions that continue to expand = Brexit, Visegrad, Trump - I don't believe those would have happened without that one decision. I think another event is coming up, the 'land reform' in South Africa has the potential to make a permanent rift in the West. I know your previous posts mention the fall of empires, but these days we are more accustomed to discussing countries. Which countries, if any, would you say have collapses as a result of immigration, in say, the last 100 years? " . Palestine | |||
" So the immigration it's self doesn't cause collapse, but can act as a catalyst if there is an existential economic catastrophe? Is that what you are saying? Yes. There are a number of knobs that can be turned in the wrong directions with catastrophic results, such as inflation, interest rates, taxation, and migration levels are such a knob, probably one of the most exquisitely sensitive ones. Think of 1929 - I think most economists today believe the central bank made the wrong decision in response to the crisis, and this galvanized all kinds of fuckups around the globe as a side affect. Unfortunately it's more complex than this because humans and human groups are not interchangeable - it's perfectly possible to admit without bigotry that a large volume of Japanese people are unlikely to damage a society, but that a much smaller number of PNG natives are certain to create havoc, it is one of the most violent societies on the planet. Merkel's migration decisions are a 1929 like error for Liberalism, repercussions that continue to expand = Brexit, Visegrad, Trump - I don't believe those would have happened without that one decision. I think another event is coming up, the 'land reform' in South Africa has the potential to make a permanent rift in the West. I know your previous posts mention the fall of empires, but these days we are more accustomed to discussing countries. Which countries, if any, would you say have collapses as a result of immigration, in say, the last 100 years? . Palestine "Who are the immigrants? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. " What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector?" The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. " Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? | |||
| |||
"How is it bullshit? Who is it that influences governments If immigration is good for big businesses who employ a lot of people obviously its going to trickle down to smaller businesses. All businesses will benefit from a larger pool of workers to keep wages and conditions down but smaller businesses dont have the same political pull or influence " It's bullshit because you were first complaining about it benefiting big business, but then your argument falls apart if they work in the public sector or for small businesses. Some people really should think about their position before making a post. | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? " I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? | |||
"How is it bullshit? Who is it that influences governments If immigration is good for big businesses who employ a lot of people obviously its going to trickle down to smaller businesses. All businesses will benefit from a larger pool of workers to keep wages and conditions down but smaller businesses dont have the same political pull or influence It's bullshit because you were first complaining about it benefiting big business, but then your argument falls apart if they work in the public sector or for small businesses. Some people really should think about their position before making a post. " Im not complaining either way and I have not taken any position on the matter! | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? " So your whole argument collapses if they work for small businesses or the public sector. Also, you have incorrectly formed your argument as although you give examples of the benefit to big business, your examples from the public are framed as negatives, so there isn't an either/or benefit, as only one side of the equation has a benefit. | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? So your whole argument collapses if they work for small businesses or the public sector. Also, you have incorrectly formed your argument as although you give examples of the benefit to big business, your examples from the public are framed as negatives, so there isn't an either/or benefit, as only one side of the equation has a benefit. " Well for one I never intended my post to be seen as arguing one position over another I simply asked that we should look at who gains most! Though regardless of who an immigrant works for, big business, public sector or small business the benefit to the employer are the same, larger pool of workers and especially when it comes to unskilled and manual jobs. The question is still there though, who gains most? | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? So your whole argument collapses if they work for small businesses or the public sector. Also, you have incorrectly formed your argument as although you give examples of the benefit to big business, your examples from the public are framed as negatives, so there isn't an either/or benefit, as only one side of the equation has a benefit. Well for one I never intended my post to be seen as arguing one position over another I simply asked that we should look at who gains most! Though regardless of who an immigrant works for, big business, public sector or small business the benefit to the employer are the same, larger pool of workers and especially when it comes to unskilled and manual jobs. The question is still there though, who gains most? " So now it's changed from big business to all employers? Well let's look at an example of the programme and the opening post, a doctor is recruited. The Dr gains because she has got the job she wanted. The hospital gains because they have recruited the Dr they wanted. The local population gain from the medical care given, from the council tax paid by the Dr, as well as the money spent in the local economy. The UK population also gains from the National taxation paid too. Multiple gains for multiple stakeholders. | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? So your whole argument collapses if they work for small businesses or the public sector. Also, you have incorrectly formed your argument as although you give examples of the benefit to big business, your examples from the public are framed as negatives, so there isn't an either/or benefit, as only one side of the equation has a benefit. Well for one I never intended my post to be seen as arguing one position over another I simply asked that we should look at who gains most! Though regardless of who an immigrant works for, big business, public sector or small business the benefit to the employer are the same, larger pool of workers and especially when it comes to unskilled and manual jobs. The question is still there though, who gains most? So now it's changed from big business to all employers? Well let's look at an example of the programme and the opening post, a doctor is recruited. The Dr gains because she has got the job she wanted. The hospital gains because they have recruited the Dr they wanted. The local population gain from the medical care given, from the council tax paid by the Dr, as well as the money spent in the local economy. The UK population also gains from the National taxation paid too. Multiple gains for multiple stakeholders. " Again I said OR is it big business who gain, especially considering they would have more influence on government policy that Stan the green grocer who employs 3 people though now he has much bigger pool of people to employ 3 staff members from. For every 10,000 people who come into the country how many are highly skilled professionals such as doctors, though every one that comes in and is employed in some capacity will contribute in some way shape or form, though I imagine the UK has enough native low skilled workers that migration for them is simply competition for jobs and resources. | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? So your whole argument collapses if they work for small businesses or the public sector. Also, you have incorrectly formed your argument as although you give examples of the benefit to big business, your examples from the public are framed as negatives, so there isn't an either/or benefit, as only one side of the equation has a benefit. Well for one I never intended my post to be seen as arguing one position over another I simply asked that we should look at who gains most! Though regardless of who an immigrant works for, big business, public sector or small business the benefit to the employer are the same, larger pool of workers and especially when it comes to unskilled and manual jobs. The question is still there though, who gains most? So now it's changed from big business to all employers? Well let's look at an example of the programme and the opening post, a doctor is recruited. The Dr gains because she has got the job she wanted. The hospital gains because they have recruited the Dr they wanted. The local population gain from the medical care given, from the council tax paid by the Dr, as well as the money spent in the local economy. The UK population also gains from the National taxation paid too. Multiple gains for multiple stakeholders. Again I said OR is it big business who gain, especially considering they would have more influence on government policy that Stan the green grocer who employs 3 people though now he has much bigger pool of people to employ 3 staff members from. For every 10,000 people who come into the country how many are highly skilled professionals such as doctors, though every one that comes in and is employed in some capacity will contribute in some way shape or form, though I imagine the UK has enough native low skilled workers that migration for them is simply competition for jobs and resources. " Yes, you might "imagine" that there are enough natives to do the job, but the programme provided qualitative evidence that this wasn't the case. Native workers have huge advantages over foreign workers. Firstly, they are already here. It's a lot easier to get a job 5 miles away than 1000 miles away. Secondly, they know the culture. It's easier to apply for the job, complete the interview and work with colleagues if that's the case. Thirdly, they are native English speakers. It's always easier to work in your native language rather than a second or third language. Fourthly, their educational qualifications and previous work history are easily recognisable to employers. So despite all of these advantages, employers are still saying that Brits aren't applying for the jobs. In the programme there is a chicken farm that says they pay over the minimum wage, over the living wage, and still can't get the British workers they need. They say that Brexit is a bigger threat to the chicken industry than bird flu. So you can "imagine" all you want, but I would suggest you actually look at the evidence. | |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. Oh, so your post about big business then was total bullshit? I guess first of all if you read back I posed the question OR is it big business that gain the most, I never stated as a fact big business benefit the most. However I am unsure of the point your trying to make regarding who benefits? What is your opinion, who benefits most from immigration, who should be let in? So your whole argument collapses if they work for small businesses or the public sector. Also, you have incorrectly formed your argument as although you give examples of the benefit to big business, your examples from the public are framed as negatives, so there isn't an either/or benefit, as only one side of the equation has a benefit. Well for one I never intended my post to be seen as arguing one position over another I simply asked that we should look at who gains most! Though regardless of who an immigrant works for, big business, public sector or small business the benefit to the employer are the same, larger pool of workers and especially when it comes to unskilled and manual jobs. The question is still there though, who gains most? So now it's changed from big business to all employers? Well let's look at an example of the programme and the opening post, a doctor is recruited. The Dr gains because she has got the job she wanted. The hospital gains because they have recruited the Dr they wanted. The local population gain from the medical care given, from the council tax paid by the Dr, as well as the money spent in the local economy. The UK population also gains from the National taxation paid too. Multiple gains for multiple stakeholders. Again I said OR is it big business who gain, especially considering they would have more influence on government policy that Stan the green grocer who employs 3 people though now he has much bigger pool of people to employ 3 staff members from. For every 10,000 people who come into the country how many are highly skilled professionals such as doctors, though every one that comes in and is employed in some capacity will contribute in some way shape or form, though I imagine the UK has enough native low skilled workers that migration for them is simply competition for jobs and resources. Yes, you might "imagine" that there are enough natives to do the job, but the programme provided qualitative evidence that this wasn't the case. Native workers have huge advantages over foreign workers. Firstly, they are already here. It's a lot easier to get a job 5 miles away than 1000 miles away. Secondly, they know the culture. It's easier to apply for the job, complete the interview and work with colleagues if that's the case. Thirdly, they are native English speakers. It's always easier to work in your native language rather than a second or third language. Fourthly, their educational qualifications and previous work history are easily recognisable to employers. So despite all of these advantages, employers are still saying that Brits aren't applying for the jobs. In the programme there is a chicken farm that says they pay over the minimum wage, over the living wage, and still can't get the British workers they need. They say that Brexit is a bigger threat to the chicken industry than bird flu. So you can "imagine" all you want, but I would suggest you actually look at the evidence. " I didn't see this TV show, is the TV show considered evidence, what was the conclusion if any od this show? I my self my an immigrant to the UK and had no problem finding work, though the companies I worked for actively discriminated against any one that wasn't Irish! Which I didn't condone then or now! | |||
