Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British?" Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? " Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? " Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants " Who is the ‘us’ though? Sunak who clearly loves this country is among a different ‘us’ to say someone like Rupert Lowe and his take on “white Britons” for example. Both men have a different view on who ‘us’ is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? " The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like?" I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? " And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British?" ‘…back hundreds if not thousands of years…’ If we go back just 1000 years, that takes us to 1026 Without checking, I would imagine that is in the Anglo Saxon period? Not really ‘Indigenous’ people of this land? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here." Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? " That's a huge misconception - a fair few of those Brits residing in Spain have bilingual children and grandchildren who attended Spanish-speaking schools...and are very respectful of local customs and traditions.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? That's a huge misconception - a fair few of those Brits residing in Spain have bilingual children and grandchildren who attended Spanish-speaking schools...and are very respectful of local customs and traditions.." So you’d agree that people shouldn’t be judged on a minority? That’s the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? ‘…back hundreds if not thousands of years…’ If we go back just 1000 years, that takes us to 1026 Without checking, I would imagine that is in the Anglo Saxon period? Not really ‘Indigenous’ people of this land?" However, such groups (along with those of Celtic origin) formed and coalesced into a reasonably homogenous group over an approximate period of 1000 years. As a result, there was a huge amount of commonality on these Isles.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? ‘…back hundreds if not thousands of years…’ If we go back just 1000 years, that takes us to 1026 Without checking, I would imagine that is in the Anglo Saxon period? Not really ‘Indigenous’ people of this land?" In other words a millennium is ample time enough to form an indigenous where people from the same continent did their level best to form a generally unified cultural reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? That's a huge misconception - a fair few of those Brits residing in Spain have bilingual children and grandchildren who attended Spanish-speaking schools...and are very respectful of local customs and traditions.. So you’d agree that people shouldn’t be judged on a minority? That’s the point." Could you elaborate, please? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? That's a huge misconception - a fair few of those Brits residing in Spain have bilingual children and grandchildren who attended Spanish-speaking schools...and are very respectful of local customs and traditions.. So you’d agree that people shouldn’t be judged on a minority? That’s the point. Could you elaborate, please?" I was responding to someone who claimed that we’ve seen certain cultures and don’t want them here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants " Absolutely migrants and their descendants - provided they have integrated into our society and respect our laws, customs and culture. But if they choose to live in a bubble micro-society of their own, can they truly be considered British? And how much change must we be expected to undertake to accommodate them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants Absolutely migrants and their descendants - provided they have integrated into our society and respect our laws, customs and culture. But if they choose to live in a bubble micro-society of their own, can they truly be considered British? And how much change must we be expected to undertake to accommodate them?" Is it against any law to live in a bubble micro society? That’s like those retirees in the Costa del Sol again isn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants Absolutely migrants and their descendants - provided they have integrated into our society and respect our laws, customs and culture. But if they choose to live in a bubble micro-society of their own, can they truly be considered British? And how much change must we be expected to undertake to accommodate them? Is it against any law to live in a bubble micro society? That’s like those retirees in the Costa del Sol again isn’t it? " Well not being 'against any law' is not the same thing as being in the best interests of the country and it's inhabitants. I doubt the Spanish are entirely happy with micro-societies either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants Absolutely migrants and their descendants - provided they have integrated into our society and respect our laws, customs and culture. But if they choose to live in a bubble micro-society of their own, can they truly be considered British? And how much change must we be expected to undertake to accommodate them? Is it against any law to live in a bubble micro society? That’s like those retirees in the Costa del Sol again isn’t it? Well not being 'against any law' is not the same thing as being in the best interests of the country and it's inhabitants. I doubt the Spanish are entirely happy with micro-societies either." Lots of people don’t work in the best interests of the country and its inhabitants, including plenty that were born here and are considered ‘British’. Some of them run businesses or are even in Parliament. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? " Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to." Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? " Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants Absolutely migrants and their descendants - provided they have integrated into our society and respect our laws, customs and culture. But if they choose to live in a bubble micro-society of their own, can they truly be considered British? And how much change must we be expected to undertake to accommodate them? Is it against any law to live in a bubble micro society? That’s like those retirees in the Costa del Sol again isn’t it? Well not being 'against any law' is not the same thing as being in the best interests of the country and it's inhabitants. I doubt the Spanish are entirely happy with micro-societies either. Lots of people don’t work in the best interests of the country and its inhabitants, including plenty that were born here and are considered ‘British’. Some of them run businesses or are even in Parliament. " No doubt we have some existing fifth columnists amongst us (they're not hard to spot), but it would be pretty mindless to encourage more, no? As for MPs, with exception of Sinn Fein, they have all signed an Oath of Allegiance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture " That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? Yes culture changes, and that's generally a good thing. Who is the arbiter? Well in the end, those of us who live here I suppose. But are we listened to? Those who live here indeed, including migrants and their descendants Absolutely migrants and their descendants - provided they have integrated into our society and respect our laws, customs and culture. But if they choose to live in a bubble micro-society of their own, can they truly be considered British? And how much change must we be expected to undertake to accommodate them? Is it against any law to live in a bubble micro society? That’s like those retirees in the Costa del Sol again isn’t it? Well not being 'against any law' is not the same thing as being in the best interests of the country and it's inhabitants. I doubt the Spanish are entirely happy with micro-societies either. Lots of people don’t work in the best interests of the country and its inhabitants, including plenty that were born here and are considered ‘British’. Some of them run businesses or are even in Parliament. No doubt we have some existing fifth columnists amongst us (they're not hard to spot), but it would be pretty mindless to encourage more, no? As for MPs, with exception of Sinn Fein, they have all signed an Oath of Allegiance. " Signing an oath doesn’t automatically mean you work in the best interests of anyone though. And what do you mean by fifth columnists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? " Name all the individuals who follow this culture? That's impossible. It's usually subcultures within some religions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? Name all the individuals who follow this culture? That's impossible. It's usually subcultures within some religions." So minorities within a broader culture? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? Name all the individuals who follow this culture? That's impossible. It's usually subcultures within some religions. So minorities within a broader culture? " Whether they are minorities or not is hard to say. But, a subset of a broader culture for sure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? Name all the individuals who follow this culture? That's impossible. It's usually subcultures within some religions. So minorities within a broader culture? Whether they are minorities or not is hard to say. But, a subset of a broader culture for sure." Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? Name all the individuals who follow this culture? That's impossible. It's usually subcultures within some religions. So minorities within a broader culture? Whether they are minorities or not is hard to say. But, a subset of a broader culture for sure. Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets? " No. Who said we should? Practicalities are different though. If immigration from a certain country is resulting in so many people from such subculture are coming in, how do you filter out only them? So a decision might be made to err towards safety and just stop immigration from that could. That doesn't mean all the people from that country belong to the same category. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture That’s awfully specific. Care to name them? Name all the individuals who follow this culture? That's impossible. It's usually subcultures within some religions. So minorities within a broader culture? Whether they are minorities or not is hard to say. But, a subset of a broader culture for sure. Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets? No. Who said we should? Practicalities are different though. If immigration from a certain country is resulting in so many people from such subculture are coming in, how do you filter out only them? So a decision might be made to err towards safety and just stop immigration from that could. That doesn't mean all the people from that country belong to the same category." And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset - which you just said is wrong to do at the start if your paragraph. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset " No we are not. As I mentioned, we might choose to err on one side because of practical difficulties. Political decisions are often like this. We ban camping in some areas to prevent littering. Does it mean that all campers are bad? Not at all. We know that not all of them are bad. But a few bad apples can cause serious danger to the ecosystem. Hence we ban them all. If there is a way to filter out only the people with extreme views, let me know. I am all ears. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset No we are not. As I mentioned, we might choose to err on one side because of practical difficulties. Political decisions are often like this. We ban camping in some areas to prevent littering. Does it mean that all campers are bad? Not at all. We know that not all of them are bad. But a few bad apples can cause serious danger to the ecosystem. Hence we ban them all. If there is a way to filter out only the people with extreme views, let me know. I am all ears. " Same argument, you’re still penalising good callers based upon the actions of a few. You’re arguing that’s acceptable - which is a valid stance, but you’re still doing something you yourself said shouldn’t be done - judging a whole group based upon the actions of a few. