If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner

by Guest Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner
Living in a mixed area makes us more tolerant, not less, studies show. That fact must be part of the immigration debate

Passive tolerance is probably not a concept many people have yet heard of. Let's hope that changes, because "passive tolerance" is the most hopeful bit of academic social psychology research to emerge in a long time. It is the idea that simply living in an area of high diversity rubs off on you, making you more tolerant of ethnic diversity.

Think of all those tiny interactions between different ethnic groups on an average British city street: the newsagent, the corner shop, the delivery driver, the postman, friends laughing, children playing, a pair of lovers. This is what generates passive tolerance. You don't have to be part of the interaction yourself; just witnessing it is enough to have a significant impact – comparable to the effect passive smoking has on your health, hence the term passive tolerance.

This is the finding of seven studies carried out over 10 years in the United States, Europe and South Africa, led by a team of social psychologists at the University of Oxford and published in the journal of the United States National Academy of Sciences. They were careful to rule out the most obvious explanation for their finding, social psychologists Miles Hewstone and Katharina Schmid explain – namely, that the higher levels of tolerance in more diverse neighbourhoods are a result of more tolerant people choosing to live there. Two of the studies were conducted over several years and tracked the same individuals, showing how attitudes changed. Even prejudiced people showed a greater degree of tolerance over time if they lived in a mixed neighbourhood.

The study's positive message is reinforced by the finding of a separate study led by the same Oxford team – the biggest to date in England on diversity and trust. White British people were asked whether they felt ethnic minorities threatened their way of life, increased crime levels, or took their jobs; ethnic minority participants were asked the same questions. Both groups were then asked about how they interact with other groups in everyday situations, such as corner shops, and then about how much they trusted people from their own and other ethnic groups in their neighbourhood. What the study found was that distrust does rise in diverse communities, but day to day, direct contact cancels it out.

The two studies together point to a more optimistic reading of how diversity impacts on urban neighbourhoods.

The reason passive tolerance is politically so important is not hard to see. Sociology and social psychology have frequently been drafted in to the highly charged political debate about community, integration and multiculturalism. Key concepts and ideas take hold in the political sphere and become a rationale for policy. The danger is that oft-quoted ideas can become self-fulfilling. Perhaps the most influential in this area has been US sociologist Professor Robert Putnam, who said diversity has a negative impact on social capital, leading to people "hunkering down", and trust in strangers and neighbourhoods dropping significantly. "Hunkering down" has become a widely quoted phrase as a respectable way for liberals to articulate their growing concern in an increasingly toxic political debate on immigration.

The problematic issue for the left is that lower levels of trust have been linked to declining support for the welfare state. The theory is that if you are less likely to trust the people around you, you are less willing to have a sense of solidarity and so less likely to stump up the taxes to pay for other people's benefits.

The author David Goodhart, for instance, has seized upon Putnam's "hunkering down thesis as vindication of the controversial position he holds has long advanced. He routinely invokes Putnam to argue that the pace and scale of increasing diversity in the UK has been too great and, as he said in a recent interview, people "become less willing to share resources and do the things we require of people in a modern welfare state". The left faces a nasty conundrum as two of its most sacred shibboleths come into conflict: ethnic diversity and the solidarity necessary for a strong welfare state.

This new research throws these conclusions into question. Putnam's work may, after all, have been misleading. In fact, rather than hunkering down, living in a mixed neighbourhood helps you open up. In some ways this vindicates many people's anecdotal experience of their own enjoyment of diversity in their neighbourhoods, and the sense that the most pronounced fear and prejudice is found in exclusively white areas.

The research also vindicates the case for local initiatives to foster social exchange and build community relationships. From carnivals to coffee mornings, jumble sales to fun days in the park – all these are opportunities to generate passive tolerance. Sadly, however, many of these initiatives have fallen victim to local authority funding cuts. The impact of austerity has been compounded by a loss of confidence – in which Putnam's research played its part – about fostering strong diverse communities. Multiculturalism has fallen from favour, misunderstood and maligned as the set of ideas that guided community relations for a generation.

No one was more acutely aware of this danger than Putnam himself when he talked to me on the publication of his research in 2007, the timing made the danger all the more acute in the aftermath of 7/7 bombings. Since then the theme of integration has come to dominate – with its coercive and conformist overtones. The result has been a yawning gap with no positive narrative for the fast-changing diversity of Britain's urban life.