"So out of all the countries in the world, and a 150 year time scale, all with all the immigration we have worldwide, we can only come up with 2 possible examples of immigration leading to the break up of a country? Immigration wasn't the cause of the break up of Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Czechoslavakia, Sudan, East and West Pakistan/Bangladesh, Germany etc. And as previously mentioned, nationalism, rather than immigration is a much larger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK. I think that taking into account these factors, it is clear that immigration is not the existential threat that it has been portrayed as in this thread. " We don't live in an age of hyper nationalism jingoism/imperialism. We do live in an age of mass migrations. Then we should reasonably expect problems with the latter and fewer of the former. I think I'm going to stop calling your sort Liberals, because really none of the old Liberals or even Leftists would have agreed with you. At some point you have to decide between being a Liberal/Leftist or being a human Cuckoo. The Mongols were migrants, so were the now vanished indigenous peoples that used to inhabit Africa, America and Australia. Please show me an example of where millions of young men descended on a host country and the natives were unmo-lested. I can think of an example, The Triangular Trade, but hard not to see there's this pattern where somebody is getting properly fucked. It is reasonable to realize that millions of young arab and black men in Europe are going to cause political problems and crime, it's a foregone conclusion if your mind isn't blitzed by liberal theology. That it has become a mark of intellectual sophistication among the European intelligentsia to pretend elementary pattern recognition is delusional is deeply disturbing and honestly; quite stupid. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Perhaps when we think of who should be let in we should ask who gains most. Is it the average citizen who sees school places harder to find, doctors appointments harder to get, house prices and rents rising all due to competition due to population growth not to mention competition for jobs. Or is it big business who gain the most by allowing more people access to the jobs market and hence keeping wages and conditions down especially for manual and lower skilled jobs. What if they work for a small business? Or the public sector? The new arrivals? I guess regardless of who they work for they will still put pressure on local amenities and services. Working for a small company or public sector still puts them into competition with the natives and as all things including wages are related to supply and demand. I think if any country is going to allow lots of new people entry they should at least invest in the infrastructure to accommodate the rise in population. " This is the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy. And has been long debunked. If is want a good example explaining it, then look up the poem ‘mathematics’ by Hollie Mcnish. -Matt | |||
"Though we have yet to answer the title of this thread " Anyone that wants to work to enhance our economy, safe in the knowledge that they'll be protected by our employment and health and safety laws. In return, we ask that they respect our laws, knowing that those laws will also protect them. Integrate and contribute and we will keep them safe from racism, xenophobia, and sexism. Allow them to follow their religions, whilst respecting ours. Who they are and where they come from isn't important then. | |||
"We live in a multicultural globalised planet.The days of monoculture are long gone and there is no turning back the clock to some golden age.We have to work together as one people. "You must be new here Bob. | |||
"Why not just have mass unchecked immigration and hope than a decent percentage of the incoming have a skill or trade that they want to use that is in demand. " You mean like that nice Mr Blair did... .? | |||
"We live in a multicultural globalised planet.The days of monoculture are long gone and there is no turning back the clock to some golden age.We have to work together as one people.
You must be new here Bob."No.Just pragmatic. | |||
"We live in a multicultural globalised planet.The days of monoculture are long gone and there is no turning back the clock to some golden age.We have to work together as one people.
You must be new here Bob.
No.Just pragmatic. "Humans automatically sort themselves into tribes. If they have different colours, on race. If they have the same colour, on religion, if not on religion, ideology, if not on ideology, on geography, if not on geography ... I sense a theme. There is a game theory thing going on - tribal people meet non-tribal people, the tribal people win. You can't dismiss human nature by communication and reason unless you adopt some highly totalitarian ideas, in which case I have to ask whether the cure is going to be worse than the disease. | |||
"So out of all the countries in the world, and a 150 year time scale, all with all the immigration we have worldwide, we can only come up with 2 possible examples of immigration leading to the break up of a country? Immigration wasn't the cause of the break up of Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Czechoslavakia, Sudan, East and West Pakistan/Bangladesh, Germany etc. And as previously mentioned, nationalism, rather than immigration is a much larger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK. I think that taking into account these factors, it is clear that immigration is not the existential threat that it has been portrayed as in this thread. We don't live in an age of hyper nationalism jingoism/imperialism. We do live in an age of mass migrations. Then we should reasonably expect problems with the latter and fewer of the former. I think I'm going to stop calling your sort Liberals, because really none of the old Liberals or even Leftists would have agreed with you. At some point you have to decide between being a Liberal/Leftist or being a human Cuckoo. The Mongols were migrants, so were the now vanished indigenous peoples that used to inhabit Africa, America and Australia. Please show me an example of where millions of young men descended on a host country and the natives were unmo-lested. I can think of an example, The Triangular Trade, but hard not to see there's this pattern where somebody is getting properly fucked. It is reasonable to realize that millions of young arab and black men in Europe are going to cause political problems and crime, it's a foregone conclusion if your mind isn't blitzed by liberal theology. That it has become a mark of intellectual sophistication among the European intelligentsia to pretend elementary pattern recognition is delusional is deeply disturbing and honestly; quite stupid. " As your argument falls apart you decide to attack me personally instead. Unfortunately you couldn't even do that consistently, instead you say I'm not "Liberal", yet claim that my mind is "...blitzed by liberal theology."! | |||
"So out of all the countries in the world, and a 150 year time scale, all with all the immigration we have worldwide, we can only come up with 2 possible examples of immigration leading to the break up of a country? Immigration wasn't the cause of the break up of Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Czechoslavakia, Sudan, East and West Pakistan/Bangladesh, Germany etc. And as previously mentioned, nationalism, rather than immigration is a much larger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK. I think that taking into account these factors, it is clear that immigration is not the existential threat that it has been portrayed as in this thread. We don't live in an age of hyper nationalism jingoism/imperialism. We do live in an age of mass migrations. Then we should reasonably expect problems with the latter and fewer of the former. I think I'm going to stop calling your sort Liberals, because really none of the old Liberals or even Leftists would have agreed with you. At some point you have to decide between being a Liberal/Leftist or being a human Cuckoo. The Mongols were migrants, so were the now vanished indigenous peoples that used to inhabit Africa, America and Australia. Please show me an example of where millions of young men descended on a host country and the natives were unmo-lested. I can think of an example, The Triangular Trade, but hard not to see there's this pattern where somebody is getting properly fucked. It is reasonable to realize that millions of young arab and black men in Europe are going to cause political problems and crime, it's a foregone conclusion if your mind isn't blitzed by liberal theology. That it has become a mark of intellectual sophistication among the European intelligentsia to pretend elementary pattern recognition is delusional is deeply disturbing and honestly; quite stupid. As your argument falls apart you decide to attack me personally instead. Unfortunately you couldn't even do that consistently, instead you say I'm not "Liberal", yet claim that my mind is "...blitzed by liberal theology."! " I attacked Liberals, the new potato kind. You I didn't attack directly. In any political affiliation, there are the clever ones and the stupid ones. The old liberals were highly intelligent, the modern variety are not very bright. This is because they reside in the status quo position which dulls their wits and also they don't read much of anything. There are good arguments Liberals could be making but they don't because it ventures into forbidden territory, risks elaborating on non-liberal ideas from the left and right. Since they are not exploring ideas they swim back and forth in the Overton Window which is the shallow end of the pool. | |||
| |||
"So out of all the countries in the world, and a 150 year time scale, all with all the immigration we have worldwide, we can only come up with 2 possible examples of immigration leading to the break up of a country? Immigration wasn't the cause of the break up of Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Czechoslavakia, Sudan, East and West Pakistan/Bangladesh, Germany etc. And as previously mentioned, nationalism, rather than immigration is a much larger threat to the territorial integrity of the UK. I think that taking into account these factors, it is clear that immigration is not the existential threat that it has been portrayed as in this thread. We don't live in an age of hyper nationalism jingoism/imperialism. We do live in an age of mass migrations. Then we should reasonably expect problems with the latter and fewer of the former. I think I'm going to stop calling your sort Liberals, because really none of the old Liberals or even Leftists would have agreed with you. At some point you have to decide between being a Liberal/Leftist or being a human Cuckoo. The Mongols were migrants, so were the now vanished indigenous peoples that used to inhabit Africa, America and Australia. Please show me an example of where millions of young men descended on a host country and the natives were unmo-lested. I can think of an example, The Triangular Trade, but hard not to see there's this pattern where somebody is getting properly fucked. It is reasonable to realize that millions of young arab and black men in Europe are going to cause political problems and crime, it's a foregone conclusion if your mind isn't blitzed by liberal theology. That it has become a mark of intellectual sophistication among the European intelligentsia to pretend elementary pattern recognition is delusional is deeply disturbing and honestly; quite stupid. As your argument falls apart you decide to attack me personally instead. Unfortunately you couldn't even do that consistently, instead you say I'm not "Liberal", yet claim that my mind is "...blitzed by liberal theology."! I attacked Liberals, the new potato kind. You I didn't attack directly. In any political affiliation, there are the clever ones and the stupid ones. The old liberals were highly intelligent, the modern variety are not very bright. This is because they reside in the status quo position which dulls their wits and also they don't read much of anything. There are good arguments Liberals could be making but they don't because it ventures into forbidden territory, risks elaborating on non-liberal ideas from the left and right. Since they are not exploring ideas they swim back and forth in the Overton Window which is the shallow end of the pool." Overton window. Hmmm. This line of supercilious argument sounds familiar. There was a link to an extreme right wing site the last time this happened in the name of "opening your mind" because, automatically having a strong emotional response against claims that people are not basically the same with the same motivations are not open minded. Let's see how this develops  | |||
"We live in a multicultural globalised planet.The days of monoculture are long gone and there is no turning back the clock to some golden age.We have to work together as one people.
