4 out of 5 refugees not syrian????

“Only one in every five migrants claiming asylum in Europe is from Syria”
Daily Mail, 18 September 2015
“Claim that Syrians make up ‘only’ one in every five asylum seekers arriving in Europe is flawed”
Guardian, 19 September 2015

Tommy Monk wrote:Africans should be returned to the African union to deal with...

Those from middle east should be handed over to the Arab league to deal with.

Tommy Monk wrote:Africans should be returned to the African union to deal with...

Those from middle east should be handed over to the Arab league to deal with.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Africans should be returned to the African union to deal with...

Those from middle east should be handed over to the Arab league to deal with.

Well, but tommy you are a racist.  Racist opinions don't count.

That would be like letting a convicted convict vote.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, but tommy you are a racist.  Racist opinions don't count.

That would be like letting a convicted convict vote.

Of course his opinion counts. Some might say that you're racist against white people, so your opinion shouldn't count.

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not about racism, it is about common sense and the nations being responsible for their own people... especially as we hand out £12 billion a year to many of them to help them sort their own shit out...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course his opinion counts. Some might say that you're racist against white people, so your opinion shouldn't count.

You can't be racist against those who already have status and privilege.  It's a contradiction in terms.

Besides, white is not even another race.  It's out of the question, by definition.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't be racist against those who already have status and privilege.  It's a contradiction in terms.

Besides, white is not even another race.  It's out of the question, by definition.

Sure you can be racist against white people, and you are.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure you can be racist against white people, and you are.

It's impossible for two reasons:

1.  Racism by definition criticizes another race, so neither of us can be racist when it comes to whites;

2.  Racism involves the act, or criticism of a race that has been traditionally downtrodden.  It has no meaning if there is no disparagement behind it.  Whites have always been privileged and have the higher social status.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's impossible for two reasons:

1.  Racism by definition criticizes another race, so neither of us can be racist when it comes to whites;

2.  Racism involves the act, or criticism of a race that has been traditionally downtrodden.  It has no meaning if there is no disparagement behind it.  Whites have always been privileged and have the higher social status.

I'm sure you said that black police officers can be racist against black people.

I see you bought into the excuses that some non-white people came up with in order to justify their racism. I'm surprised you fell for that nonsense.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm sure you said that black police officers can be racist against black people.

I see you bought into the excuses that some non-white people came up with in order to justify their racism. I'm surprised you fell for that nonsense.

No, I said a white-guided police institution can be prejudiced against blacks.  Listen carefully next time.

The simple fact is that racism is not in any calculus, but in history.  You can’t rewrite history at this late date.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, I said a white-guided police institution can be prejudiced against blacks.  Listen carefully next time.

The simple fact is that racism is not in any calculus, but in history.  You can’t rewrite history at this late date.

You said that black people discriminate against other black people, and you justified that by saying they are following orders from a white person.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I don't agree with you, and I never will.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said that black people discriminate against other black people, and you justified that by saying they are following orders from a white person.

Right, that's how institutions work.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I don't agree with you, and I never will.

That's why we'll always have work to do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right, that's how institutions work.



That's why we'll always have work to do.

You'll have your work cut out because a lot of people aren't taken in by your bullshit.

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, you believe in conditional equality - that is, you think some people should be treated more favourably to make up for some real or imagined slight that may or may not have happened to their great grandfather or whoever. I don't think that way.

Stanford Encclopedia wrote:According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of equality, numerical and proportional (Aristotle,Nicomachean Ethics, 1130b-1132b; cf. Plato, Laws, VI.757b-c). A form of treatment of others or as a result of it a distribution is equal numerically when it treats all persons as indistinguishable, thus treating them identically or granting them the same quantity of a good per capita. That is not always just. In contrast, a form of treatment of others or distribution is proportional or relatively equal when it treats all relevant persons in relation to their due. Just numerical equality is a special case of proportional equality. Numerical equality is only just under special circumstances, viz. when persons are equal in the relevant respects so that the relevant proportions are equal. Proportional equality further specifies formal equality; it is the more precise and detailed, hence actually the more comprehensive formulation of formal equality. It indicates what produces an adequate equality.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't hold with compensating people for something which didn't actually happen to them. Equality should be "simple". For example, everyone has the right to an education, and they can make what they will of that - it's up to them if they choose to chuck it away or not.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't hold with compensating people for something which didn't actually happen to them. Equality should be "simple". For example, everyone has the right to an education, and they can make what they will of that - it's up to them if they choose to chuck it away or not.

You wouldn't please your banker.  Equality should not only be simple, but it should be just.  Equality can mean only one thing.  Equal treatment for all.  But you don't want to abide by that.