The hope is that this academic research will percolate into policy and public life, inspiring confidence again that strong diverse communities are not only possible, but can also work as beacons, converting residents and visitors alike to a possibility of rich exchange.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/16/passive-tolerance-beacon-hope-diverse-communities

Always said, live with people and the fear goes. If you don't mix you build up a bogey man in your head that simply doesn't exist in fact.

by Guest Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:52 pm

I'll read it and decide.....
though I realise that that is totally subjective......

by Guest Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:00 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well clearly you did not read my post., what do you call America, if it has no benefited from multiculturalism?
A failure?
I think not, you have benefited from great food, music, dance, literature, I could go on with the benefits, you though chose to ignore them, shame really

great food?? where what? grate music..my god man have you listened to "eastern" music...it sounds like a train smash in a tin can factory dance....uhm...no thanks...i just dont do "move it move it" or anything else of that nature...far too active old bean...literature...well now thats interesting...IS there ANY literature that has come here as a result of multiculturalism that is to say have any great works of literature been written HERE by another culture, as opposed to having arrived HERE, having been written THERE?
(defining multiculturalism as a "local" enforcement of two or more cultures together, rather than an an exchange of ideas across nations...)

I have no time now to answer in full, but anyone would think we only have eastern immigration they way you answer, are you saying soul comes from the east? Your perception is based on your own view of Muslims, not anyone else, when Multicultural does include many Non-Muslims as well, showing how flawed your argument on the matter is if all you have to argue with is things you associate with some Muslims. Yes great food has flooded our country, and happier for it, so has Music, in fact without the cultural influence we would not have had the decades of such great music. You have this perception your life is being changed, when it is not, it does not take much to get along with other people, that is called integration, try it sometime, you might find you are suprised how well you can get on with people, but as you admit to a reclusive lifestyle, then, no disrespect you are not the type of person to get along with many people, making you again an exception to the rule and not the norm, but then I would not associate countless English people based off your views alone.

I shall answer your other post tomorrow but again it is based upon exceptions, prejudice and fears all wrapped up with association fallacies

Night

by Guest Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:09 pm

Didge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

great food?? where what? grate music..my god man have you listened to "eastern" music...it sounds like a train smash in a tin can factory dance....uhm...no thanks...i just dont do "move it move it" or anything else of that nature...far too active old bean...literature...well now thats interesting...IS there ANY literature that has come here as a result of multiculturalism that is to say have any great works of literature been written HERE by another culture, as opposed to having arrived HERE, having been written THERE?
(defining multiculturalism as a "local" enforcement of two or more cultures together, rather than an an exchange of ideas across nations...)

I have no time now to answer in full, but anyone would think we only have eastern immigration they way you answer, are you saying soul comes from the east? Your perception is based on your own view of Muslims, not anyone else, when Multicultural does include many Non-Muslims as well, showing how flawed your argument on the matter is if all you have to argue with is things you associate with some Muslims. Yes great food has flooded our country, and happier for it, so has Music, in fact without the cultural influence we would not have had the decades of such great music. You have this perception your life is being changed, when it is not, it does not take much to get along with other people, that is called integration, try it sometime, you might find you are suprised how well you can get on with people, but as you admit to a reclusive lifestyle, then, no disrespect you are not the type of person to get along with many people, making you again an exception to the rule and not the norm, but then I would not associate countless English people based off your views alone.

I shall answer your other post tomorrow but again it is based upon exceptions, prejudice and fears all wrapped up with association fallacies

Night

hmm...you see thats where things become purely subjective...if you consider soul music great music, well happy for you...personally...yeauk...

what "great food" and, given the communications we have today, why is it necessarily a triumph of "multiculturalism"...I mean i can eat french, german, italian food, all without having a huge population of said nationalities in my local town....Indeed i can have "eastern food" without the same...(google is your friend) I dont consider these as being primarily the benefit of multiculturalism.
indeed they constitute a poor and weak argument in favor. they are "peripheral benefits" at best, ones which have minor impact on things in general.