You must be new here Bob.
No.Just pragmatic. "I agree with you. You either evolve or become extinct. | |||
"We live in a multicultural globalised planet.The days of monoculture are long gone and there is no turning back the clock to some golden age.We have to work together as one people.
You must be new here Bob.
No.Just pragmatic.
Humans automatically sort themselves into tribes. If they have different colours, on race. If they have the same colour, on religion, if not on religion, ideology, if not on ideology, on geography, if not on geography ...
I sense a theme.
There is a game theory thing going on - tribal people meet non-tribal people, the tribal people win.
You can't dismiss human nature by communication and reason unless you adopt some highly totalitarian ideas, in which case I have to ask whether the cure is going to be worse than the disease."We assimilate culture and culture adds to our diversity .My family are quite multicultural .My family are German, Jamaican, English,cornish pirate and Jewish and we identity as European. I guess that's my tribe. | |||
" We assimilate culture and culture adds to our diversity .My family are quite multicultural .My family are German, Jamaican, English,cornish pirate and Jewish and we identity as European. I guess that's my tribe. "I have zero problem with your existence and origin, the problem is you're describing the anthropic principle. Whatever happened in history, it generated "Bobbangs". It must be the case that none of your ancestors got murdered before they passed on their genes. But... the tree of humanity has got whole branches pruned off it. We can plainly see the counterfactuals. To assume we're going to alright in the future is hubris, it is complacent. This is what I hate most about Liberals, even though I consider myself to be fundamentally on your side in a roundabout way. | |||
"We live in a multicultural globalised planet.The days of monoculture are long gone and there is no turning back the clock to some golden age.We have to work together as one people.
You must be new here Bob.
No.Just pragmatic.
I agree with you. You either evolve or become extinct.". Except if your a crocodile | |||
| |||
" We assimilate culture and culture adds to our diversity .My family are quite multicultural .My family are German, Jamaican, English,cornish pirate and Jewish and we identity as European. I guess that's my tribe.
I have zero problem with your existence and origin, the problem is you're describing the anthropic principle.
Whatever happened in history, it generated "Bobbangs". It must be the case that none of your ancestors got murdered before they passed on their genes.
But... the tree of humanity has got whole branches pruned off it. We can plainly see the counterfactuals.
To assume we're going to alright in the future is hubris, it is complacent.
This is what I hate most about Liberals, even though I consider myself to be fundamentally on your side in a roundabout way.
"What is complacent about this? It's clear that it takes a great deal of fortitude to allow people to meet and fall in love and have children without reference to where they were born, what colour they are or what religion they follow. There is no assumption about it being alright. There has always been a small minority wanting to maintain their "purity". That's involved lots of persecution and death. It seems it's necessary to fight to demonstrate that all people actually want the same thing. | |||
"Or a great White "That's not true. Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving. They have branched and specialised and found niches. They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey. They are also endangered so under threat. | |||
" We assimilate culture and culture adds to our diversity .My family are quite multicultural .My family are German, Jamaican, English,cornish pirate and Jewish and we identity as European. I guess that's my tribe.
I have zero problem with your existence and origin, the problem is you're describing the anthropic principle.
Whatever happened in history, it generated "Bobbangs". It must be the case that none of your ancestors got murdered before they passed on their genes.
But... the tree of humanity has got whole branches pruned off it. We can plainly see the counterfactuals.
To assume we're going to alright in the future is hubris, it is complacent.
This is what I hate most about Liberals, even though I consider myself to be fundamentally on your side in a roundabout way.
"Do you feel under siege.? Rather than feeling under siege from the outside clever humans in the past made friends and allies outside the group the define as "people"and got to pass on their DNA.Thoses walled up in the castle were less fortunate. | |||
" Do you feel under siege.? Rather than feeling under siege from the outside clever humans in the past made friends and allies outside the group the define as "people"and got to pass on their DNA.Thoses walled up in the castle were less fortunate." I'm sure you think you're being reassuring but our family actually had a castle and then it got blown to pieces by a religious zealot by the name of Cromwell and we're still super triggered about it. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat.". Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak | |||
" Do you feel under siege.? Rather than feeling under siege from the outside clever humans in the past made friends and allies outside the group the define as "people"and got to pass on their DNA.Thoses walled up in the castle were less fortunate. I'm sure you think you're being reassuring but our family actually had a castle and then it got blown to pieces by a religious zealot by the name of Cromwell and we're still super triggered about it." Even Rome needed coalitions to maintain its Empire.The USA needs allies to keep its position at the top. Maybe you'd still have your castle if you had integrated into the greater family.Pulling up the drawbridge invites trouble.Opening the gates often means survival. | |||
| |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak"Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread? | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?". That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
"So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique? I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration.". Immigration is dandy, only two rules. 1 they need to be similar culture 2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated."Like when the British "travelled"? | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? ". By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?. And yes obviously like when the British travelled | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled "What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely.". No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me | |||
| |||
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?. No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures "I am going to call you racist and be correct in that assessment. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me"No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends. In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion. | |||
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?. No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures
I am going to call you racist and be correct in that assessment.". No your going to be full of shit liberal bollocks trying to use words like racist to shut down debate, we all know Islam isn't confined to race everybody can join! It's just that nobody can leave, or they can leave but there open to being murdered for it, which is my point that there's levels of shitness.. Christianity maybe bad but Islam is five times worse. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion.". Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!. There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit. So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other | |||
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?. No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures
I am going to call you racist and be correct in that assessment..
No your going to be full of shit liberal bollocks trying to use words like racist to shut down debate, we all know Islam isn't confined to race everybody can join! It's just that nobody can leave, or they can leave but there open to being murdered for it, which is my point that there's levels of shitness.. Christianity maybe bad but Islam is five times worse.
"No. You are racist. You just defined yourself as exactly that. | |||
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?. No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures
I am going to call you racist and be correct in that assessment..
No your going to be full of shit liberal bollocks trying to use words like racist to shut down debate, we all know Islam isn't confined to race everybody can join! It's just that nobody can leave, or they can leave but there open to being murdered for it, which is my point that there's levels of shitness.. Christianity maybe bad but Islam is five times worse.
No. You are racist. You just defined yourself as exactly that.". I used to think you were at least slightly intelligent!. Just goes to show that even I'm wrong occasionally | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other"Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals.". No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries. It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much. See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd | |||
| |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd"Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians. Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent. Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across. I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen? Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies. | |||
| |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies.". Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?. UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?. Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them. If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?. This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will. The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years. I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies..
Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?.
Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them.
If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?.
This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will.
The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years.
I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester."You are talking about the middle east? They don't live with them except the few that serve them. They are not neighbours or colleagues or friends. They do not meet them in the streets they walk in or the shops and restaurants and cinemas. The immigrants are indentured labour. That is their experience of them. Reread my point about an Indian's view of immigration. You, once again, chose to respond to something that I did not write. People end up isolated in ghettos domestically or as immigrants because that's where they are sent to live. For years this country was not at all welcoming to immigrants. No dogs, No Irish, No coloureds. Once these communities start then that's where new arrivals will gravitate to. You are quite correct that this country should have done more to assimilate people. A basic English test for any job would do as that is the access point to everything. However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap. | |||
| |||
"I’m Irish, I’ve been in this country 19yrs and Ive loved every minute of it. Unfortunately we’ll come across idiots in every country. I think every country will benefit from people who want to work and better themselves. " My father lived in various parts of the uk over 20 year span and always gravitated to the Irish areas to be near his own, ibe uncles based in the UK for over 40years and again they always lived in Irish areas to be amongst their own, that said none of my family there ever suffered any discrimination at the hands of the Brits and have always found them to be quite friendly | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies..
Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?.
Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them.
If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?.
This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will.
The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years.
I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester.
You are talking about the middle east?
They don't live with them except the few that serve them. They are not neighbours or colleagues or friends. They do not meet them in the streets they walk in or the shops and restaurants and cinemas.
The immigrants are indentured labour. That is their experience of them.
Reread my point about an Indian's view of immigration. You, once again, chose to respond to something that I did not write.
People end up isolated in ghettos domestically or as immigrants because that's where they are sent to live. For years this country was not at all welcoming to immigrants. No dogs, No Irish, No coloureds. Once these communities start then that's where new arrivals will gravitate to.
You are quite correct that this country should have done more to assimilate people. A basic English test for any job would do as that is the access point to everything.