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset No we are not. As I mentioned, we might choose to err on one side because of practical difficulties. Political decisions are often like this. We ban camping in some areas to prevent littering. Does it mean that all campers are bad? Not at all. We know that not all of them are bad. But a few bad apples can cause serious danger to the ecosystem. Hence we ban them all. If there is a way to filter out only the people with extreme views, let me know. I am all ears. Same argument, you’re still penalising good callers based upon the actions of a few. " Yes, because we don't have a choice. It's better to be safe than to be sorry. The other option is to let them all in and cry about it after things have gone bad. " You’re arguing that’s acceptable - which is a valid stance, but you’re still doing something you yourself said shouldn’t be done - judging a whole group based upon the actions of a few. " I am not judging the whole group. Not sure where you get that idea from. Because I cannot split the good and the bad inside the group, I have to make the choice to err on one side or the other. I prefer erring on the side of safety. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset No we are not. As I mentioned, we might choose to err on one side because of practical difficulties. Political decisions are often like this. We ban camping in some areas to prevent littering. Does it mean that all campers are bad? Not at all. We know that not all of them are bad. But a few bad apples can cause serious danger to the ecosystem. Hence we ban them all. If there is a way to filter out only the people with extreme views, let me know. I am all ears. Same argument, you’re still penalising good callers based upon the actions of a few. Yes, because we don't have a choice. It's better to be safe than to be sorry. The other option is to let them all in and cry about it after things have gone bad. You’re arguing that’s acceptable - which is a valid stance, but you’re still doing something you yourself said shouldn’t be done - judging a whole group based upon the actions of a few. I am not judging the whole group. Not sure where you get that idea from. Because I cannot split the good and the bad inside the group, I have to make the choice to err on one side or the other. I prefer erring on the side of safety." You are judging the whole group. You are deciding what that group can or can’t do based upon the actions of a few. Again, that’s a perfectly valid stance, but you’re still doing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset No we are not. As I mentioned, we might choose to err on one side because of practical difficulties. Political decisions are often like this. We ban camping in some areas to prevent littering. Does it mean that all campers are bad? Not at all. We know that not all of them are bad. But a few bad apples can cause serious danger to the ecosystem. Hence we ban them all. If there is a way to filter out only the people with extreme views, let me know. I am all ears. Same argument, you’re still penalising good callers based upon the actions of a few. Yes, because we don't have a choice. It's better to be safe than to be sorry. The other option is to let them all in and cry about it after things have gone bad. You’re arguing that’s acceptable - which is a valid stance, but you’re still doing something you yourself said shouldn’t be done - judging a whole group based upon the actions of a few. I am not judging the whole group. Not sure where you get that idea from. Because I cannot split the good and the bad inside the group, I have to make the choice to err on one side or the other. I prefer erring on the side of safety. You are judging the whole group. You are deciding what that group can or can’t do based upon the actions of a few. Again, that’s a perfectly valid stance, but you’re still doing it. " I am not. I gave you an example of the camping bans in some areas. Do you think that means we have judged all campers to be bad? We just can't filter good campers from the bad campers. Under-17 aren't allowed to drive. Does it mean all under 17 are incapable of driving? Not at all. But we have to draw a line somewhere for the sake of safety. It's not that hard to understand really. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And if we choose not to allow people from a whole culture in based upon a minority of people within that culture (a subset), then we are judging a whole culture based upon that subset No we are not. As I mentioned, we might choose to err on one side because of practical difficulties. Political decisions are often like this. We ban camping in some areas to prevent littering. Does it mean that all campers are bad? Not at all. We know that not all of them are bad. But a few bad apples can cause serious danger to the ecosystem. Hence we ban them all. If there is a way to filter out only the people with extreme views, let me know. I am all ears. Same argument, you’re still penalising good callers based upon the actions of a few. Yes, because we don't have a choice. It's better to be safe than to be sorry. The other option is to let them all in and cry about it after things have gone bad. You’re arguing that’s acceptable - which is a valid stance, but you’re still doing something you yourself said shouldn’t be done - judging a whole group based upon the actions of a few. I am not judging the whole group. Not sure where you get that idea from. Because I cannot split the good and the bad inside the group, I have to make the choice to err on one side or the other. I prefer erring on the side of safety. You are judging the whole group. You are deciding what that group can or can’t do based upon the actions of a few. Again, that’s a perfectly valid stance, but you’re still doing it. I am not. I gave you an example of the camping bans in some areas. Do you think that means we have judged all campers to be bad? We just can't filter good campers from the bad campers. Under-17 aren't allowed to drive. Does it mean all under 17 are incapable of driving? Not at all. But we have to draw a line somewhere for the sake of safety. It's not that hard to understand really." That because driving is a skilled act requiring responsibility, a degree of financial independence (insurance etc) and other factors. Your example of banning campers because of littering is a very different example. You may not like that your stance is one of judgement, but it is - and we all make judgements every day. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That because driving is a skilled act requiring responsibility, a degree of financial independence (insurance etc) and other factors. " So? There are many 16 year olds who could handle these. In fact, many countries allow 16 years old to drive. By your own argument, you are "judging" the whole group based on a subset right? " Your example of banning campers because of littering is a very different example. " How is it different? It's pretty much the same. We know we have a problem with a subset of a group of people. We don't judge all of then to be bad. But unfortunately, there is no way to filter the good from bad. Hence we ban camping entirely, just like we may want to ban immigration entirely from a country. " You may not like that your stance is one of judgement, but it is - and we all make judgements every day. " What about COVID red-list countries? Did we really judge that all the people from those countries are COVID carriers? Or did we know that not everyone has COVID but many are, and for the sake of the country's safety we banned them? As I said before, numerous political decisions require us to err one way or another. It doesn't mean we "judge" the whole group of people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said before, numerous political decisions require us to err one way or another. It doesn't mean we "judge" the whole group of people." Yes it does. If you make a blanket decision based upon a subset, you are applying that decision to Theo whole group regardless of whether they are ‘guilty’ or not. You are making a judgement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said before, numerous political decisions require us to err one way or another. It doesn't mean we "judge" the whole group of people. Yes it does. If you make a blanket decision based upon a subset, you are applying that decision to Theo whole group regardless of whether they are ‘guilty’ or not. You are making a judgement. " You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said before, numerous political decisions require us to err one way or another. It doesn't mean we "judge" the whole group of people. Yes it does. If you make a blanket decision based upon a subset, you are applying that decision to Theo whole group regardless of whether they are ‘guilty’ or not. You are making a judgement. You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? " It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets? " Radical thought: Why not judge the whole culture... On the whole culture? People judge the US culture by the US as a whole, not a few tourists and expat workers (while acknowledging that not everyone in the US is the same). People outside of the UK do the same thing for English or British culture. One could do the same with, for example, Somalia or Pakistan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets? Radical thought: Why not judge the whole culture... On the whole culture? People judge the US culture by the US as a whole, not a few tourists and expat workers (while acknowledging that not everyone in the US is the same). People outside of the UK do the same thing for English or British culture. One could do the same with, for example, Somalia or Pakistan." Yes. That would be absolutely lovely. Because in every culture, the vast majority of people are decent, hardworking, and we all want the same thing. Peace, prosperity, and opportunities for us and our kids | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said before, numerous political decisions require us to err one way or another. It doesn't mean we "judge" the whole group of people. Yes it does. If you make a blanket decision based upon a subset, you are applying that decision to Theo whole group regardless of whether they are ‘guilty’ or not. You are making a judgement. You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this " Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As I said before, numerous political decisions require us to err one way or another. It doesn't mean we "judge" the whole group of people. Yes it does. If you make a blanket decision based upon a subset, you are applying that decision to Theo whole group regardless of whether they are ‘guilty’ or not. You are making a judgement. You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country?" The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. " No, I don't see it yet because your verbal gymnastics make zero logical sense. How is having a red list of countries because of COVID different from banning immigration for some countries for other reasons? Surely you can justify this one too by saying that the government was "judging the situation"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. No, I don't see it yet because your verbal gymnastics make zero logical sense. How is having a red list of countries because of COVID different from banning immigration for some countries for other reasons? Surely you can justify this one too by saying that the government was "judging the situation"?" Yes. You finally got there. ‘Judging the situation’ is still judging. And it’s part of daily life for everyone. You do it too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you." You started by using the legal meaning of judgement, conflated it with discrimination, and now you've shifted to the common meaning of 'to assess'. It's almost like you're deliberately changing your position based on how best to defeat your opponent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. You started by using the legal meaning of judgement, conflated it with discrimination, and now you've shifted to the common meaning of 'to assess'. It's almost like you're deliberately changing your position based on how best to defeat your opponent." You may think that, I can’t control that but my position has remained consistent in the face of someone responding with wildly differing circumstances and unrelated situations in order to try to blur the lines, go off topic and get a ‘win’ rather than accepting the obvious - which itself is not a contentious decision. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. No, I don't see it yet because your verbal gymnastics make zero logical sense. How is having a red list of countries because of COVID different from banning immigration for some countries for other reasons? Surely you can justify this one too by saying that the government was "judging the situation"? Yes. You finally got there. ‘Judging the situation’ is still judging. And it’s part of daily life for everyone. You do it too. " But judging the situation is different from judging a whole group of people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. No, I don't see it yet because your verbal gymnastics make zero logical sense. How is having a red list of countries because of COVID different from banning immigration for some countries for other reasons? Surely you can justify this one too by saying that the government was "judging the situation"? Yes. You finally got there. ‘Judging the situation’ is still judging. And it’s part of daily life for everyone. You do it too. But judging the situation is different from judging a whole group of people." In terms of outcome? No it’s not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. No, I don't see it yet because your verbal gymnastics make zero logical sense. How is having a red list of countries because of COVID different from banning immigration for some countries for other reasons? Surely you can justify this one too by saying that the government was "judging the situation"? Yes. You finally got there. ‘Judging the situation’ is still judging. And it’s part of daily life for everyone. You do it too. But judging the situation is different from judging a whole group of people. In terms of outcome? No it’s not. " Which is what I have been trying to explain to you. What we judge about people isn't always the same as the outcome because there are practical difficulties with enforcing a law that forces you to err one way or another. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You have conveniently ignored the examples I gave I see. Tell me. Did we think that all the people from the red list countries have COVID? Did we judge that all campers are bad if we ban camping in some areas? Do we think that all 16 year olds are incapable of driving? It’s not about thinking anything, it’s about making a decision on a whole based upon the actions of a few. Those not amongst the few having their outcome affected by the actions of others. I’m not sure why you’re so het up about this Judging" implies what you think about someone. Policies on the other hand are written making compromises irrespective of what you think about the whole group. Do you really think that the government "judged" all people of the red list countries to be COVID carriers? Or did the government know that not all of them are COVID carriers and because of logistics difficulties, they decided to set restrictions on the entire country? The government ‘judged’ the situation and applied restrictions on everyone (including the majority) as a result of their ‘judgement’. Do you see yet? Because if you don’t, I’m all out of ways to explain it to you. No, I don't see it yet because your verbal gymnastics make zero logical sense. How is having a red list of countries because of COVID different from banning immigration for some countries for other reasons? Surely you can justify this one too by saying that the government was "judging the situation"? Yes. You finally got there. ‘Judging the situation’ is still judging. And it’s part of daily life for everyone. You do it too. But judging the situation is different from judging a whole group of people. In terms of outcome? No it’s not. Which is what I have been trying to explain to you. What we judge about people isn't always the same as the outcome because there are practical difficulties with enforcing a law that forces you to err one way or another." And you said it’s wrong to judge based upon a minority, all the way back at the start - and yet you accept that’s what goes on. We all do it. Governments do it. You do it. I do it. Schools and colleges do it. Employers do it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You started by using the legal meaning of judgement, conflated it with discrimination, and now you've shifted to the common meaning of 'to assess'. It's almost like you're deliberately changing your position based on how best to defeat your opponent." "You may think that, I can’t control that but my position has remained consistent in the face of someone responding with wildly differing circumstances and unrelated situations in order to try to blur the lines, go off topic and get a ‘win’ rather than accepting the obvious - which itself is not a contentious decision." You started all this with the phrase "Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets". Here you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'come to a conclusion on the facts based on evidence presented'. You followed this up several times with phrases like "judging a whole group". A bit further on you switched to "your stance is one of judgement ... and we all make judgements every day". In this statement you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'to make a decision'. It's quite clear that you've changed your argument half way through the discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You started by using the legal meaning of judgement, conflated it with discrimination, and now you've shifted to the common meaning of 'to assess'. It's almost like you're deliberately changing your position based on how best to defeat your opponent. You may think that, I can’t control that but my position has remained consistent in the face of someone responding with wildly differing circumstances and unrelated situations in order to try to blur the lines, go off topic and get a ‘win’ rather than accepting the obvious - which itself is not a contentious decision. You started all this with the phrase "Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets". Here you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'come to a conclusion on the facts based on evidence presented'. You followed this up several times with phrases like "judging a whole group". A bit further on you switched to "your stance is one of judgement ... and we all make judgements every day". In this statement you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'to make a decision'. It's quite clear that you've changed your argument half way through the discussion." Whatever you say, mucker. You’ve already revealed on the other thread that your comprehension isn’t always aligned with what others are seeing  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you said it’s wrong to judge based upon a minority, all the way back at the start - and yet you accept that’s what goes on. " Where did I accept that's what going on? We didn't judge all people based on some when we enforced the COVID restrictions. Similarly, enforcing immigration restrictions from a country because of cultural reasons doesn't mean we judge them all to be the same. How you "judge" doesn't always translate to how you act because... practicalities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you said it’s wrong to judge based upon a minority, all the way back at the start - and yet you accept that’s what goes on. Where did I accept that's what going on? We didn't judge all people based on some when we enforced the COVID restrictions. Similarly, enforcing immigration restrictions from a country because of cultural reasons doesn't mean we judge them all to be the same. How you "judge" doesn't always translate to how you act because... practicalities." And you accept actions based upon practicalities - which you’ve admitted are based upon judgements. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And you said it’s wrong to judge based upon a minority, all the way back at the start - and yet you accept that’s what goes on. Where did I accept that's what going on? We didn't judge all people based on some when we enforced the COVID restrictions. Similarly, enforcing immigration restrictions from a country because of cultural reasons doesn't mean we judge them all to be the same. How you "judge" doesn't always translate to how you act because... practicalities. And you accept actions based upon practicalities - which you’ve admitted are based upon judgements." They are based upon judgements. But aren't the same as judgements. If you decide not to go to a pub because some customers in the pub behave badly, does it mean you have judged that all the customers in the pub are problematic? Not at all. You made a choice based on your judgement. But your choice doesn't imply you judged all the customers in the pub the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You started all this with the phrase "Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets". Here you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'come to a conclusion on the facts based on evidence presented'. You followed this up several times with phrases like "judging a whole group". A bit further on you switched to "your stance is one of judgement ... and we all make judgements every day". In this statement you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'to make a decision'. It's quite clear that you've changed your argument half way through the discussion." "Whatever you say, mucker. You’ve already revealed on the other thread that your comprehension isn’t always aligned with what others are seeing" Unable to refute the evidence, you've switched to an ad hominem attack. We see you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You started all this with the phrase "Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets". Here you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'come to a conclusion on the facts based on evidence presented'. You followed this up several times with phrases like "judging a whole group". A bit further on you switched to "your stance is one of judgement ... and we all make judgements every day". In this statement you are using 'judge' in the sense of 'to make a decision'. It's quite clear that you've changed your argument half way through the discussion. Whatever you say, mucker. You’ve already revealed on the other thread that your comprehension isn’t always aligned with what others are seeing Unable to refute the evidence, you've switched to an ad hominem attack. We see you." No, I’ve simple commented on your stance on this and the other thread where you also decided for yourself what other people were seeing. Not an attack at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Those arriving should learn English and stay out of trouble. That’s basically it. Those immigrants already here who can’t manage either/both should consider their options. Millions must go!" What about British born folk who can’t manage English and don’t stay out of trouble? Can we get rid of them too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think it's less do do with skin colour than feeling immigrants are 'fitting-in' to our culture and way of life. Do they do that? Well not all groups for sure. They live in areas that bear more resemblance to their country or origin than the UK. Moreover, those of us 'indigenous' Brits have an investment in the country that might go back hundreds if not thousands of years. Our forebears bult this country and died in wars to ward off invaders. Isn't it natural then, to feel more British? Culture changes. The UK of 2026 is different from the U.K. of 1980, which is different from 1950 which would have been different from 1900 etc. What does the U.K. ‘look like’? What should it ‘look like’? And who is the arbiter of what it should look like? The same could be used to justify fascism too. Culture changes. Why are you worried about fascism? Who is the arbiter of what it should look like? I’m worried about fascism because we’ve seen it in action. Plus I like democracy, don’t you? And many people have seen other cultures in action and don't want it here. Have they? Or are they judging on minority cases? Should the Brits be judged by teenagers in magaluf or retired boomers moving to the Costa del Sol and not integrating? Is it wrong to say that we don't want to live in a culture where people who burn religious books or drawing pictures shouldn't be physically attacked? And yes, British people moving elsewhere should also integrate with the society they are moving to. Nobody should be physically attacked. And once again, what ‘cultures’ were you talking about that aren’t wanted here? Cultures that believe that it should be illegal to burn a book or draw a picture " Sounds like 1930's Germany, didn't the Nazis burn books and draw jude signs on property 🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sounds like 1930's Germany, didn't the Nazis burn books and draw jude signs on property 🤔 " Nazis also ate food and took a shit. Does that make us all Nazis? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sounds like 1930's Germany, didn't the Nazis burn books and draw jude signs on property 🤔 Nazis also ate food and took a shit. Does that make us all Nazis?" With regards to your argument about banning certain groups of?people of cultures, that you judge as problematic to our countries culture,because of a minority, then you obviously deem no one worthy of being allowed into our country, do you care to name me one culture of people who don't have extremist fractions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sounds like 1930's Germany, didn't the Nazis burn books and draw jude signs on property 🤔 Nazis also ate food and took a shit. Does that make us all Nazis? With regards to your argument about banning certain groups of?people of cultures, that you judge as problematic to our countries culture,because of a minority, then you obviously deem no one worthy of being allowed into our country, do you care to name me one culture of people who don't have extremist fractions " How many people are living in hiding because they burned any other religious book or offended a religion by doing something simple like drawing a picture? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Culture is ever changing anyway, British culture today is different from 50. 100, 150 years ago and increasingly so with every generation we look back upon. So when people say ‘our culture is being erased’ or suchlike, what they’re kind of actually saying is ‘things aren’t the same as when I was young, and I don’t like it’ " By your argument, we can basically justify any kind of change. Even change in the culture back to religious conservatism from centuries back. I am pretty sure you will be against that kind of change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Should we judge whole cultures based upon subsets? Radical thought: Why not judge the whole culture... On the whole culture? People judge the US culture by the US as a whole, not a few tourists and expat workers (while acknowledging that not everyone in the US is the same). People outside of the UK do the same thing for English or British culture. One could do the same with, for example, Somalia or Pakistan." Or India. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sounds like 1930's Germany, didn't the Nazis burn books and draw jude signs on property 🤔 Nazis also ate food and took a shit. Does that make us all Nazis? With regards to your argument about banning certain groups of?people of cultures, that you judge as problematic to our countries culture,because of a minority, then you obviously deem no one worthy of being allowed into our country, do you care to name me one culture of people who don't have extremist fractions How many people are living in hiding because they burned any other religious book or offended a religion by doing something simple like drawing a picture?" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Culture is ever changing anyway, British culture today is different from 50. 100, 150 years ago and increasingly so with every generation we look back upon. So when people say ‘our culture is being erased’ or suchlike, what they’re kind of actually saying is ‘things aren’t the same as when I was young, and I don’t like it’ By your argument, we can basically justify any kind of change. Even change in the culture back to religious conservatism from centuries back. I am pretty sure you will be against that kind of change. " When did I mention being for or against? Yes, culture changes in a variety of ways. Some will like it, some won’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims?" I was trying to say that some religions have a bigger problem of extremism than the others. I have called out Islam openly in many threads. I am not afraid of it either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims? I was trying to say that some religions have a bigger problem of extremism than the others. I have called out Islam openly in many threads. I am not afraid of it either." But you initial argument was that any religious fractions or race that don't follow British values, should not be allowed in the UK, what percentage of Irish people do you calculate have extremist views and should that be reasons to exclude them from the UK,let's see what percentage of Jews, you deem to have extremist fractions, should we not welcome them here and again, as my initial argument, where do we stop, from other nations, or do you have a percentage of baddies to meet you criteria?,if so I would be very interested in how you come to that figure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims? I was trying to say that some religions have a bigger problem of extremism than the others. I have called out Islam openly in many threads. I am not afraid of it either." Extremists by their very nature aren’t (or shouldn’t be) welcome in the U.K. or any civilised nation. Including home grown ones of *all* faiths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims? I was trying to say that some religions have a bigger problem of extremism than the others. I have called out Islam openly in many threads. I am not afraid of it either. Extremists by their very nature aren’t (or shouldn’t be) welcome in the U.K. or any civilised nation. Including home grown ones of *all* faiths." Sure. Now tell me how you can differentiate the extremists and non-extremists. And my point still stands. One religion has a bigger problem with extremism than the others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But you initial argument was that any religious fractions or race that don't follow British values, should not be allowed in the UK, what percentage of Irish people do you calculate have extremist views and should that be reasons to exclude them from the UK,let's see what percentage of Jews, you deem to have extremist fractions, should we not welcome them here and again, as my initial argument, where do we stop, from other nations, or do you have a percentage of baddies to meet you criteria?,if so I would be very interested in how you come to that figure " The criteria is simple. Go out there and tear up the religious book of every religion. Whichever book puts you in physical danger is the problematic one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims? I was trying to say that some religions have a bigger problem of extremism than the others. I have called out Islam openly in many threads. I am not afraid of it either. Extremists by their very nature aren’t (or shouldn’t be) welcome in the U.K. or any civilised nation. Including home grown ones of *all* faiths. Sure. Now tell me how you can differentiate the extremists and non-extremists. And my point still stands. One religion has a bigger problem with extremism than the others." Trust the challenge isn’t it? Where is the boundary of extreme? For that we need to refer to our laws and the values of the nation (as I’m sure you know the U.K. has 5 defined values. If you act within them, then there’s no problem. If not, then we have issues). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Trust the challenge isn’t it? Where is the boundary of extreme? " Go out and burn all religious books and whichever puts you in physical danger is the extreme religion. How about that as the boundary? " For that we need to refer to our laws and the values of the nation (as I’m sure you know the U.K. has 5 defined values. If you act within them, then there’s no problem. If not, then we have issues). " No. I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country." No you didn’t specify that at all. But that’s a challenge for the asylum system to deal with, not you or I. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. No you didn’t specify that at all. But that’s a challenge for the asylum system to deal with, not you or I. " That's a lame cop out. If you don't have a solution, then don't expect other people to sacrifice their sense of safety just so that you want to open the borders to everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country." In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No. I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. No you didn’t specify that at all. But that’s a challenge for the asylum system to deal with, not you or I. That's a lame cop out. If you don't have a solution, then don't expect other people to sacrifice their sense of safety just so that you want to open the borders to everyone." Do I want to open the borders to everyone? Have I said that? You do like these flights of fantasy that you appear to invent yourself, don’t you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Go out and burn all religious books and whichever puts you in physical danger is the extreme religion. How about that as the boundary?" Now I know you’re scared to say the religion you’re actually inferring, so let’s call it the Chickenhead Faith. If the Chickenhead faith had some extremists who placed you in danger for burning the book that they claim to follow, would you be in favour of stopping all chicken heads from emigrating to the UK? Even if the extreme chickenheads were only 1% or less of all chickenheads? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators?" What's the religion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do I want to open the borders to everyone? Have I said that? You do like these flights of fantasy that you appear to invent yourself, don’t you? " Well you keep saying that we should allow the non-extremists in. But you have no way to filter out the extremists. Then what are we supposed to do? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do I want to open the borders to everyone? Have I said that? You do like these flights of fantasy that you appear to invent yourself, don’t you? Well you keep saying that we should allow the non-extremists in. But you have no way to filter out the extremists. Then what are we supposed to do?" I’ve already told you - that’s a job for our asylum system. (And it is). But I want to know what you’d do since you said my correct answer was a ‘cop out’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators? What's the religion?" Irrelevant, since you’re taking about ‘allowing people in’ Do you know the answer to my question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Go out and burn all religious books and whichever puts you in physical danger is the extreme religion. How about that as the boundary? Now I know you’re scared to say the religion you’re actually inferring, so let’s call it the Chickenhead Faith. " Lol. Anyone who has been in this forum knows that I never had any problem calling out Islam. It's the left who usually lack balls to criticise Islam. They will go after a Jewish nation for what happens in Palestine. The moment you call out the state of gays in the Islamic nations, you all chicken out. Leftists sucking off a religion is one of the biggest political jokes of this century. " If the Chickenhead faith had some extremists who placed you in danger for burning the book that they claim to follow, would you be in favour of stopping all chicken heads from emigrating to the UK? Even if the extreme chickenheads were only 1% or less of all chickenheads? " When a small percentage of people potentially having Covid made us stop control immigration from many nations, why is this any different? Even 1% is enough to create physical threat. Just ask the Batley teacher still living in hiding over a picture he drew 5 years back or the Hebdo victims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators? What's the religion? Irrelevant, since you’re taking about ‘allowing people in’ Do you know the answer to my question? " It is relevant because we are talking about religion. Do you know the answer to my question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do I want to open the borders to everyone? Have I said that? You do like these flights of fantasy that you appear to invent yourself, don’t you? Well you keep saying that we should allow the non-extremists in. But you have no way to filter out the extremists. Then what are we supposed to do? I’ve already told you - that’s a job for our asylum system. (And it is). But I want to know what you’d do since you said my correct answer was a ‘cop out’ " It just means that you don't have an answer to it. That's why this is a lame cop out. No one has an answer to it. How is the home office supposed to know someone is an extremist? Burning the book in front of them and see if their blood pressure rises? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Go out and burn all religious books and whichever puts you in physical danger is the extreme religion. How about that as the boundary? Now I know you’re scared to say the religion you’re actually inferring, so let’s call it the Chickenhead Faith. Lol. Anyone who has been in this forum knows that I never had any problem calling out Islam. It's the left who usually lack balls to criticise Islam. They will go after a Jewish nation for what happens in Palestine. The moment you call out the state of gays in the Islamic nations, you all chicken out. Leftists sucking off a religion is one of the biggest political jokes of this century. If the Chickenhead faith had some extremists who placed you in danger for burning the book that they claim to follow, would you be in favour of stopping all chicken heads from emigrating to the UK? Even if the extreme chickenheads were only 1% or less of all chickenheads? When a small percentage of people potentially having Covid made us stop control immigration from many nations, why is this any different? Even 1% is enough to create physical threat. Just ask the Batley teacher still living in hiding over a picture he drew 5 years back or the Hebdo victims. " I’d like you to answer the question without whataboutery, please. What would you do to combat the threat from 1% of the theoretical Chickenhead faith? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators? What's the religion? Irrelevant, since you’re taking about ‘allowing people in’ Do you know the answer to my question? It is relevant because we are talking about religion. Do you know the answer to my question?" I know you’re reticent to answer mine (which of course I asked first). I wonder why that is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d like you to answer the question without whataboutery, please. What would you do to combat the threat from 1% of the theoretical Chickenhead faith? " I gave you the covid example to answer your question, which I did. Yes, if the 1% are capable of resorting to violence over a book or painting, I don't mind blocking immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators? What's the religion? Irrelevant, since you’re taking about ‘allowing people in’ Do you know the answer to my question? It is relevant because we are talking about religion. Do you know the answer to my question? I know you’re reticent to answer mine (which of course I asked first). I wonder why that is? " Because you are asking an irrelevant question just so that you can have your daily dose of patting yourself on your back over your imaginary victories on the internet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d like you to answer the question without whataboutery, please. What would you do to combat the threat from 1% of the theoretical Chickenhead faith? I gave you the covid example to answer your question, which I did. Yes, if the 1% are capable of resorting to violence over a book or painting, I don't mind blocking immigration." Then you’ve just demonstrated that you’re against one of the core British values (Tolerance of Different Faiths & Beliefs) Yet you often talk about British values, don’t you? What about someone from The Westboro Baptist Church, as an example? Should we treat all baptists by the minority displayed there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I asked how you would filter the extremists out before they enter the country. By the time they resort to violence, it's already too late. You have lost lives of people of this country. In UK terror attacks, what is the nationality of the majority of perpetrators? What's the religion? Irrelevant, since you’re taking about ‘allowing people in’ Do you know the answer to my question? It is relevant because we are talking about religion. Do you know the answer to my question? I know you’re reticent to answer mine (which of course I asked first). I wonder why that is? Because you are asking an irrelevant question just so that you can have your daily dose of patting yourself on your back over your imaginary victories on the internet." You’re talking about limiting migration to protect us from extremists attacking us. I asked where the majority of extremists who have attacked us were from. Are you sure that’s an irrellevant question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d like you to answer the question without whataboutery, please. What would you do to combat the threat from 1% of the theoretical Chickenhead faith? I gave you the covid example to answer your question, which I did. Yes, if the 1% are capable of resorting to violence over a book or painting, I don't mind blocking immigration. Then you’ve just demonstrated that you’re against one of the core British values (Tolerance of Different Faiths & Beliefs) Yet you often talk about British values, don’t you? " You should read about the paradox of tolerance. " What about someone from The Westboro Baptist Church, as an example? Should we treat all baptists by the minority displayed there? " Thanks for proving my point. Check out our immigration ban on the members of that church. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re talking about limiting migration to protect us from extremists attacking us. I asked where the majority of extremists who have attacked us were from. Are you sure that’s an irrellevant question?" Because it's well known that extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’d like you to answer the question without whataboutery, please. What would you do to combat the threat from 1% of the theoretical Chickenhead faith? I gave you the covid example to answer your question, which I did. Yes, if the 1% are capable of resorting to violence over a book or painting, I don't mind blocking immigration. Then you’ve just demonstrated that you’re against one of the core British values (Tolerance of Different Faiths & Beliefs) Yet you often talk about British values, don’t you? You should read about the paradox of tolerance. What about someone from The Westboro Baptist Church, as an example? Should we treat all baptists by the minority displayed there? Thanks for proving my point. Check out our immigration ban on the members of that church." I’ve not proved your point at all. Banning a church or a group is not the same as banning a religion as you’ve said you’d do. Had you said ‘I’d ban anyone associated with Hamas or other proscribed groups’ then you’d be in firm ground. But no, you would tarnish a whole religion. The equivalent would be banning *all* baptists based on westboro. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re talking about limiting migration to protect us from extremists attacking us. I asked where the majority of extremists who have attacked us were from. Are you sure that’s an irrellevant question? Because it's well known that extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants." Is it well known? Show us the evidence then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re talking about limiting migration to protect us from extremists attacking us. I asked where the majority of extremists who have attacked us were from. Are you sure that’s an irrellevant question? Because it's well known that extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants. Is it well known? Show us the evidence then. " Over the last decade, most Islamic terror attacks have been committed by second generation immigrants. You can look them up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ve not proved your point at all. Banning a church or a group is not the same as banning a religion as you’ve said you’d do. " In this case, we know the specific church that's extremist. That's why I have been asking you if you have any method to filter out extremists from Islamic nations. It's looking more and more like you don't.. " Had you said ‘I’d ban anyone associated with Hamas or other proscribed groups’ then you’d be in firm ground. But no, you would tarnish a whole religion. " Does Hamas maintain a public membership record? Last I check they were even working for the UN 😂 " The equivalent would be banning *all* baptists based on westboro." Not equivalent as I explained above. The equivalent would be restricting immigration from entire countries because of COVID. Why is that ok but not this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I’ve not proved your point at all. Banning a church or a group is not the same as banning a religion as you’ve said you’d do. In this case, we know the specific church that's extremist. That's why I have been asking you if you have any method to filter out extremists from Islamic nations. It's looking more and more like you don't.. Had you said ‘I’d ban anyone associated with Hamas or other proscribed groups’ then you’d be in firm ground. But no, you would tarnish a whole religion. Does Hamas maintain a public membership record? Last I check they were even working for the UN 😂 The equivalent would be banning *all* baptists based on westboro. Not equivalent as I explained above. The equivalent would be restricting immigration from entire countries because of COVID. Why is that ok but not this?" So far you’ve been inconsistent, accused me of things I’m not, have outed yourself as anti-Islamic, and also against British values. Would you ban all Baptists from entering the UK based upon a minority within their group? Yes or no? Because you’ve admitted that’s what you’d do with Islam. (And the Covid point is as laughable now as when you first raised it - I’m surprised you still insist upon such a facile argument) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’re talking about limiting migration to protect us from extremists attacking us. I asked where the majority of extremists who have attacked us were from. Are you sure that’s an irrellevant question? Because it's well known that extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants. Is it well known? Show us the evidence then. Over the last decade, most Islamic terror attacks have been committed by second generation immigrants. You can look them up." That doesn’t back up your statement though. Let’s say I’ve got 100 1st gen immigrants, and 5 of those families have children who are extremists. They hypothetically commit 5 out of 8 attacks in the last decade. That doesn’t mean “ it's well known that extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants” (your original statement) So I ask again: where is the evidence that “extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not following your argument, can you please name me one religious group or fractions of any group of people who don't have extremist fractions and views, should we kick out the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, where do you want to stop, or can I hazard a guess and presume that you just mean(and don't have the balls to say)Muslims? I was trying to