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:10 am

victorismyhero wrote:
Didge wrote:

I have no time now to answer in full, but anyone would think we only have eastern immigration they way you answer, are you saying soul comes from the east? Your perception is based on your own view of Muslims, not anyone else, when Multicultural does include many Non-Muslims as well, showing how flawed your argument on the matter is if all you have to argue with is things you associate with some Muslims. Yes great food has flooded our country, and happier for it, so has Music, in fact without the cultural influence we would not have had the decades of such great music. You have this perception your life is being changed, when it is not, it does not take much to get along with other people, that is called integration, try it sometime, you might find you are suprised how well you can get on with people, but as you admit to a reclusive lifestyle, then, no disrespect you are not the type of person to get along with many people, making you again an exception to the rule and not the norm, but then I would not associate countless English people based off your views alone.

I shall answer your other post tomorrow but again it is based upon exceptions, prejudice and fears all wrapped up with association fallacies

Night

hmm...you see thats where things become purely subjective...if you consider soul music great music, well happy for you...personally...yeauk...

what "great food" and, given the communications we have today, why is it necessarily a triumph of "multiculturalism"...I mean i can eat french, german, italian food, all without having a huge population of said nationalities in my local town....Indeed i can have "eastern food" without the same...(google is your friend) I dont consider these as being primarily the benefit of multiculturalism.
indeed they constitute a poor and weak argument in favor. they are "peripheral benefits" at best, ones which have minor impact on things in general.

You cant get REAL foreign food unless you have enough of that culture there to create a market for the ingredients required. Yes you can get some bastardised bland tasteless English interpretation of food... but real food in England Suspect

At a minimum you need a close relationship and export market with the culture (Asian produce has become more common as we grow more of it to sell to Asian countries)

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:13 am

the BEST benefit of Multiculturalism is that English culture is drowned out in the sea of far Superior cultures.
::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll::

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:22 am

well one things for sure....the ozzi culture aint one of them.....i mean...beer and sheep......
Now if you are talking the "real culture " of Oz... the indiginous people(where not poisoned by the incomers)
then i might have to give some agreement, though I must admit to having a paucity of knowledge as to the full scope of their culture.

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:53 am

Aussie Culture is

Football (not your girlie soccer) Beer, Kebabs, Asian food, Gay Culture, Beaches/surfing and tolerance. Plus teasing the English Razz

And thieving the good bits of other cultures pirat

Sheep are so 50 years ago, Cows and pigs are a bigger part of our rural economy now (China eats them more). Plus the rural economy is the Minority (almost entirely Anglo), but your right those Anglos fuck sheep like no tomorrow, like I say English decent people are weird. Razz

And maybe you Missed all the Rainbow Serpent Posts I make Rolling Eyes

but as one converted to the dreaming I can say that the native culture/religion is gaining in popularity amongst those that would be traditionally Christian but accept that the bible is just plain old incorrect. You can't visit the ancient hills and valleys and say this is only a few thousand years old, or the idea that it was made for man Neutral

crazy, Man will die where the Serpents live Wink

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:57 am

veya_victaous wrote:Aussie Culture is

Football (not your girlie soccer) Beer, Kebabs, Asian food, Gay Culture, Beaches/surfing and tolerance. Plus teasing the English          And thieving the good bits of other cultures

Sheep are so 50 years ago, Cows and pigs are a bigger part of our rural economy now (China eats them more). Plus the rural economy is the Minority (almost entirely Anglo), but your right those Anglos fuck sheep like no tomorrow, like I say English decent people are weird.

And maybe you Missed all the Rainbow Serpent Posts I make      but as one converted to the dreaming I can say that the native culture/religion is gaining in popularity amongst those that would be traditionally Christian but accept that the bible is just plain old incorrect. You can't visit the ancient hills and valleys and say this is only a few thousand years old, or the idea that it was made for man   crazy, Man will die where the Serpents live

tsk tsk, you clearly are not reading posts properly young person.....of course I have read your rainbow serpent posts.....which is why I said ......well read the last 2 lines of what I said ...sigh.....

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:00 am

victorismyhero wrote:well one things for sure....the ozzi culture aint one of them.....i mean...beer and sheep......
Now if you are talking the "real culture " of Oz... the indiginous people(where not poisoned by the incomers)
then i might have to give some agreement, though I must admit to having a paucity of knowledge as to the full scope of their culture.