However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap.". I made no such assertion, if I have I'd like you to point it out to me so I can correct it or point out that you've mistaken my wording. | |||
" However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap." It's really not that black and white. Formerly the bias of society was class or race based. However the idea that 'there are good people everywhere' is just as misplaced. It's a form of agnosia, an inability to recognize or perceive the simplest patterns. The fact is that just you recognize pornography when you see it, people intrinsically recognize civilization (replace with 'order'/'ordered' if you prefer) and civilized people when they see them. The Far East clearly has a selection of civilized people and so does the West. Does that imply Africa and Middle East are 'less good'? Actually yes, it does. There have been very dark periods in European and Far East history. The Middle East is obviously in such a period today, an alien staring at the planet would have no trouble pointing out that Africa has rarely had periods of peace and order and there is no evidence this is something you can abruptly change in a few decades. Look at the success stories = It's not as if the English or later: the Irish civilized overnight. It took at least 200-400 years. This isn't a value judgement on an *individual*, but I see no problem in casting value judgements on other large groups of people on this planet because anybody not pozzed by the education system and media can tell whether a place is heading in a positive or negative direction using simple heuristics. A place is your biological origin, very likely your culture and definitely your environment. To pretend you can wave such things away as abstractions, by a mere changing of the mind is positively stupid - but that is the 'consensus view' we're supposed to have under 'New Liberalism'. I am not buying what is being sold and I don't think you ought to either, if for no other reason than positive improvement is forever out of reach if you are at a place where all groups of people are supposed to be practically identical. That is not moderation, that is an extreme ideology. I look to Japan and see things I'd like to have here in Ireland. Is this immoral? Or is it just immoral when they are black or brown and I don't like what I see? These are epic double standards and a lot of Westerners are sick of it, some of them include those black and brown people. Analysis of groups is not something you can give up to the sociologists and nobody else, it is immediately relevant far too often for that, esp. in anything to do with the crime/security topic. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies..
Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?.
Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them.
If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?.
This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will.
The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years.
I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester.
You are talking about the middle east?
They don't live with them except the few that serve them. They are not neighbours or colleagues or friends. They do not meet them in the streets they walk in or the shops and restaurants and cinemas.
The immigrants are indentured labour. That is their experience of them.
Reread my point about an Indian's view of immigration. You, once again, chose to respond to something that I did not write.
People end up isolated in ghettos domestically or as immigrants because that's where they are sent to live. For years this country was not at all welcoming to immigrants. No dogs, No Irish, No coloureds. Once these communities start then that's where new arrivals will gravitate to.
You are quite correct that this country should have done more to assimilate people. A basic English test for any job would do as that is the access point to everything.
However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap..
I made no such assertion, if I have I'd like you to point it out to me so I can correct it or point out that you've mistaken my wording.
""Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,? No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures" Not a sweeping generalisation? | |||
" However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap. It's really not that black and white. Formerly the bias of society was class or race based. However the idea that 'there are good people everywhere' is just as misplaced. It's a form of agnosia, an inability to recognize or perceive the simplest patterns. The fact is that just you recognize pornography when you see it, people intrinsically recognize civilization (replace with 'order'/'ordered' if you prefer) and civilized people when they see them. The Far East clearly has a selection of civilized people and so does the West. Does that imply Africa and Middle East are 'less good'? Actually yes, it does. There have been very dark periods in European and Far East history. The Middle East is obviously in such a period today, an alien staring at the planet would have no trouble pointing out that Africa has rarely had periods of peace and order and there is no evidence this is something you can abruptly change in a few decades. Look at the success stories = It's not as if the English or later: the Irish civilized overnight. It took at least 200-400 years. This isn't a value judgement on an *individual*, but I see no problem in casting value judgements on other large groups of people on this planet because anybody not pozzed by the education system and media can tell whether a place is heading in a positive or negative direction using simple heuristics. A place is your biological origin, very likely your culture and definitely your environment. To pretend you can wave such things away as abstractions, by a mere changing of the mind is positively stupid - but that is the 'consensus view' we're supposed to have under 'New Liberalism'. I am not buying what is being sold and I don't think you ought to either, if for no other reason than positive improvement is forever out of reach if you are at a place where all groups of people are supposed to be practically identical. That is not moderation, that is an extreme ideology. I look to Japan and see things I'd like to have here in Ireland. Is this immoral? Or is it just immoral when they are black or brown and I don't like what I see? These are epic double standards and a lot of Westerners are sick of it, some of them include those black and brown people. Analysis of groups is not something you can give up to the sociologists and nobody else, it is immediately relevant far too often for that, esp. in anything to do with the crime/security topic." I am very impressed with all of the words that you used. Some of them were very long. As far as I can tell you just write that in your opinion you think that some countries and cultures are better than others based on your opinion from extensive travel? Living abroad? Having a wide circular of friends from a range of backgrounds? Why should I subscribe to your opinion rather than my own? Why should I treat people based on that rather than my own view based on experience? | |||
" However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap. It's really not that black and white. Formerly the bias of society was class or race based. However the idea that 'there are good people everywhere' is just as misplaced. It's a form of agnosia, an inability to recognize or perceive the simplest patterns. The fact is that just you recognize pornography when you see it, people intrinsically recognize civilization (replace with 'order'/'ordered' if you prefer) and civilized people when they see them. The Far East clearly has a selection of civilized people and so does the West. Does that imply Africa and Middle East are 'less good'? Actually yes, it does. There have been very dark periods in European and Far East history. The Middle East is obviously in such a period today, an alien staring at the planet would have no trouble pointing out that Africa has rarely had periods of peace and order and there is no evidence this is something you can abruptly change in a few decades. Look at the success stories = It's not as if the English or later: the Irish civilized overnight. It took at least 200-400 years. This isn't a value judgement on an *individual*, but I see no problem in casting value judgements on other large groups of people on this planet because anybody not pozzed by the education system and media can tell whether a place is heading in a positive or negative direction using simple heuristics. A place is your biological origin, very likely your culture and definitely your environment. To pretend you can wave such things away as abstractions, by a mere changing of the mind is positively stupid - but that is the 'consensus view' we're supposed to have under 'New Liberalism'. I am not buying what is being sold and I don't think you ought to either, if for no other reason than positive improvement is forever out of reach if you are at a place where all groups of people are supposed to be practically identical. That is not moderation, that is an extreme ideology. I look to Japan and see things I'd like to have here in Ireland. Is this immoral? Or is it just immoral when they are black or brown and I don't like what I see? These are epic double standards and a lot of Westerners are sick of it, some of them include those black and brown people. Analysis of groups is not something you can give up to the sociologists and nobody else, it is immediately relevant far too often for that, esp. in anything to do with the crime/security topic. I am very impressed with all of the words that you used. Some of them were very long. As far as I can tell you just write that in your opinion you think that some countries and cultures are better than others based on your opinion from extensive travel? Living abroad? Having a wide circular of friends from a range of backgrounds? Why should I subscribe to your opinion rather than my own? Why should I treat people based on that rather than my own view based on experience?" Sounds more ignoble than noble to my ears. Imagine a person who only absorbed information by personal interaction, ignoring all books, televisual media, radio. This is what the greeks called 'an idiot' - which originally meant a person devoid of any knowledge of politics. If you read any texts from the early 20th century and earlier, you frequently find observations on the character of peoples, not just specific people. It is conventional wisdom in today's Western society that this was bunk. But it is also conventionally believed by most of the population that different ethnicities are anatomically and biochemcially identical - they are not - which matters if you want to fix health problems. As an analogy it's a good one - you can't fix problems across different groups with identical policy economic or political, it's a kind of Liberal delusion to believe that. There's lots of supporting evidence for the idea that Western society doesn't work overseas. Then it follows that if you import different cultures what happens is society becomes very complicated and probably flies apart. If you're following political trends for a while you'll already know 'Separateness' is coming back across the world. Inexplicable to Liberals, but not if you quiz their priors. | |||
