Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
Exactly. I've been trying to tell the 'pure English' posters this for ages. How can foreigners be ruining England's cultue if England's culture is based on foreigners?
London Teen stabbed 24 times...
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. I've been trying to tell the 'pure English' posters this for ages. How can foreigners be ruining England's cultue if England's culture is based on foreigners?
Sure you arent DD
....just like im Santa Claus
...well i cant be as im brown and a muzzie to boot but hopefully you get the gist of what i was saying.
That is a non-sequitur.
Sure you arent DD
I understand that people can misconstrue what I say at times, because they are brainwashed by the mainstream media into thinking that 'criticism of multiculturalism = you are racist'
Like I said, if you take Japan, which is a Mono-racial Culture (largely) the actual problems you attribute to ethnic minorities still exist, the problems simply manifest themselves along different demarcational lines such as family history, honour, regional and class.
Japanese are rather proud nationalists who don't want gaijins staying in their lands. Big mistake since they've had rather high immigration lately, this will be nothing but trouble in the end. Good on them at least the Japanese have the right attitude.
Props for reading your way through the thread, there. Taking the time to actually look further into the issue would have you stumbling across this post by Castiel:
Which clarifies how Cameron was speaking of state multiculturalism, not multicultural society, an issue on which he is as woefully unqualified to judge as any one contemporary individual can be.
Well I have not said that a monoracial society is some sort of crime free utopia, obviously and sadly that is not the case, because human nature doesn't work that way. However, if Japan, China, Singapore etc. had the same massive (pro rata percentage) immigration of completely foreign cultures and races that we have had, I think it is fair to say that they would be suffering far more severe social problems than they are doing.
I understand that people can misconstrue what I say at times, because they are brainwashed by the mainstream media into thinking that 'criticism of multiculturalism = you are racist'
DD ive been here as long as you have been and trust me after some of the stuff ive heard you say on another forum, which i wont mention...to say that your not a racist is about as ludicrous as you can get.
Dont get me wrong, your entitled to your opinions as wrong as they may be but when you start using filthy language to get your point across then it doesnt lend much weight to your protestations that you are not a racist. Thankfully in here because of rules you have to put your racist opinions in a much more respectable fashion but most of the people in here including me, can see right through it
Dont pretend your anything but.
We aren't saying there isn't a problem.
We are even saying we shouldn't stop peoples opinions.
The difference being there is no serious solution offered.
They just point at the blacks and go 'look'. Send them away.
So +1 something of justification not this.
I disagree. Well, I don't - it is easier, but that doesn't mean it's the lesser path. When the point at hand is capable of producing an entertaining and enlightening discussion, which depends more on the contributors than the point itself, I'm all for it. However, some people construct bastions of thought that are unassailable, and again this is much more dependant on the mindset of the beholder than the views themselves. Racism, religion (including hard atheists), class elitism, sexism, prejudices of all kinds - these views themselves do not make the holder any less credible for having them, but those most willing to argue over them are most often those least inclined to change their opinions on any matter - be it an assumption that certain ethnic minorities have a predilectation towards violent crime or whether mayonnaise is a valid sandwich filling (it's not
). In that instance debate is futile, because the whole point of debate is to broaden your mind and accept the view of the opposition while simultaneously convincing them of the validity of your own views. I've already acknowledged that dirtydog has some valid points in his assertions, but at the same time I disagree with the mindset that's generated those views and also with the darker majority of views that mindset has spawned.In short, yes, it's easier to brand DD a racist than debate with him. That's because debating issues of race with dirtydog is like banging your head against a brick wall, only much, much less productive.
I can't find the numbers for black on black violence in the UK but if we assume it is anything close to the American ratio, it is highly likely they were black considering it was a black victim.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html
For a black homicide victim it is 10 times more likely it was a black offender.
You cannot conlfate US and UK crime to step away from the nonesense you professed above.
Fail.
I disagree. Well, I don't - it is easier, but that doesn't mean it's the lesser path. When the point at hand is capable of producing an entertaining and enlightening discussion, which depends more on the contributors than the point itself, I'm all for it. However, some people construct bastions of thought that are unassailable, and again this is much more dependant on the mindset of the beholder than the views themselves. Racism, religion (including hard atheists), class elitism, sexism, prejudices of all kinds - these views themselves do not make the holder any less credible for having them, but those most willing to argue over them are most often those least inclined to change their opinions on any matter - be it an assumption that certain ethnic minorities have a predilectation towards violent crime or whether mayonnaise is a valid sandwich filling (it's not
In short, yes, it's easier to brand DD a racist than debate with him. That's because debating issues of race with dirtydog is like banging your head against a brick wall, only much, much less productive.
I disagree. Well, I don't - it is easier, but that doesn't mean it's the lesser path. When the point at hand is capable of producing an entertaining and enlightening discussion, which depends more on the contributors than the point itself, I'm all for it. However, some people construct bastions of thought that are unassailable, and again this is much more dependant on the mindset of the beholder than the views themselves. Racism, religion (including hard atheists), class elitism, sexism, prejudices of all kinds - these views themselves do not make the holder any less credible for having them, but those most willing to argue over them are most often those least inclined to change their opinions on any matter - be it an assumption that certain ethnic minorities have a predilectation towards violent crime or whether mayonnaise is a valid sandwich filling (it's not
In short, yes, it's easier to brand DD a racist than debate with him. That's because debating issues of race with dirtydog is like banging your head against a brick wall, only much, much less productive.
+1
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 6,735
- Location
- On another planet
jesus i just read that and its shocking,and he shares exact same name as me :O
- Status