That is your culture which exists in the dark ages! ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 Druids_stonehenge

Druids!

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:02 am

Bloody ghost impersonators!

If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcTRodL7DXGof5sdUsVaDwsHC6CeQgDqFQtrc0fYy3fjau3PEFU2bLz3is

If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcTRodL7DXGof5sdUsVaDwsHC6CeQgDqFQtrc0fYy3fjau3PEFU2bLz3is

ROFL

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:04 am

Anglo Aussies are VERY Serous about their Lamb

Aussie Solution to Middle East Crisis

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:05 am

Sam has Ideas to Fix Europe too

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:09 am

::happ:: ::happ:: ::happ:: ::happ:: ::happ:: ::happ::
Come on Barbie, Lets go Barbie uh uh uh yeah
::ftlcheer:: ::ftlcheer:: ::ftlcheer:: ::ftlcheer::

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:15 am

victorismyhero wrote:
Didge wrote:

I have no time now to answer in full, but anyone would think we only have eastern immigration they way you answer, are you saying soul comes from the east? Your perception is based on your own view of Muslims, not anyone else, when Multicultural does include many Non-Muslims as well, showing how flawed your argument on the matter is if all you have to argue with is things you associate with some Muslims. Yes great food has flooded our country, and happier for it, so has Music, in fact without the cultural influence we would not have had the decades of such great music. You have this perception your life is being changed, when it is not, it does not take much to get along with other people, that is called integration, try it sometime, you might find you are suprised how well you can get on with people, but as you admit to a reclusive lifestyle, then, no disrespect you are not the type of person to get along with many people, making you again an exception to the rule and not the norm, but then I would not associate countless English people based off your views alone.

I shall answer your other post tomorrow but again it is based upon exceptions, prejudice and fears all wrapped up with association fallacies

Night

hmm...you see thats where things become purely subjective...if you consider soul music great music, well happy for you...personally...yeauk...

what "great food" and, given the communications we have today, why is it necessarily a triumph of "multiculturalism"...I mean i can eat french, german, italian food, all without having a huge population of said nationalities in my local town....Indeed i can have "eastern food" without the same...(google is your friend) I dont consider these as being primarily the benefit of multiculturalism.
indeed they constitute a poor and weak argument in favor. they are "peripheral benefits" at best, ones which have minor impact on things in general.

WTF, I just gave soul as one example, before, you and others were dancing around as morris dancers or listening to classical, most modern Music has its influence from many different cultures, sorry I studied Music so on that front you are very wrong. Do you think Rock and roll came about from white European? No it was heavily influenced and brought about by blacks, so again most modern music is down to cultural influence. As to food yes it does have a huge influence to the point of our main foods now being of foreign origin, from Italian, Indian and Chinese food, so again I have no idea what planet you have been on in the last few decades but it does not seem to be Britain. One of the biggest benefits of such a society is many children grow up without such racist stereotypes, which their parents had and come to see people from other nations know different to themselves, unless of course you again use association fallacies off those who commit crimes etc. Your claim to peripheral benefits is of course nothing but a sham. Our industries have benefited greatly from foreigners, much of which many would not have survived with again you missing the point many would not be able to function without, the NHS with a third foreign doctors would have collapsed without such an influx of trained medical staff, I could go on the list is endless. Sorry everything you argue is that of someone prejudice and a grump, nothing more

by groomsy Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:45 am

honkys are scum

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:16 am

Tolerant - being able to ignore something you really fucking hate, until you've shut your front door - then you can let rip.

Yes, isn't tolerance just great lol

by eddie Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:41 am

Eilzel wrote:This is one of the few subjects where I find the best line is somewhere between the two extremes. I am very much a pro-multiculturalism, liberal lefty, and would never claim anything else, conservatism is usually fear induced, regressive and hostile to any change. HOWEVER, there is a lot victor has said that I agree with. Halal should be labelled, newcomers from different backgrounds SHOULD respect our traditions. Newcomers SHOULD make efforts to integrate as well as Brits being accepting. Newcomers and those of minority cultures SHOULD definitely adhere to our laws and standards (and tbf, most do).