" However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap. It's really not that black and white. Formerly the bias of society was class or race based. However the idea that 'there are good people everywhere' is just as misplaced. It's a form of agnosia, an inability to recognize or perceive the simplest patterns. The fact is that just you recognize pornography when you see it, people intrinsically recognize civilization (replace with 'order'/'ordered' if you prefer) and civilized people when they see them. The Far East clearly has a selection of civilized people and so does the West. Does that imply Africa and Middle East are 'less good'? Actually yes, it does. There have been very dark periods in European and Far East history. The Middle East is obviously in such a period today, an alien staring at the planet would have no trouble pointing out that Africa has rarely had periods of peace and order and there is no evidence this is something you can abruptly change in a few decades. Look at the success stories = It's not as if the English or later: the Irish civilized overnight. It took at least 200-400 years. This isn't a value judgement on an *individual*, but I see no problem in casting value judgements on other large groups of people on this planet because anybody not pozzed by the education system and media can tell whether a place is heading in a positive or negative direction using simple heuristics. A place is your biological origin, very likely your culture and definitely your environment. To pretend you can wave such things away as abstractions, by a mere changing of the mind is positively stupid - but that is the 'consensus view' we're supposed to have under 'New Liberalism'. I am not buying what is being sold and I don't think you ought to either, if for no other reason than positive improvement is forever out of reach if you are at a place where all groups of people are supposed to be practically identical. That is not moderation, that is an extreme ideology. I look to Japan and see things I'd like to have here in Ireland. Is this immoral? Or is it just immoral when they are black or brown and I don't like what I see? These are epic double standards and a lot of Westerners are sick of it, some of them include those black and brown people. Analysis of groups is not something you can give up to the sociologists and nobody else, it is immediately relevant far too often for that, esp. in anything to do with the crime/security topic. I am very impressed with all of the words that you used. Some of them were very long. As far as I can tell you just write that in your opinion you think that some countries and cultures are better than others based on your opinion from extensive travel? Living abroad? Having a wide circular of friends from a range of backgrounds? Why should I subscribe to your opinion rather than my own? Why should I treat people based on that rather than my own view based on experience? Sounds more ignoble than noble to my ears. Imagine a person who only absorbed information by personal interaction, ignoring all books, televisual media, radio. This is what the greeks called 'an idiot' - which originally meant a person devoid of any knowledge of politics. If you read any texts from the early 20th century and earlier, you frequently find observations on the character of peoples, not just specific people. It is conventional wisdom in today's Western society that this was bunk. But it is also conventionally believed by most of the population that different ethnicities are anatomically and biochemcially identical - they are not - which matters if you want to fix health problems. As an analogy it's a good one - you can't fix problems across different groups with identical policy economic or political, it's a kind of Liberal delusion to believe that. There's lots of supporting evidence for the idea that Western society doesn't work overseas. Then it follows that if you import different cultures what happens is society becomes very complicated and probably flies apart. If you're following political trends for a while you'll already know 'Separateness' is coming back across the world. Inexplicable to Liberals, but not if you quiz their priors. " I thought that I recognised you. You're the guy who posted a link to that nice website all about racial purity. That used big words too. New profile? People can read and experience the world. However, if you'd prefer to believe the theories you read rather than have coffee with someone then go ahead. I'm sure that it's A very clever thing to do. You won't accidentally find out that they are much the same as you are. Read some biology books. Are isolated communities of animals healthier than ones that mix? Does strength and evolution derive from homogeneity or diversity. Life is complicated. Had you not noticed? You go ahead and believe that people are essentially different if you like. Don't try to patronise me though | |||
" However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap. It's really not that black and white. Formerly the bias of society was class or race based. However the idea that 'there are good people everywhere' is just as misplaced. It's a form of agnosia, an inability to recognize or perceive the simplest patterns. The fact is that just you recognize pornography when you see it, people intrinsically recognize civilization (replace with 'order'/'ordered' if you prefer) and civilized people when they see them. The Far East clearly has a selection of civilized people and so does the West. Does that imply Africa and Middle East are 'less good'? Actually yes, it does. There have been very dark periods in European and Far East history. The Middle East is obviously in such a period today, an alien staring at the planet would have no trouble pointing out that Africa has rarely had periods of peace and order and there is no evidence this is something you can abruptly change in a few decades. Look at the success stories = It's not as if the English or later: the Irish civilized overnight. It took at least 200-400 years. This isn't a value judgement on an *individual*, but I see no problem in casting value judgements on other large groups of people on this planet because anybody not pozzed by the education system and media can tell whether a place is heading in a positive or negative direction using simple heuristics. A place is your biological origin, very likely your culture and definitely your environment. To pretend you can wave such things away as abstractions, by a mere changing of the mind is positively stupid - but that is the 'consensus view' we're supposed to have under 'New Liberalism'. I am not buying what is being sold and I don't think you ought to either, if for no other reason than positive improvement is forever out of reach if you are at a place where all groups of people are supposed to be practically identical. That is not moderation, that is an extreme ideology. I look to Japan and see things I'd like to have here in Ireland. Is this immoral? Or is it just immoral when they are black or brown and I don't like what I see? These are epic double standards and a lot of Westerners are sick of it, some of them include those black and brown people. Analysis of groups is not something you can give up to the sociologists and nobody else, it is immediately relevant far too often for that, esp. in anything to do with the crime/security topic. I am very impressed with all of the words that you used. Some of them were very long. As far as I can tell you just write that in your opinion you think that some countries and cultures are better than others based on your opinion from extensive travel? Living abroad? Having a wide circular of friends from a range of backgrounds? Why should I subscribe to your opinion rather than my own? Why should I treat people based on that rather than my own view based on experience? Sounds more ignoble than noble to my ears. Imagine a person who only absorbed information by personal interaction, ignoring all books, televisual media, radio. This is what the greeks called 'an idiot' - which originally meant a person devoid of any knowledge of politics. If you read any texts from the early 20th century and earlier, you frequently find observations on the character of peoples, not just specific people. It is conventional wisdom in today's Western society that this was bunk. But it is also conventionally believed by most of the population that different ethnicities are anatomically and biochemcially identical - they are not - which matters if you want to fix health problems. As an analogy it's a good one - you can't fix problems across different groups with identical policy economic or political, it's a kind of Liberal delusion to believe that. There's lots of supporting evidence for the idea that Western society doesn't work overseas. Then it follows that if you import different cultures what happens is society becomes very complicated and probably flies apart. If you're following political trends for a while you'll already know 'Separateness' is coming back across the world. Inexplicable to Liberals, but not if you quiz their priors. I thought that I recognised you. You're the guy who posted a link to that nice website all about racial purity. That used big words too. New profile? People can read and experience the world. However, if you'd prefer to believe the theories you read rather than have coffee with someone then go ahead. I'm sure that it's A very clever thing to do. You won't accidentally find out that they are much the same as you are. Read some biology books. Are isolated communities of animals healthier than ones that mix? Does strength and evolution derive from homogeneity or diversity. Life is complicated. Had you not noticed? You go ahead and believe that people are essentially different if you like. Don't try to patronise me though "Hatred of ethnic groups needs to be disguised to persuade the masses its logic.Switching profiles and image and attempting to intellectualise xenophobia has been the modus operandi throughout history. | |||
" I thought that I recognised you. You're the guy who posted a link to that nice website all about racial purity. That used big words too. " You're talking bout somebody else. It seems you're attempting to pigeon hole me. I suppose you can do that if it makes you feel more comfortable, but I have no idea if this other person and I are similar. " People can read and experience the world. However, if you'd prefer to believe the theories you read rather than have coffee with someone then go ahead. I'm sure that it's A very clever thing to do. You won't accidentally find out that they are much the same as you are. " I've worked and lived among different ethnic groups for my entire life. I suspect you think this is about 'hate', but it really isn't. It's exactly as I've been saying - there are serious holes in the conventional wisdom in the West on this subject. " Read some biology books. Are isolated communities of animals healthier than ones that mix? " The answer is that isolated communities (such as on islands) experience rapid evolutionary processes. There tends to be more speciation. That is one of the observations that Darwin noticed on the Galapagos. I expect you meant something else, but that is the genuine answer to the question. " Does strength and evolution derive from homogeneity or diversity. " The way you're phrasing things here, it's a bit strange, because strength and evolution are not correlated. It's a common myth that evolution has a positive direction 'faster', 'higher', 'stronger'. That is a political notion common to Liberal Progressive and Fascist philosophies but it's not true of biological evolution. It is normal for species to evolve physically weaker characteristics in response to changing environments. I'll rephrase your statement as "Does survival advantage come from homogeneity or heterogeneity? The answer is also known: it's neither. Consider human reproduction. Is it best to mate with those genetically closest to you? No. Deleterious mutations win out. Is it best to mate with those genetically distant to you? Also No, although this is less politically correct to point out. There exist a much lower survival rate if a mixed race person requires replacement organs and especially so for bone marrow transplants (usually they die), the statistics are shocking if you check it out. These kinds of facts don't get widely publicized, which I feel is a pity because it is logical that mixed race children should be on mandatory organ donation lists because the search for a donor has to be in advance because of the rarity. And.... that's never going to happen. " You go ahead and believe that people are essentially different if you like. Don't try to patronise me though "I could be more diplomatic, but I think that would mean I'd be developing ways to sneak my opinion into your brain with rhetorical tricks. I am not a propagandist. I'm telling you straight: I think you, and the majority of Westerners have got it ass backwards on really important subjects to do with race, culture and so on and this is going to cause immense suffering because most people don't have a mental model that allows them to stand breaks in Liberal traditions. My last word here: you kept saying I use long words. I have not, I used one or two technical words tops. This is how I talk to somebody I'm not treating with kid gloves. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies..
Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?.
Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them.
If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?.
This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will.
The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years.
I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester.
You are talking about the middle east?
They don't live with them except the few that serve them. They are not neighbours or colleagues or friends. They do not meet them in the streets they walk in or the shops and restaurants and cinemas.
The immigrants are indentured labour. That is their experience of them.
Reread my point about an Indian's view of immigration. You, once again, chose to respond to something that I did not write.
People end up isolated in ghettos domestically or as immigrants because that's where they are sent to live. For years this country was not at all welcoming to immigrants. No dogs, No Irish, No coloureds. Once these communities start then that's where new arrivals will gravitate to.
You are quite correct that this country should have done more to assimilate people. A basic English test for any job would do as that is the access point to everything.
However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap..
I made no such assertion, if I have I'd like you to point it out to me so I can correct it or point out that you've mistaken my wording.
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?