If you were confronting a banker, he or she would feel it is only just to repay what you took from him or her.  Not only that, but he or she would demand interest...a fee for your temporary possession of it.

But you don't want to pay your debts.  You want to start off each day with a clean slate.  Oh sure, you want to keep that new car or renovated kitchen that you used the money for, but you don't want to pay your debts.

Well, we don't have a system where you can do that.  Your banker calls it cheating.  Or he might even call it theft.  You took something from him, and now you don't want to give it back.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You wouldn't please your banker.  Equality should not only be simple, but it should be just.  Equality can mean only one thing.  Equal treatment for all.  But you don't want to abide by that.

If you were confronting a banker, he or she would feel it is only just to repay what you took from him or her.  Not only that, but he or she would demand interest...a fee for your temporary possession of it.

But you don't want to pay your debts.  You want to start off each day with a clean slate.  Oh sure, you want to keep that new car or renovated kitchen that you used the money for, but you don't want to pay your debts.

Well, we don't have a system where you can do that.  Your banker calls it cheating.  Or he might even call it theft.  You took something from him, and now you don't want to give it back.

Clearly, I would be paying interest on a loan to the bank which actually lent me the money, so it's a direct pay back for being able to benefit from that loan. That doesn't mean that I should pay interest for the loans which others took out.

It's you who doesn't want equal treatment for all - you want some people to be treated more favourably to make up for something which didn't even happen to them, and you want people who didn't do anything wrong to be treated less favourably.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, but tommy you are a racist.  Racist opinions don't count.

That would be like letting a convicted convict vote.

Of course his opinion counts. Some might say that you're racist against white people, so your opinion shouldn't count.

You can't be racist against those who already have status and privilege.  It's a contradiction in terms.

Besides, white is not even another race.  It's out of the question, by definition.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Clearly, I would be paying interest on a loan to the bank which actually lent me the money, so it's a direct pay back for being able to benefit from that loan. That doesn't mean that I should pay interest for the loans which others took out.

It's you who doesn't want equal treatment for all - you want some people to be treated more favourably to make up for something which didn't even happen to them, and you want people who didn't do anything wrong to be treated less favourably.

Have you ever heard of something called inheritance?  It goes both ways.  When banking laws were first enacted, debt went by way of inheritance too.  And there is no reason why the equity of it still shouldn't maintain.

Have you ever heard of the Madoff Investment Scandal?  Let us suppose Madoff is your father, and he dies.  Do you, by inheritance, get to cut off the claims of those other people he cheated?  Do you honestly believe you get to keep that $10-million Chippendale set that he bought with those illicit funds?

Dream on.  The court will have the repossessor on your doorstep the next day. A lot of social theory relies upon the same metaphor.  We have a social contract.  It allows you to borrow something of value.  But when you do, you've got to pay it back.  If the value goes through probate and you inherit it, it's nonetheless traceable.  Try as you might, you can't keep it.

The argument is even stronger when you stole something, like Madoff did.  Slavery was a matter of theft...the theft of generations of lives, and their labor.  Now, it's simply being repossessed.

One way t'other...ya gotta pay the piper.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't be racist against those who already have status and privilege.  It's a contradiction in terms.

Besides, white is not even another race.  It's out of the question, by definition.

So a black person can't be racist toward a white person because the white person has "status and privilege"?

Can you hear how absurd that sounds?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't be racist against those who already have status and privilege.  It's a contradiction in terms.

Besides, white is not even another race.  It's out of the question, by definition.

So a black person can't be racist toward a white person because the white person has "status and privilege"?

Can you hear how absurd that sounds?

It's what some black people in the US say as well - it's like they're all reading from a script, and Quill has got hold of the same script.

In his world, a black man who has a nice job, loads of money, etc, is still a victim because he's black, and a white man who's homeless and broke is still privileged because he's white.

He's mad.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't be racist against those who already have status and privilege.  It's a contradiction in terms.

Besides, white is not even another race.  It's out of the question, by definition.

So a black person can't be racist toward a white person because the white person has "status and privilege"?

Can you hear how absurd that sounds?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

So a black person can't be racist toward a white person because the white person has "status and privilege"?

Can you hear how absurd that sounds?

It's what some black people in the US say as well - it's like they're all reading from a script, and Quill has got hold of the same script.