say that some religions have a bigger problem of extremism than the others. I have called out Islam openly in many threads. I am not afraid of it either. Extremists by their very nature aren’t (or shouldn’t be) welcome in the U.K. or any civilised nation. Including home grown ones of *all* faiths. Sure. Now tell me how you can differentiate the extremists and non-extremists. And my point still stands. One religion has a bigger problem with extremism than the others." Do you know any Indian people who would say that Pakistani people shouldn't be welcome in the UK because they have extremist fractions and vis versa, how about your thoughts on this subject 🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So far you’ve been inconsistent, accused me of things I’m not, have outed yourself as anti-Islamic, and also against British values. " They are all just your opinions which I or no one else for that matter, gives a fuck about. " Would you ban all Baptists from entering the UK based upon a minority within their group? Yes or no? Because you’ve admitted that’s what you’d do with Islam. " I am pretty sure I made myself clear. With Baptists, we know which Baptist churches have a tendency to extremism. And we banned members of the church entirely. If you can come up with a list of extremist Islamist groups and identifying them, I am more than happy to block immigration from those groups alone. The rest of the asylum seekers still are an economic burden which is a whole different debate. " (And the Covid point is as laughable now as when you first raised it - I’m surprised you still insist upon such a facile argument)" If it was an argument you have an answer to, you would have responded already. What's laughable is you running away from it and doing gymnastics like this to avoid facing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That doesn’t back up your statement though. Let’s say I’ve got 100 1st gen immigrants, and 5 of those families have children who are extremists. They hypothetically commit 5 out of 8 attacks in the last decade. That doesn’t mean “ it's well known that extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants” (your original statement) So I ask again: where is the evidence that “extremism doesn't really go down with the second generation immigrants”" It looks like you have zero clue about how statistics work. If the majority of terror attacks from a group are committed by one sub-group over another, its evidence that the first sub-group is indeed more extremist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know any Indian people who would say that Pakistani people shouldn't be welcome in the UK because they have extremist fractions and vis versa, how about your thoughts on this subject 🤔 " Of course people have their opinions because they see each other as threat. If they can vote and change our policies, all power to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you can come up with a list of extremist Islamist groups and identifying them, I am more than happy to block immigration from those groups alone." What do you think the home office and anti-terror police do all day? Why do you think the terror level goes up and down periodically? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the majority of terror attacks from a group are committed by one sub-group over another, its evidence that the first sub-group is indeed more extremist." Or better organised, or greater in number. Or luckier. Or perhaps they’re newer and less known to authorities. Your simplistic view of those does reveal the reason for your naive attitude though. I understand more now why you respond the way you do. Why do you think some second gen immigrants turn to extremism? Why don’t they feel Britain (or wherever) is home? Do you think foreign policy is part of it? Or perhaps attitudes and bigotry in the community? And why don’t we recognise extremism in our ‘own’? (Tommy Robison, Daniel Thomas et al) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you can come up with a list of extremist Islamist groups and identifying them, I am more than happy to block immigration from those groups alone. What do you think the home office and anti-terror police do all day? " Do you have evidence that they have a way to filter out extremists? " Why do you think the terror level goes up and down periodically? " And yet, they do happen don't they? How about prevention is better than cure? Like many countries did for COVID? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If the majority of terror attacks from a group are committed by one sub-group over another, its evidence that the first sub-group is indeed more extremist. Or better organised, or greater in number. Or luckier. Or perhaps they’re newer and less known to authorities. " Do you have evidence that this is the case? " Why do you think some second gen immigrants turn to extremism? Why don’t they feel Britain (or wherever) is home? " Maybe because the first gen are scared of being extremist as they would be kicked out of the country, while the second-gen can feel safe that they won't be? " Do you think foreign policy is part of it? Or perhaps attitudes and bigotry in the community? And why don’t we recognise extremism in our ‘own’? (Tommy Robison, Daniel Thomas et al) " None of that explains why they would send death threats to a person drawing a picture or physically attack someone over a book burning. Are you saying that these acts are justified because... bigotry?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you can come up with a list of extremist Islamist groups and identifying them, I am more than happy to block immigration from those groups alone. What do you think the home office and anti-terror police do all day? Do you have evidence that they have a way to filter out extremists? " Well once again, most attacks in the U.K. have been home grown extremists, coupled with the fact that 60% of asylum cases are refused, and 23% of visitor visas refused, one has to assume that yes, we do filter all sorts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" None of that explains why they would send death threats to a person drawing a picture or physically attack someone over a book burning. Are you saying that these acts are justified because... bigotry? "Sending death threats is never justified, nor have I attempted to justify it. I asked you why you think extremism happens among 2nd generations. Those people are failing in life, I’m sure you agree. Why do you think that is? We’ve seen the stuff about the manosphere lately - which strikes me as the same phenomenon, disaffected young men who feel they don’t fit in, haven’t succeeded, feel angry at the world. They have their own kind of extremism wouldn’t you say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well once again, most attacks in the U.K. have been home grown extremists, coupled with the fact that 60% of asylum cases are refused, and 23% of visitor visas refused, one has to assume that yes, we do filter all sorts. " Home grown extremists from which religion? Saying that extremists cannot come to the UK because the asylum system will deal with it is like saying that tax evasion doesn't happen because the HMRC will deal with it. Both are laughable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Sending death threats is never justified, nor have I attempted to justify it. I asked you why you think extremism happens among 2nd generations. Those people are failing in life, I’m sure you agree. Why do you think that is? " Because when someone is so much immersed in their religion, nothing the society does can help them. " We’ve seen the stuff about the manosphere lately - which strikes me as the same phenomenon, disaffected young men who feel they don’t fit in, haven’t succeeded, feel angry at the world. They have their own kind of extremism wouldn’t you say? " Yes, they are extremists and guys like Andrew Tate are scumbags. But one of these problems can be stopped easily by getting a hold on immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well once again, most attacks in the U.K. have been home grown extremists, coupled with the fact that 60% of asylum cases are refused, and 23% of visitor visas refused, one has to assume that yes, we do filter all sorts. Home grown extremists from which religion? Saying that extremists cannot come to the UK because the asylum system will deal with it is like saying that tax evasion doesn't happen because the HMRC will deal with it. Both are laughable." You really don’t like the fact that they’re majority home grown, do you? Why is that? I mean I dislike all extremists, no matter whether they’re born. You seem more intent on closing borders than accepting that we may have a more significant issue with terrorists born here. It’s akin to those who want to stop immigration to protect our women and children whilst ignoring the home grown sex abuse cases which form the vast majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, they are extremists and guys like Andrew Tate are scumbags. But one of these problems can be stopped easily by getting a hold on immigration." How does getting a hold on immigration help young men born here from feeling disassociated with their peers or angry at society? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You really don’t like the fact that they’re majority home grown, do you? Why is that? " More like, irrelevant. Second generation immigrants being extremist is still a problem you can solve by controlling immigration. " You seem more intent on closing borders than accepting that we may have a more significant issue with terrorists born here. " If we can do it to prevent COVID, why can't we do it to prevent extremism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, they are extremists and guys like Andrew Tate are scumbags. But one of these problems can be stopped easily by getting a hold on immigration. How does getting a hold on immigration help young men born here from feeling disassociated with their peers or angry at society? " Because they are still second generation immigrants. And second generation immigrants being more extremists doesn't mean that first generation immigrants aren't extremists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, they are extremists and guys like Andrew Tate are scumbags. But one of these problems can be stopped easily by getting a hold on immigration. How does getting a hold on immigration help young men born here from feeling disassociated with their peers or angry at society? Because they are still second generation immigrants. And second generation immigrants being more extremists doesn't mean that first generation immigrants aren't extremists." You still haven’t dealt with the second generation immigrants who are extremists (which once again, are more likely to be a risk than ‘foreign’ extremists. Do you believe that society has a an unknowing role in creating extremists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we can do it to prevent COVID, why can't we do it to prevent extremism? " *sigh* Covid was an unbending set of rules which didn’t discriminate against anyone, in order to prevent a virus which could infect and be carried by anyone, anywhere in the world, unseen. You want to ban a whole religion from entering a country because a tiny minority of its so called followers have extreme views. Your inability to comprehend the difference is quite telling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we can do it to prevent COVID, why can't we do it to prevent extremism? *sigh* Covid was an unbending set of rules which didn’t discriminate against anyone, " It did. We had different rules for different countries. " in order to prevent a virus which could infect and be carried by anyone, anywhere in the world, unseen. " Like extremism, more common from some countries but is carried around unseen. " You want to ban a whole religion from entering a country because a tiny minority of its so called followers have extreme views. " "Tiny minority" is a bit reaching. But if we can do it for COVID, why not? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You still haven’t dealt with the second generation immigrants who are extremists (which once again, are more likely to be a risk than ‘foreign’ extremists. " If you reduce first generation immigrants, second generation immigrants also go down. Again, second generation immigrants from some countries being more extremist than the first generation doesn't mean that the first generation are less extremist in the absolute terms. " Do you believe that society has a an unknowing role in creating extremists? " Yes, in this case, it's religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know any Indian people who would say that Pakistani people shouldn't be welcome in the UK because they have extremist fractions and vis versa, how about your thoughts on this subject 🤔 Of course people have their opinions because they see each other as threat. If they can vote and change our policies, all power to them." You do know that Winston Churchill, widely regarded as the greatest leader (not my opinion, but that's another subject),said that Indian people were worthless of being regarded as humans, do you mean that kind of view?. Also further to YOUR interpretation of Islam, what are your views on the many Muslims that have given their life for British during many different conflicts/wars, or had their lives taken by British troops in the middle east? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You still haven’t dealt with the second generation immigrants who are extremists (which once again, are more likely to be a risk than ‘foreign’ extremists. If you reduce first generation immigrants, second generation immigrants also go down. Again, second generation immigrants from some countries being more extremist than the first generation doesn't mean that the first generation are less extremist in the absolute terms. Do you believe that society has a an unknowing role in creating extremists? Yes, in this case, it's religion." So I have just seen that you identify as Indian, what level generation are you, should the government send you and your family back to India,should I be concerned that you might be a non desirable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You still haven’t dealt with the second generation immigrants who are extremists (which once again, are more likely to be a risk than ‘foreign’ extremists. If you reduce first generation immigrants, second generation immigrants also go down. Again, second generation immigrants from some countries being more extremist than the first generation doesn't mean that the first generation are less extremist in the absolute terms. Do you believe that society has a an unknowing role in creating extremists? Yes, in this case, it's religion." Your views are not compatible with British values. Isn’t that a criticism often thrown at immigramts? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your views are not compatible with British values. Isn’t that a criticism often thrown at immigramts? " Which British value? Is it a British value to tolerate violent extremists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You do know that Winston Churchill, widely regarded as the greatest leader (not my opinion, but that's another subject),said that Indian people were worthless of being regarded as humans, do you mean that kind of view? " Show me any politician from that time. I will dig up some dirt about them that will fail them in the modern test for morality. " Also further to YOUR interpretation of Islam, what are your views on the many Muslims that have given their life for British during many different conflicts/wars, or had their lives taken by British troops in the middle east?" Yes, there are many non-violent Muslims. When did I ever deny that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One or two contributors on here seem to be of the view that the source of extreme violence comes from only some ‘other’ religions. I’d like to remind them that many Jewish people believe today that the Holocaust was the result of a long history of antisemitism, during which the Christian church played a significant role. Don’t like getting into whataboutery but when it comes to the industrialization of mass murder on a scale fortunately not witnessed since it’s got to be acknowledged the role Christian individuals and institutions played in that. The problem with ideologues is they are either ignorant of history or choose selective bits from it to support their point of view. What they don’t fully appreciate is that it’s so easily spotted and called out. " If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, in this case, it's religion. So I have just seen that you identify as Indian, what level generation are you, should the government send you and your family back to India,should I be concerned that you might be a non desirable?" I am not sure I understand this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your views are not compatible with British values. Isn’t that a criticism often thrown at immigramts? Which British value? Is it a British value to tolerate violent extremists?" It’s a British value to show mutual respect and tolerance, Including other religions and beliefs. You’ve failed to do that repeatedly. I thought you wanted people to respect British values? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life?" Religions or individuals? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? " Individuals belonging to some religions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your views are not compatible with British values. Isn’t that a criticism often thrown at immigramts? Which British value? Is it a British value to tolerate violent extremists? It’s a British value to show mutual respect and tolerance, Including other religions and beliefs. You’ve failed to do that repeatedly. " Ever heard of paradox of tolerance? Tolerance doesn't mean you have to be tolerant to the intolerant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions." So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your views are not compatible with British values. Isn’t that a criticism often thrown at immigramts? Which British value? Is it a British value to tolerate violent extremists? It’s a British value to show mutual respect and tolerance, Including other religions and beliefs. You’ve failed to do that repeatedly. Ever heard of paradox of tolerance? Tolerance doesn't mean you have to be tolerant to the intolerant." Are you accusing all within a religion of being intolerant? You have suggested all members of one religion be banned from coming to the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? " Do you see people getting violently attacked for offending other religions? A teacher is living in hiding still for a picture he drew 5 years ago. Which other religion has this problem today? Not to mention the stories of Salman Rushdie and what happened to the translators of his book. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"One or two contributors on here seem to be of the view that the source of extreme violence comes from only some ‘other’ religions. I’d like to remind them that many Jewish people believe today that the Holocaust was the result of a long history of antisemitism, during which the Christian church played a significant role. Don’t like getting into whataboutery but when it comes to the industrialization of mass murder on a scale fortunately not witnessed since it’s got to be acknowledged the role Christian individuals and institutions played in that. The problem with ideologues is they are either ignorant of history or choose selective bits from it to support their point of view. What they don’t fully appreciate is that it’s so easily spotted and called out. If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life?" Ask any woman in the US right now about her reproductive rights and the threat she is under by Christian evangelicals. Does that fit under your definition of a life being threatened? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Are you accusing all within a religion of being intolerant? " No " You have suggested all members of one religion be banned from coming to the UK. " Just like we restricted immigration from certain countries during Covid though not all of them have Covid, we can restrict immigration from countries where most extremists come from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? " In the present day landscape, do you genuinely not have a view on the answer to the question you’re asking, or are you being deliberately tone deaf to the obvious differences? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ask any woman in the US right now about her reproductive rights and the threat she is under by Christian evangelicals. Does that fit under your definition of a life being threatened? " I know that abortion is illegal in some states which is done in a democratic way. Not the same as extra judicial violence. Again. A simple test. If you go out and burn every religious book out there, which one will put you in danger? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? Do you see people getting violently attacked for offending other religions? A teacher is living in hiding still for a picture he drew 5 years ago. Which other religion has this problem today? Not to mention the stories of Salman Rushdie and what happened to the translators of his book." There are violent attacks from all religions in every decade. A Google search is all it takes. You seem to have difficulty in separating individuals from religions, don’t you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There are violent attacks from all religions in every decade. A Google search is all it takes. " I already said that religious extremism has happened with every religion in the past. We are talking about the present. If you go out and burn every religious book out there, which one will put you in danger? " You seem to have difficulty in separating individuals from religions, don’t you? " Just like COVID... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? In the present day landscape, do you genuinely not have a view on the answer to the question you’re asking, or are you being deliberately tone deaf to the obvious differences?" No, I’m pointing out the very real point that extremists don’t speak for an entire religion. Never have and never will. Unlike some on this forum, I don’t hold one religion in particular disdain whilst ignoring others. Do you believe we should ban immigration from a whole religion based upon the actions of a few extremists, as our friend does? And if so, would you ban all Baptists based upon the actuoks of the westboro church? If you’d ban *all* of one religion but not *all* of the other, you’re displaying religious intolerance and bigotry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ask any woman in the US right now about her reproductive rights and the threat she is under by Christian evangelicals. Does that fit under your definition of a life being threatened? I know that abortion is illegal in some states which is done in a democratic way. Not the same as extra judicial violence. Again. A simple test. If you go out and burn every religious book out there, which one will put you in danger?" Seems to me your ducking the issue. I am free to burn any religious text I wish to. Are you being a snowflake again and afraid to do it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you go out and burn every religious book out there, which one will put you in danger? " “if you go out and commit an attention seeking public act of religious intolerance against all faiths, which one will upset people?” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I know that abortion is illegal in some states which is done in a democratic way. " Removing women’s bodily autonomy is never democratic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? In the present day landscape, do you genuinely not have a view on the answer to the question you’re asking, or are you being deliberately tone deaf to the obvious differences? No, I’m pointing out the very real point that extremists don’t speak for an entire religion. Never have and never will. Unlike some on this forum, I don’t hold one religion in particular disdain whilst ignoring others. Do you believe we should ban immigration from a whole religion based upon the actions of a few extremists, as our friend does? And if so, would you ban all Baptists based upon the actuoks of the westboro church? If you’d ban *all* of one religion but not *all* of the other, you’re displaying religious intolerance and bigotry. " You're swerving or not understanding the question.. The question is, in the present day landscape, do you believe the threat from extremists in response to perceived religious offence is equivalent across religions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, in this case, it's religion. So I have just seen that you identify as Indian, what level generation are you, should the government send you and your family back to India,should I be concerned that you might be a non desirable? I am not sure I understand this." When can you trace back to when you or your family emigrated to the UK, are you 2nd, 3rd, 4th, generation immigrant?,you seem to equate certain level immigrants with higher levels of being having more extremist views and more likely to be a terrorist 🤔 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Again. A simple test. If you go out and burn every religious book out there, which one will put you in danger? Seems to me your ducking the issue. I am free to burn any religious text I wish to. Are you being a snowflake again and afraid to do it? " You are the one who is ducking the issue. If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban is same as Coskun in the UK being attacked for burning Quran, a teacher living in hiding for five years just because he drew a picture and Salman Rushdie and translators of Satanic Verses being murdered all around the world over a fatwa issued two decades back, I am sorry, I can't help you much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? In the present day landscape, do you genuinely not have a view on the answer to the question you’re asking, or are you being deliberately tone deaf to the obvious differences? No, I’m pointing out the very real point that extremists don’t speak for an entire religion. Never have and never will. Unlike some on this forum, I don’t hold one religion in particular disdain whilst ignoring others. Do you believe we should ban immigration from a whole religion based upon the actions of a few extremists, as our friend does? And if so, would you ban all Baptists based upon the actuoks of the westboro church? If you’d ban *all* of one religion but not *all* of the other, you’re displaying religious intolerance and bigotry. You're swerving or not understanding the question.. The question is, in the present day landscape, do you believe the threat from extremists in response to perceived religious offence is equivalent across religions?" No, that’s not the question at all, you’ve leapt in midway through a conversation trying to make a point. In response however, at present Extremist Islam is undoubtedly a higher threat than other religions, but is banning Islamic immigration a justifiable response to that? And if you feel it is, then you have to accept that you’re displaying an intolerance of an entire religion based upon a minority of people who *claim* to represent that religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" “if you go out and commit an attention seeking public act of religious intolerance against all faiths, which one will upset people?” " It was a simple question. Everyone in this thread knows the answer to what I asked and none of you have the balls to admit it because it goes against the narrative you are trying to build. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" “if you go out and commit an attention seeking public act of religious intolerance against all faiths, which one will upset people?” It was a simple question. Everyone in this thread knows the answer to what I asked and none of you have the balls to admit it because it goes against the narrative you are trying to build." You’ve built your own narrative. You allow the extremists in one religion to taint your view of the whole religion, but don’t extend the same intolerance to other religions based upon their own extremists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When can you trace back to when you or your family emigrated to the UK, are you 2nd, 3rd, 4th, generation immigrant?,you seem to equate certain level immigrants with higher levels of being having more extremist views and more likely to be a terrorist 🤔 " I was talking about blocking immigration. If I plan to immigrate to a country and that country has faced violent threats from Indians because of which they banned all immigration from India, I would totally understand it. End of the day, self protection is of highest importance for any individual or society. There are many countries in the middle east that won't let you in even if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport. Are they all bigots? Or is it a valid thing to do for national security? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban" That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You’ve built your own narrative. You allow the extremists in one religion to taint your view of the whole religion, but don’t extend the same intolerance to other religions based upon their own extremists. " I asked you a simple question to show that the levels of extremism are different in different religions today. As expected, you refuse to answer that simple question. At this point, it's open knowledge that only some people like you hate to admit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? " Maybe you should read the messages before you reply? Voting in favour of abortion ban isn't the same as resorting to extra judicial violence just because someone drew a picture. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? Maybe you should read the messages before you reply? Voting in favour of abortion ban isn't the same as resorting to extra judicial violence just because someone drew a picture." Who voted for abortion bans? You said it was democratic but as soon as you said “Christian evangelicals in the US voting…” it was clear that you had no idea about what has gone on in the USA. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? Maybe you should read the messages before you reply? Voting in favour of abortion ban isn't the same as resorting to extra judicial violence just because someone drew a picture." Attacking a woman’s bodily autonomy - where does that rank in your scale of acceptable behaviour? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? Maybe you should read the messages before you reply? Voting in favour of abortion ban isn't the same as resorting to extra judicial violence just because someone drew a picture. Attacking a woman’s bodily autonomy - where does that rank in your scale of acceptable behaviour?" Did someone physically attack a woman? The mental gymnastics you are doing is hilarious | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? Maybe you should read the messages before you reply? Voting in favour of abortion ban isn't the same as resorting to extra judicial violence just because someone drew a picture. Attacking a woman’s bodily autonomy - where does that rank in your scale of acceptable behaviour? Did someone physically attack a woman? The mental gymnastics you are doing is hilarious "You don’t think a woman pregnant through (words I’m not allowed to use here) being forced to carry a child to full term and go through childbirth is an attack on her body? That really is some mental gymnastics yourself, fella. And with that level of abhorrent bullshit, I’m out. You actually disgust me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If you think that Christian evangelicals in the US voting for abortion ban That’s not what happened though, is it? Did you know that some states in the USA have more restrictive abortion laws than Islamic teachings? Maybe you should read the messages before you reply? Voting in favour of abortion ban isn't the same as resorting to extra judicial violence just because someone drew a picture. Attacking a woman’s bodily autonomy - where does that rank in your scale of acceptable behaviour? Did someone physically attack a woman? The mental gymnastics you are doing is hilarious "Yes at the recent Reform conference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You don’t think a woman pregnant through (words I’m not allowed to use here) being forced to carry a child to full term and go through childbirth is an attack on her body? " I am pro-choice. But comparing people democratically voting on this matter with some thugs physically attacking people over books and drawings is laughable. " You actually disgust me. " As you have been told before, no one cares about your opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When can you trace back to when you or your family emigrated to the UK, are you 2nd, 3rd, 4th, generation immigrant?,you seem to equate certain level immigrants with higher levels of being having more extremist views and more likely to be a terrorist 🤔 I was talking about blocking immigration. If I plan to immigrate to a country and that country has faced violent threats from Indians because of which they banned all immigration from India, I would totally understand it. End of the day, self protection is of highest importance for any individual or society. There are many countries in the middle east that won't let you in even if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport. Are they all bigots? Or is it a valid thing to do for national security?" Ah so now we start bringing Israelis into the conversation and now should we kick out all Jews, because of the actions of the idf and the on going genocide happening today in Palestine 74,000 women and children killed since 2023,and the 250,000 injured, when will the scales balance, for the October 7th Hamas attack,you seem to have a view and vision that wouldn't of gone out of place in 1930's Germany | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If we dig up the history, every religion can be found out this way. We are talking about today. If you go out and do something that offends every religion, which of the religions will threaten your life? Religions or individuals? Individuals belonging to some religions. So do you believe that there’s only one religion in which individuals will become aggressive if you offend their text? In the present day landscape, do you genuinely not have a view on the answer to the question you’re asking, or are you being deliberately tone deaf to the obvious differences? No, I’m pointing out the very real point that extremists don’t speak for an entire religion. Never have and never will. Unlike some on this forum, I don’t hold one religion in particular disdain whilst ignoring others. Do you believe we should ban immigration from a whole religion based upon the actions of a few extremists, as our friend does? And if so, would you ban all Baptists based upon the actuoks of the westboro church? If you’d ban *all* of one religion but not *all* of the other, you’re displaying religious intolerance and bigotry. You're swerving or not understanding the question.. The question is, in the present day landscape, do you believe the threat from extremists in response to perceived religious offence is equivalent across religions? No, that’s not the question at all, you’ve leapt in midway through a conversation trying to make a point. In response however, at present Extremist Islam is undoubtedly a higher threat than other religions, but is banning Islamic immigration a justifiable response to that? And if you feel it is, then you have to accept that you’re displaying an intolerance of an entire religion based upon a minority of people who *claim* to represent that religion. " Interesting point of view. Now turn that argument 180 and ask yourself whether prejudgements about Israel being directed at Jews are valid. If an entire religion shouldn’t be judged by the actions of a minority claiming to represent it, individual Jews shouldn’t be judged by actions of the Israeli state either? Once you have grappled with that, consider the other side of your argument. You have acknowledged that Islamist extremism presents a greater threat than extremism from other religions. How is that threat managed without allowing it to become a judgement of all Muslims? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