No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures"
Not a sweeping generalisation?". Religions all of them are ideologies, no different than political ideologies, we can say with certainty that Nazism is the worst political ideology to live under, it's awful. I don't need to say all political ideologies are awful when saying this, I don't have to point out the nasty bits of socialism or conservativism while taking about how truly a fucking awful an ideology Nazism is, Nazism is infinitely worse than any other political ideology. . A sweeping generalisation?. I would imagine I might upset or offend a Nazi that holds this ideology dear, I don't give a flying fuck it's they're problem not mine | |||
" Hatred of ethnic groups needs to be disguised to persuade the masses its logic.Switching profiles and image and attempting to intellectualise xenophobia has been the modus operandi throughout history. "I have to admit I'm intrigued that you believe the population is swayed by reason and logic. | |||
" I don't have to point out the nasty bits of socialism or conservativism while taking about how truly a fucking awful an ideology Nazism is," You and I have a multivariate way of seeing what's happening, but what's happened is that political Liberalism has slowly turned into bone deep moral orthodoxy among Westerners. To hear ideas from the Left or Right is seen as immoral or improper, the gravity is presumed to belong to the Liberals because of our history with Fascism and Communism in the 20th century. The others think we are being illiberal, but that's not right. The idea we're Bolsheviks or Nazis is absurd but it is also true that Liberalism is slowly running out of rope as events keep happening that aren't explicable by a Liberal political model. History produced Liberalism as a 'third way' - but now we have the difficulty of figuring out what to do next when the 'third way' stops working. My suspicion is that people like Bobbangs, CLCC and EasyUk become more authoritarian. They come to think "We just aren't Liberal enough" and "Less carrot, more stick". We are presently seeing this as more strictures come into play in the UK about speech online. I believe this is like trying to knock off pieces of shit off a toilet bowel with piss. The real solution is to separate the waste from the house by flushing. It's just more economical to deal with the sources of problems instead of the side affects. That is: realize that different law and policy should be applied to different groups aka what some people would think of as Apartheid, not worrying too hard about the fact that there already exist Apartheids informally in the UK and that the police and law already are being selective about enforcement, only in the wrong way. A good example of that is the Muslim on White child predation. This is obviously a crime with a racial bias - which is where laws about racially motivated criminality should be coming into force - yet they are not. Instead the police and journalists have been pandering to an highly obnoxious community, the squeaky wheel gets the grease while those most in need of aid from the government are laughed at. Think of this: Scenarios: An ethnic child is burned to death by white supremacists after a gang-censored. An ethnic child is censored, killed and then sliced into meat which is served in sandwiches at a diner. We would never hear the end of "Racism in Britain" if those scenarios occurred, but both of those scenarios have happened, only to native children by predatory Asian males. How those arguing against us think this will end positively with greater Liberalism in society is a calculus I must admit I cannot understand. Liberals are weak, that's why Russians and Muslims aren't that worried anything will be done to them. All the shouting is a farce, they will do nothing, they don't have it in them. Somebody like May at a junction like this is supposed to expel all diplomats or designate a series of tribunals against the predatory subgroup like Ireland did to root out the child censored. None of these actions are on the table because they are people just like the ones in this thread: weak, not willing to make difficult choices and tradeoffs to secure civil order. Present day Liberals are like the people in the USA who used to say "There is no Mafia". It starts with a leader coming out and saying it straight: "You are a problem, your group part of the problem, you are going to be dealt with". It is this or cede ground to groups such as BNP. If I were in May's shoes, I would call a press conference and say "Vlad is right, we need to do more to protect our kids", also "Vlad you're part of our problems, so we're going to hurt you". When expressed on the level like this there is nothing to lose. | |||
| |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying" You don't feel you have free speech Dave in the UK.? The only speech that's not free is a hate speech that invites or incites violence or hatred. Who do you think is being silenced? | |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying" Agree. The word "Freedom" is severely overloaded - meaning different things to different parts of the political spectrum. My idea of it is that Freedom is a synonym for Power. I don't mean Freedom equals tanks and fighter jets. I mean Freedom is equal to 'degrees of movement' - like how in martial arts there's an expression "do whatever gives you more choices". Power has a similar meaning in computer programming where it means 'ability to exercise more options'. This definition works well in relation to multiculturalism. Up to a point having ethnic restaurants and new faces is fine, then it stops being fine when you're afraid to let your children outside to play or you don't feel welcome in public spaces of certain parts of cities or neighborhoods. Increased trust in society always gives more options, more freedom of movement metaphorically and literally - but when the trust goes you've got to reexamine those priors or you get to 'new normals' such as the United States has, and the public discussions become filled with euphemisms like 'good schools' and every political statement in election years becomes about dog whistles. The non-partisan thing to do is develop a realpolitik and talk plainly (we used to have public debates on controversial topics) but it seems like Westerners prefer to be two faced, on one hand embracing the foreign and on the other silently discriminating all the time - it's hypocrisy distilled as an art form. | |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying You don't feel you have free speech Dave in the UK.? The only speech that's not free is a hate speech that invites or incites violence or hatred. Who do you think is being silenced?" . Dogs doing Zeig heil gestures | |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying You don't feel you have free speech Dave in the UK.? The only speech that's not free is a hate speech that invites or incites violence or hatred. Who do you think is being silenced?. Dogs doing Zeig heil gestures "Well I doubt the dog was silenced.More Likely it was whoever uploaded a video that was considered by some to be promoting anti-Semitic views in a humourous manner.Covert racism or covert anti Semitism is still prejudice. | |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying You don't feel you have free speech Dave in the UK.? The only speech that's not free is a hate speech that invites or incites violence or hatred. Who do you think is being silenced?. Dogs doing Zeig heil gestures Well I doubt the dog was silenced.More Likely it was whoever uploaded a video that was considered by some to be promoting anti-Semitic views in a humourous manner.Covert racism or covert anti Semitism is still prejudice. ". No it's not. I love Jews there some of my favourite people, I'm sat drinking with two right now on canal Street, I hate this one person speaks for everybody bullshit, it offends all Jews is nonsense, it may offend some Jews, it may offend some none Jews and it night not offend some Jews. Either way I don't really care, being offended isn't the crime of the century, it's just part of the payment for having free speech | |||
" I thought that I recognised you. You're the guy who posted a link to that nice website all about racial purity. That used big words too. You're talking bout somebody else. It seems you're attempting to pigeon hole me. I suppose you can do that if it makes you feel more comfortable, but I have no idea if this other person and I are similar. People can read and experience the world. However, if you'd prefer to believe the theories you read rather than have coffee with someone then go ahead. I'm sure that it's A very clever thing to do. You won't accidentally find out that they are much the same as you are. I've worked and lived among different ethnic groups for my entire life. I suspect you think this is about 'hate', but it really isn't. It's exactly as I've been saying - there are serious holes in the conventional wisdom in the West on this subject. Read some biology books. Are isolated communities of animals healthier than ones that mix? The answer is that isolated communities (such as on islands) experience rapid evolutionary processes. There tends to be more speciation. That is one of the observations that Darwin noticed on the Galapagos. I expect you meant something else, but that is the genuine answer to the question. Does strength and evolution derive from homogeneity or diversity. The way you're phrasing things here, it's a bit strange, because strength and evolution are not correlated. It's a common myth that evolution has a positive direction 'faster', 'higher', 'stronger'. That is a political notion common to Liberal Progressive and Fascist philosophies but it's not true of biological evolution. It is normal for species to evolve physically weaker characteristics in response to changing environments. I'll rephrase your statement as "Does survival advantage come from homogeneity or heterogeneity? The answer is also known: it's neither. Consider human reproduction. Is it best to mate with those genetically closest to you? No. Deleterious mutations win out. Is it best to mate with those genetically distant to you? Also No, although this is less politically correct to point out. There exist a much lower survival rate if a mixed race person requires replacement organs and especially so for bone marrow transplants (usually they die), the statistics are shocking if you check it out. These kinds of facts don't get widely publicized, which I feel is a pity because it is logical that mixed race children should be on mandatory organ donation lists because the search for a donor has to be in advance because of the rarity. And.... that's never going to happen. You go ahead and believe that people are essentially different if you like. Don't try to patronise me though
I could be more diplomatic, but I think that would mean I'd be developing ways to sneak my opinion into your brain with rhetorical tricks. I am not a propagandist. I'm telling you straight: I think you, and the majority of Westerners have got it ass backwards on really important subjects to do with race, culture and so on and this is going to cause immense suffering because most people don't have a mental model that allows them to stand breaks in Liberal traditions.
My last word here: you kept saying I use long words. I have not, I used one or two technical words tops. This is how I talk to somebody I'm not treating with kid gloves.
"I'm not mistaken. Your opinions and supercillious tone are quite distinctive. Your use of "liberal" as a term of derision is interesting. What does that mean to you? It's good that you at least "know" what is right due to your rational thoughts process. Liberals and the other less intellectually rigourous do get a bit preoccupied with pointless concepts like kindness and fairness 
I have made no assumptions about you. I am basing my view on what you've written.
I guess you have not been able to discover any similarity in aspiration between the diverse ethnicities that you've lived and worked with your entire life.
It's normal for evolution to balance characteristics, both physical and intellectual, to ensure survival. Making the best use of scarce resource. It seems that some decide to work together to share resource and abilities and some prefer to share as little as possible. They are both viable strategies. One is far nicer. I like nice. Is that what a liberal is?
It's a mind set isn't it?
Comparing the need for an organ transplant for someone of a mixed race to a child born of a less diverse gene pool isn't really equivalent is it? Organ transplants aren't really that big a part of how nature works. The best chance of any organ match is from within the family. Even then, looking outside is only a problem due to supply. As it becomes more normal so the supply will increase.
So, as a direct question, what is the point of what you have been saying?
It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. They certainly shouldn't intermarry or reproduce because you are certain of the scientific, psychological and cultural reasons that make this a bad thing. If only "liberals" would stop being so stupid and it was possible to keep interactions to tourism and business everything would be great | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies..
Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?.
Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them.
If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?.
This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will.
The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years.
I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester.
You are talking about the middle east?
They don't live with them except the few that serve them. They are not neighbours or colleagues or friends. They do not meet them in the streets they walk in or the shops and restaurants and cinemas.
The immigrants are indentured labour. That is their experience of them.
Reread my point about an Indian's view of immigration. You, once again, chose to respond to something that I did not write.
People end up isolated in ghettos domestically or as immigrants because that's where they are sent to live. For years this country was not at all welcoming to immigrants. No dogs, No Irish, No coloureds. Once these communities start then that's where new arrivals will gravitate to.
You are quite correct that this country should have done more to assimilate people. A basic English test for any job would do as that is the access point to everything.
However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap..
I made no such assertion, if I have I'd like you to point it out to me so I can correct it or point out that you've mistaken my wording.
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?
No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures"
Not a sweeping generalisation?.
Religions all of them are ideologies, no different than political ideologies, we can say with certainty that Nazism is the worst political ideology to live under, it's awful.
I don't need to say all political ideologies are awful when saying this, I don't have to point out the nasty bits of socialism or conservativism while taking about how truly a fucking awful an ideology Nazism is, Nazism is infinitely worse than any other political ideology.
.
A sweeping generalisation?.
I would imagine I might upset or offend a Nazi that holds this ideology dear, I don't give a flying fuck it's they're problem not mine "Then please point out the essential differences between Islam and Christianity and Judaism and why one is better than an other. Then extend that to other religions and cultures and explain how you come to an objective, unbiased opinion on what is better. | |||
"Or a great White
That's not true.
Both crocodiles and sharks are continually evolving.
They have branched and specialised and found niches.
They continue to evolve to the changing environment and availability of prey.
They are also endangered so under threat..
Same basic creature for 200 million years, evolution only comes from weakness, the whites aren't weak
Sounds clever. What's the point in the context of this thread?.
That you don't need evolution when your already perfect for your environment.
So Great Whites aren't hunted and killed by killer whales that have developed a specialist hunting technique?
I still don't understand what that has to do with immigration..
Immigration is dandy, only two rules.
1 they need to be similar culture
2 if there not Similar they need to be integrated.
Like when the British "travelled"? .
By integrating you know I mean they need to give up all their own culture and adopt ours?.
And yes obviously like when the British travelled
What's the benefit of them giving up their own culture? Don't you grow stronger by taking from.them, especially if it's shared freely..
No your making the classical liberal mistake of assuming all cultures are equal, to be honest they make the exact same mistake with religions so it doesn't surprise me
No, I'm making the classic "mistake" of treating everyone as they treat me. I am making the classic "mistake" of thinking almost everyone wants a peaceful and happy life with their families and friends.
In my experience, white, Anglo-Saxon "Christians" have been the worst people that I have ever encountered. I will not make the mistake of thinking that they are typical of anyone of their geographical origin, sex or religion..
Well your an ideological idiot assuming that everybody will treat you equally because clearly they wont!.
There's not one country in the world nor one race you can claim this to be true but still your peddling this bullshit.
So white people are much more likely to treat you better than brown people, yes I agree that's why we see immigration one way but not the other
Not ideological. Empirical. Most people that I have met in most parts of the world have been thoroughly decent. Some of them weren't even middle class liberals
You misread what I said completely. You saw what you wanted to. Interesting opinion you have of yourself.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that immigrants are not welcome in "brown" countries or just your prejudice? The demand for housing in war zones is not that high though, but if we want to go there I'm sure we could find a shell crater to cower in with the locals..
No I just looked at the data and surveys done of the least and most tolerant countries.
It gives a broad understanding of which culture needs to be cherished and which culture not so much.
See your experience in meeting horrible white Anglo Saxon people is just your experience, the data data otherwise unless this is just more experts you just can't be arsed listening to
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?utm_term=.4dafe01316bd
Exactly, as is the experience of people meeting horrible Muslims or Romanians.
Fortunately 99% of my interactions with people from every background mean that I have come to the conclusion that there is a percentage of tears that is pretty consistent.
Your assertion that people from one particular religious group are particularly evil is lazy and racist. I've never felt the need to call anybody out on that before. You may not have intended to express it in the way you did but that's certainly how it came across.
I am sure you are aware that prejudice is highly correlated to the level of contact that you have with people from different backgrounds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/white-people-become-less-racist-just-by-moving-to-more-diverse-areas-study-finds-9166506.html
That then has to temper your map of tolerance. Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners. In many nations the press narrative can be more than a little narrow. Where else might that happen?
Also, if you look at somewhere like India the question depends on interpretation. It is highly unlikely that they will consider that you are talking about an African or European or Thai when you ask them about an immigrant living next door to them. Also, as stated, if they've never encountered a Bangladeshi or Pakistani except through the filter of their press and local prejudice they won't know until they find out that they don't have two heads or eat babies..
Few people in the most intolerant parts of the world come into contact with foreigners?.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are on that map yet only the other day CLCC was telling us how many millions of immigrants lived there?.
Your other point about Europeans or Africans being not recognised as "immigrates" in Africa, well that's no different than here, skin colour doesn't single you out as an immigrant or not otherwise how would we know an Irish person is an immigrant or a polish person, it's culture that tends to separate you not skin colour, there's plenty of Irish that assimilated easily, I know I'm one of them and there's plenty that don't, I know my cousin is one of them.
If coming into no contact with immigrants made you anti immigrant then Scotland would be pink on the map not dark blue wouldn't it?.
This liberal nonsense about open borders and multiculturalism is just a presumption, there's no evidence to suggest it will turn out as you think it will.
The UK has been open borders for 300 years, quite a few of the Scots still resent the English and the English the Scots, we've shared a currency a language a legal system a political system and a military system for all that time and yet were still not culturally completely assimilated, we want to be different and I'm fine with that because we've got enough cultural similarity for it to work, I'm not sure you can say the same for all cultures which is what we've done for 40 years.
I think we need to work harder at assimilating people into our culture not let them live mini Bangladesh cultures in Manchester.
You are talking about the middle east?
They don't live with them except the few that serve them. They are not neighbours or colleagues or friends. They do not meet them in the streets they walk in or the shops and restaurants and cinemas.
The immigrants are indentured labour. That is their experience of them.
Reread my point about an Indian's view of immigration. You, once again, chose to respond to something that I did not write.
People end up isolated in ghettos domestically or as immigrants because that's where they are sent to live. For years this country was not at all welcoming to immigrants. No dogs, No Irish, No coloureds. Once these communities start then that's where new arrivals will gravitate to.
You are quite correct that this country should have done more to assimilate people. A basic English test for any job would do as that is the access point to everything.
However, your assertion that the British on their religion or attitude or being are in some way superior to anyone else is prejudiced claptrap..
I made no such assertion, if I have I'd like you to point it out to me so I can correct it or point out that you've mistaken my wording.
"Islam is fucking awful therefore all religions are the same,?
No some are infinitely worse than others, that's not to say the other religions are good, there just not at shitty as Islam, same with cultures"
Not a sweeping generalisation?.
Religions all of them are ideologies, no different than political ideologies, we can say with certainty that Nazism is the worst political ideology to live under, it's awful.
I don't need to say all political ideologies are awful when saying this, I don't have to point out the nasty bits of socialism or conservativism while taking about how truly a fucking awful an ideology Nazism is, Nazism is infinitely worse than any other political ideology.
.
A sweeping generalisation?.