In his world, a black man who has a nice job, loads of money, etc, is still a victim because he's black, and a white man who's homeless and broke is still privileged because he's white.

veya wrote:The problem with Quills logic is the individualist, it is not really about individuals it is about systems. A rich educated black man is not a victim of the system, although he may be the victim of individual racist actions. Similarly a homeless white man is not a victim of the system because he is white, but he may be a victim of the system due to some other reason (mental health being a common one).

the first years of the 19th century, the United States of America and some European nations fought and won the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War against the pirates. The Barbary Wars were a direct response of the British, French and the Dutch states to the raids and white slave trade by the Barbary pirates which finally ended in the 1830s when the region was conquered by France. The white slave trade and markets in the Mediterranean declined and eventually disappeared after the European occupations. After an Anglo-Dutch raid in 1816 on Algiers immobilized most of the Pirate fleet, the Dey of Algiers was forced to agree to terms which included a cessation of the practice of enslaving Christians, although slave trading in non-Europeans could still continue. After losing in this period of formal hostilities with European and American powers, the Barbary states went into decline. However, the Barbary pirates did not cease their operations, and another British raid on Algiers took place in 1824. Finally, France invaded Algiers in 1830, placing it under colonial rule. Tunis was similarly invaded by France in 1881.

veya wrote:well you gave an example of an Individual Madoff and his son an individual.
IF they are racist it is as individuals and then it is an issue for legislation to deal with (punished, one would hope)
Institutional racism is different in that it is what occurs when the legislation doesn't exist in the first place, or like school funding, exists but with inbuilt inequality

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

So a black person can't be racist toward a white person because the white person has "status and privilege"?

Can you hear how absurd that sounds?

Not as absurd as your background of slavery, and the consequence of institutional racism we have today.

FGS don't blame me for bringing the message to you.  The facts are those that your ancestors brought about.  Think of the gall they must have had for even thinking of it.

You are in denial.  I understand.  But you can't deny the logic.  If only your ancestors knew what they were creating.  But then I only have so much sympathy to go around...I have very little for the whites.

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:well you gave an example of an Individual Madoff and his son an individual.
IF they are racist it is as individuals and then it is an issue for legislation to deal with (punished, one would hope)
Institutional racism is different in that it is what occurs when the legislation doesn't exist in the first place, or like school funding, exists but with inbuilt inequality

Perhaps you lost sight of the fact that I was making a metaphor, which used an individual case to exemplify the social case.  What I was putting across is the idea that inheritance cannot be used to escape a larceny.  You cannot take ill-gotten gains merely because those gains were passed on.

If you want to complete the metaphor, the crime is slavery and later generations may not claim the advantage that they gained from their privileged position.  They have a debt of restitution to pay.

So that's the metaphor carried from the individual, into the social setting.  Where it becomes institutional is where the privileges are ingrained for the whites, while the disadvantages are likewise ingrained for the blacks.  I'm talking about education, law enforcement (of which we have just seen dozens of examples), job opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

The inheritance is in the institutions.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Perhaps you lost sight of the fact that I was making a metaphor, which used an individual case to exemplify the social case.  What I was putting across is the idea that inheritance cannot be used to escape a larceny.  You cannot take ill-gotten gains merely because those gains were passed on.

If you want to complete the metaphor, the crime is slavery and later generations may not claim the advantage that they gained from their privileged position.  They have a debt of restitution to pay.

So that's the metaphor carried from the individual, into the social setting.  Where it becomes institutional is where the privileges are ingrained for the whites, while the disadvantages are likewise ingrained for the blacks.  I'm talking about education, law enforcement (of which we have just seen dozens of examples), job opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

The inheritance is in the institutions.

It's no wonder there are still so many racial issues in the US. You're constantly segregating people according to their skin colour, you're apportioning blame to people who have done nothing wrong, and you're saying they should "pay" for something they didn't do, and you're also constantly telling others that they're victims, even if they're perfectly happy. You're telling little black children that they're victims from the moment they're born simply because of their skin colour. Do you expect them to grow up to feel equal after you've done that?

Your way doesn't work - it causes resentment and also a sense of victimhood which isn't justified.  

You need to move on and get with the programme.

eddie wrote:No one is disputing how blacks are treated in certain parts of the U.S.

But quill, quite actively, derides and mocks while people??!!

Can you not see that, that behaviour towards white people (and most of us aren't racist on here) is just as bad as the way the KKK look down upon blacks???

Quill is a racist. I don't ever use that word lightly either.
Quite frankly, he's more racist than Tommy comes across because as least Tommy owns it.
Closet racists are the worst.

And yep, I think quill is a black man with a big fucking chip on his shoulders.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's no wonder there are still so many racial issues in the US. You're constantly segregating people according to their skin colour, you're apportioning blame to people who have done nothing wrong, and you're saying they should "pay" for something they didn't do, and you're also constantly telling others that they're victims, even if they're perfectly happy. You're telling little black children that they're victims from the moment they're born simply because of their skin colour. Do you expect them to grow up to feel equal after you've done that?

Your way doesn't work - it causes resentment and also a sense of victimhood which isn't justified.  

You need to move on and get with the programme.