I would imagine I might upset or offend a Nazi that holds this ideology dear, I don't give a flying fuck it's they're problem not mine
Then please point out the essential differences between Islam and Christianity and Judaism and why one is better than an other. Then extend that to other religions and cultures and explain how you come to an objective, unbiased opinion on what is better.". At the minute I'm rather d*unk in town, when I'm free to think about your question I will get back to you! | |||
" I have made no assumptions about you. I am basing my view on what you've written. " Gets followed up by: " I guess you have not been able to discover any similarity in aspiration between the diverse ethnicities that you've lived and worked with your entire life. " and then " It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. " I guess that... It appears that... I don't see a point in continuing to knock down a line of strawmen you're in the business of apparently erecting because a non-liberal philosophy is that alien to you. It's immensely uncharitable. This feels very similar to talking to Evangelical Christians. If you don't believe in Jesus then how can you be good? If you are good then you must be a Christian deep down. Liberal has an exact meaning, it means this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism You're allowed to be a Liberal, or a Leftist, or Rightist, even a Fascist or a Communist up to a point. However if your model of reality has leaks in it where people wind up dead, I'm going to tell you about it. Liberalism is not all roses, it does kill people, in fact it has killed millions. It's not as bad as Nazism or Bolshevism but that's like saying a benign cancer isn't a malignant cancer. | |||
" I have made no assumptions about you. I am basing my view on what you've written. Gets followed up by: I guess you have not been able to discover any similarity in aspiration between the diverse ethnicities that you've lived and worked with your entire life. and then It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. I guess that... It appears that... I don't see a point in continuing to knock down a line of strawmen you're in the business of apparently erecting because a non-liberal philosophy is that alien to you. It's immensely uncharitable. This feels very similar to talking to Evangelical Christians. If you don't believe in Jesus then how can you be good? If you are good then you must be a Christian deep down. Liberal has an exact meaning, it means this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism You're allowed to be a Liberal, or a Leftist, or Rightist, even a Fascist or a Communist up to a point. However if your model of reality has leaks in it where people wind up dead, I'm going to tell you about it. Liberalism is not all roses, it does kill people, in fact it has killed millions. It's not as bad as Nazism or Bolshevism but that's like saying a benign cancer isn't a malignant cancer." Not your last word then? Colloquial, idiomatic English not your thing either? Still, "winning" a technicality is well worth the effort. I do not require your permission to do or think anything although naturally I value your approval. I didn't see a response to this part of my post: "So, as a direct question, what is the point of what you have been saying? It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. They certainly shouldn't intermarry or reproduce because you are certain of the scientific, psychological and cultural reasons that make this a bad thing. If only "liberals" would stop being so stupid and it was possible to keep interactions to tourism and business everything would be great" What's your watertight model of your reality? | |||
" I have made no assumptions about you. I am basing my view on what you've written. Gets followed up by: I guess you have not been able to discover any similarity in aspiration between the diverse ethnicities that you've lived and worked with your entire life. and then It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. I guess that... It appears that... I don't see a point in continuing to knock down a line of strawmen you're in the business of apparently erecting because a non-liberal philosophy is that alien to you. It's immensely uncharitable. This feels very similar to talking to Evangelical Christians. If you don't believe in Jesus then how can you be good? If you are good then you must be a Christian deep down. Liberal has an exact meaning, it means this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism You're allowed to be a Liberal, or a Leftist, or Rightist, even a Fascist or a Communist up to a point. However if your model of reality has leaks in it where people wind up dead, I'm going to tell you about it. Liberalism is not all roses, it does kill people, in fact it has killed millions. It's not as bad as Nazism or Bolshevism but that's like saying a benign cancer isn't a malignant cancer. Not your last word then? Colloquial, idiomatic English not your thing either? Still, "winning" a technicality is well worth the effort. I do not require your permission to do or think anything although naturally I value your approval. I didn't see a response to this part of my post: "So, as a direct question, what is the point of what you have been saying? It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. They certainly shouldn't intermarry or reproduce because you are certain of the scientific, psychological and cultural reasons that make this a bad thing. If only "liberals" would stop being so stupid and it was possible to keep interactions to tourism and business everything would be great" What's your watertight model of your reality? "I don't have a problem with humans of different origins having relationships or children. That's one of the strawmen you have been developing. It should have been obvious, I told you before I wanted precached organ/marrow matching for biracial people, that's not something somebody against miscegenation would have as a policy. " What's your watertight model of your reality? " I'd need a graph to show you. In the end a reactionary is just an unrecognizable Liberal. I'm comfortable with that because I also think we're in a cycle in which us dinosaurs are coming back to life. The position we are in is this: 1. No model is bad - 100% predicative failure. 2. All models are broken in some way. 3. Seems to be the case that some models are better than others, but this also appears to change with time. If you are familiar with the book "The Three Body Problem" then we have a similar reality modeling problem with our Western political system. To ask "Which is the right political philosophy?" is not meaningful. The correct question is: "Upon what basis should I believe in an idea?" This means experimentation, hypothesis and data are required aka a scientific politics. We like Seasteading. A scientific politics was the original idea behind people like J.S. Mill and John Locke, the Enlightenment. Somewhere along the way we wound up here at Mt. Mediocre. | |||
" I have made no assumptions about you. I am basing my view on what you've written. Gets followed up by: I guess you have not been able to discover any similarity in aspiration between the diverse ethnicities that you've lived and worked with your entire life. and then It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. I guess that... It appears that... I don't see a point in continuing to knock down a line of strawmen you're in the business of apparently erecting because a non-liberal philosophy is that alien to you. It's immensely uncharitable. This feels very similar to talking to Evangelical Christians. If you don't believe in Jesus then how can you be good? If you are good then you must be a Christian deep down. Liberal has an exact meaning, it means this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism You're allowed to be a Liberal, or a Leftist, or Rightist, even a Fascist or a Communist up to a point. However if your model of reality has leaks in it where people wind up dead, I'm going to tell you about it. Liberalism is not all roses, it does kill people, in fact it has killed millions. It's not as bad as Nazism or Bolshevism but that's like saying a benign cancer isn't a malignant cancer. Not your last word then? Colloquial, idiomatic English not your thing either? Still, "winning" a technicality is well worth the effort. I do not require your permission to do or think anything although naturally I value your approval. I didn't see a response to this part of my post: "So, as a direct question, what is the point of what you have been saying? It appears that you are advocating that people of different ethnic backgrounds should not mix. They certainly shouldn't intermarry or reproduce because you are certain of the scientific, psychological and cultural reasons that make this a bad thing. If only "liberals" would stop being so stupid and it was possible to keep interactions to tourism and business everything would be great" What's your watertight model of your reality?
I don't have a problem with humans of different origins having relationships or children. That's one of the strawmen you have been developing. It should have been obvious, I told you before I wanted precached organ/marrow matching for biracial people, that's not something somebody against miscegenation would have as a policy.
What's your watertight model of your reality?
I'd need a graph to show you. In the end a reactionary is just an unrecognizable Liberal. I'm comfortable with that because I also think we're in a cycle in which us dinosaurs are coming back to life.
The position we are in is this:
1. No model is bad - 100% predicative failure.
2. All models are broken in some way.
3. Seems to be the case that some models are better than others, but this also appears to change with time.
If you are familiar with the book "The Three Body Problem" then we have a similar reality modeling problem with our Western political system.
To ask "Which is the right political philosophy?" is not meaningful. The correct question is: "Upon what basis should I believe in an idea?"
This means experimentation, hypothesis and data are required aka a scientific politics. We like Seasteading.
A scientific politics was the original idea behind people like J.S. Mill and John Locke, the Enlightenment.
Somewhere along the way we wound up here at Mt. Mediocre.
"What Do You Want? | |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying You don't feel you have free speech Dave in the UK.? The only speech that's not free is a hate speech that invites or incites violence or hatred. Who do you think is being silenced?. Dogs doing Zeig heil gestures Well I doubt the dog was silenced.More Likely it was whoever uploaded a video that was considered by some to be promoting anti-Semitic views in a humourous manner.Covert racism or covert anti Semitism is still prejudice. .
No it's not.
I love Jews there some of my favourite people, I'm sat drinking with two right now on canal Street, I hate this one person speaks for everybody bullshit, it offends all Jews is nonsense, it may offend some Jews, it may offend some none Jews and it night not offend some Jews.
Either way I don't really care, being offended isn't the crime of the century, it's just part of the payment for having free speech"It's not a question if you care Dave.Because you couldn't be a target of anti-Semitism. You wouldn't experience violence or hate against you that could be a consequence of the video.We are not free to invite hatred that can lead to harm.This guy shouts "gas the Jews" and the dog salutes.Woulf "Hang the niggers" followed by a canine salute be accepted.Most likley not. | |||
"I just like freedom, I think freedom is wonderful, I don't care who gives it me, I really care about who's taking it away from me!. The very utmost number 1 priority to me is freedom of speech, it does wonderful things, it makes you think, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry, it makes you angry it makes you sad but most of all it advances your thinking of why?. And the ability to think why and say why has a cost attached to it, it's an expensive cost but definitely one worth paying You don't feel you have free speech Dave in the UK.? The only speech that's not free is a hate speech that invites or incites violence or hatred. Who do you think is being silenced?. Dogs doing Zeig heil gestures Well I doubt the dog was silenced.More Likely it was whoever uploaded a video that was considered by some to be promoting anti-Semitic views in a humourous manner.Covert racism or covert anti Semitism is still prejudice. .
No it's not.
I love Jews there some of my favourite people, I'm sat drinking with two right now on canal Street, I hate this one person speaks for everybody bullshit, it offends all Jews is nonsense, it may offend some Jews, it may offend some none Jews and it night not offend some Jews.
Either way I don't really care, being offended isn't the crime of the century, it's just part of the payment for having free speech It's not a question if you care Dave.Because you couldn't be a target of anti-Semitism.
You wouldn't experience violence or hate against you that could be a consequence of the video.We are not free to invite hatred that can lead to harm.This guy shouts "gas the Jews" and the dog salutes.Woulf "Hang the niggers" followed by a canine salute be accepted.Most likley not. ". I don't think his actions are funny or satirical but is it inciting hatred? I don't think it is to be honest. He may be a plonker who's tried pushing the boundaries but is it really inciting people to hate Jews?. I'll tell you what's inciting people to hate Jews, the Israeli government attitude to Arabs and expansionism. Throw them in a court and see if you get a conviction. See that's the problem with so called hate speech, it blurs the line of genuine criticism. Back to my point of one particular so called group who speaks for all Jews, it's no coincidence that there using this case and many others to shut down criticism of Israeli actions, that's why it's only ever labour anti Semitism they complain about because frankly they have a habit of using this type of stuff to keep labour quiet because it's only the left who actually complain about Israeli policy. I'm anti Zionist and I know lots of Jews who are anti Zionist in fact some of the most religious Jews I know are the most anti Zionist, it's not really a religious battle ground but a wealth battle ground on that point. You make the point that I couldn't be offended by the video because I'm not Jewish, that's frankly a silly point of view, I'm offended by many things like the destruction of the world's rain forests but I'm clearly not a forest, I'm offended by sex crimes against women despite not being a woman and believe it or not I'm offended by people throwing racial slurs at one another. The real trouble with the crime of offence is who's going to set the bar at what's offensive and what's not? | |||
| |||