And the above also is clueless not understanding there is a still a massive disparity on how whites and blacks are treated in America.
Trying to brush it under the carpet does not resolve anything.
You need to stop trying to defend discrmination.
The fact is there is not equality for groups in the US.
For too long it has been a White racist Christian ethos that has dominated society which still derives back to slavery and within the South not recognising defeat within a Civil war. You need to stop talking shite about something you clearly know next to nothing about.

eddie wrote:No one is disputing how blacks are treated in certain parts of the U.S.

But quill, quite actively, derides and mocks while people??!!

Can you not see that, that behaviour towards white people (and most of us aren't racist on here) is just as bad as the way the KKK look down upon blacks???

Quill is a racist. I don't ever use that word lightly either.
Quite frankly, he's more racist than Tommy comes across because as least Tommy owns it.
Closet racists are the worst.

And yep, I think quill is a black man with a big fucking chip on his shoulders.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

And the above also is clueless not understanding there is a still a massive disparity on how whites and blacks are treated in America.
Trying to brush it under the carpet does not resolve anything.
You need to stop trying to defend discrmination.
The fact is there is not equality for groups in the US.
For too long it has been a White racist Christian ethos that has dominated society which still derives back to slavery and within the South not recognising defeat within a Civil war. You need to stop talking shite about something you clearly know next to nothing about.

My point is that the blame game is actually fuelling the problem. See my post above.

If you can't think outside of the box, that's your problem.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My point is that the blame game is actually fuelling the problem. See my post above.

If you can't think outside of the box, that's your problem.

Well some people are to blame and of which needs to be recognised not swept under the carpet as has been done for years.
You cannot think full stop.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Well some people are to blame and of which needs to be recognised not swept under the carpet as has been done for years.
You cannot think full stop.

You're just following Quill's line with no thoughts of your own. You're not the first to do so, and you won't be the last. You need to expand your thinking and stop kowtowing to those who are actually contributing to the problem - ie, people like Quill.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're just following Quill's line with no thoughts of your own. You're not the first to do so, and you won't be the last. You need to expand your thinking and stop kowtowing to those who are actually contributing to the problem - ie, people like Quill.

Just now offering deflections to your views on me, which is nothing more than immature drivel.
You have the least ability to think on anything and are just a bittewr negative individual. So spare me your pathetic bullshit on expanding the mind, because your ability to think is one dimentional at the best of times.
So grow up you little brat and debate the points which you have now avoided for a second time.
You do not brush uinder tha carpets problems and you do look for the cause of the blame and recognise that so its dealt with.
I also differ to Quill on views he has here. As to me there is blakc on white racism.


Do you understand how such an ethos was formed in the US which still exists today?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Just now offering deflections to your views on me, which is nothing more than immature drivel.
You have the least ability to think on anything and are just a bittewr negative individual. So spare me your pathetic bullshit on expanding the mind, because your ability to think is one dimentional at the best of times.
So grow up you little brat and debate the points which you have now avoided for a second time.
You do not brush uinder tha carpets problems and you do look for the cause of the blame and recognise that so its dealt with.
I also differ to Quill on views he has here. As to me there is blakc on white racism.


Do you understand how such an ethos was formed in the US which still exists today?

So you saying that I "cannot think" isn't a deflection?
No relevance more excuses

Get a grip Didge. You just follow what some others say because you want to impress them, and you cannot think for yourself. You come out with the same shit day after day, and I don't think you even believe it yourself.
No relevance more excuses

You and Quill are the bitter ones, and the negative ones. Think outside of the box, and you'll see that your views are causing half the problems because of your negative views.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you saying that I "cannot think" isn't a deflection?
No relevance more excuses

Get a grip Didge. You just follow what some others say because you want to impress them, and you cannot think for yourself. You come out with the same shit day after day, and I don't think you even believe it yourself.
No relevance more excuses

You and Quill are the bitter ones, and the negative ones. Think outside of the box, and you'll see that your views are causing half the problems because of your negative views.

No relevance more excuses


Do you understand how such an ethos was formed in the US which still exists today?


Last chance, as I am not going to dance around why you act like a child, either debate the points or jog the fuck on, that is now the thrid post you have made not addressing a single point I made,

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:
No relevance more excuses


Do you understand how such an ethos was formed in the US which still exists today?


Last chance, as I am not going to dance around why you act like a child, either debate the points or jog the fuck on, that is now the thrid post you have made not addressing a single point I made,

You do like demanding things from others don't you? If you don't like my posts you are free to jog on and talk to someone else. I won't change my views to suit you. I wasn't even talking to you in the first place - you say the same things over and over again, and you have no original thoughts in your brain whatsoever. Basically, you're a waste of space.