There is of course problems with people assuming all foreigners are bad, or at least pushing the view enough are bad to the point xenophobic political groups and media villainize whole sections of society. There are people who condemn all of one religion as though all are fundamentalists when clearly all are not. I disagree there is no 'bogey man' mentality. There is, especially from papers like the Daily Mail who push negative stereotypes of Muslims, Gypsies and Eastern Europeans to sell to their angry reader base. That doesn't mean anyone with criticisms of those people adheres to that mentality, but many do, those who are ignorant who do not know or wish to know anyone from those groups form and image in their mind, and it is an image we are seeing characterized by certain posters on these forums each and every day.

But as I say I see both sides and understand and agree with aspects of both. But the hostility to multiculturalism is disproportionate for sure; especially in cities I see nothing but the success of multiculturalism, and it is a wonderful thing

I stand alongside you on this.

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:44 am

Eli:

But as I say I see both sides and understand and agree with aspects of both. But the hostility to multiculturalism is disproportionate for sure; especially in cities I see nothing but the success of multiculturalism, and it is a wonderful thing Smile

What do you see in the cities that tells you multiculturalism is a success?

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:37 pm

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:45 pm

The darling of the BNP

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:54 pm

Didge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

hmm...you see thats where things become purely subjective...if you consider soul music great music, well happy for you...personally...yeauk...

what "great food" and, given the communications we have today, why is it necessarily a triumph of "multiculturalism"...I mean i can eat french, german, italian food, all without having a huge population of said nationalities in my local town....Indeed i can have "eastern food" without the same...(google is your friend) I dont consider these as being primarily the benefit of multiculturalism.
indeed they constitute a poor and weak argument in favor. they are "peripheral benefits" at best, ones which have minor impact on things in general.

WTF, I just gave soul as one example, before, you and others were dancing around as morris dancers or listening to classical, most modern Music has its influence from many different cultures, sorry I studied Music so on that front you are very wrong. Do you think Rock and roll came about from white European? No it was heavily influenced and brought about by blacks, so again most modern music is down to cultural influence. As to food yes it does have a huge influence to the point of our main foods now being of foreign origin, from Italian, Indian and Chinese food, so again I have no idea what planet you have been on in the last few decades but it does not seem to be Britain. One of the biggest benefits of such a society is many children grow up without such racist stereotypes, which their parents had and come to see people from other nations know different to themselves, unless of course you again use association fallacies off those who commit crimes etc. Your claim to peripheral benefits is of course nothing but a sham. Our industries have benefited greatly from foreigners, much of which many would not have survived with again you missing the point many would not be able to function without, the NHS with a third foreign doctors would have collapsed without such an influx of trained medical staff, I could go on the list is endless. Sorry everything you argue is that of someone prejudice and a grump, nothing more

Cross posted from the other thread

Lets just dispose of a couple of things here

Didge...I still dont think you understand your favourite expression, your so called "association fallacy" which term you bandy about as if it means something.

The term association fallacy is ONLY valid in arguments of logic and or philosophy. It cannot and does not apply to debate about "real life "circumstances because of "confounding factors" which inevitably lead to "real life debates" relying neither on "logic" or philosophy.

one example of the failure of arguments of logic in real life debate comes to this...as an example

I say x number of a particular group do a particular thing
didge argues that that is association fallacy because, he argues the majority dont

Ie he says that my point is invalid because HE believes that the majority dont do whatever.

this would be a fair point if we were talking about logical and inanimate objects or concepts
however we are not and the FIRST problem that comes up when you introduce the highly illogical and devious subject "homo sapiens sapiens" is that they lie...

the second problem arises BECAUSE there is an identity that is "other than" purely homo sapiens sapiens

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY...
I can accept that not ALL muslims are homicidal maniacs quite easily, the evidence so far shows the majority to be generally not overtly violent. BUT, and heres the big BUT, those who are, are indistinguishable from those who are not.

now thats a bit of an extreme example, but the same principle applies whatever the issue,

again for example,

those who are, if not fundamentalist, at least conservative and thus likely to take offence at the least perceived insult to islam are indistinguishable from those who are NOT thus inclined

further, we cannot and do not know, the actual numbers of those thus inclined.

in such a chaotic system (philosophically speaking, not literally) concepts like association fallacy fail, since they cannot adequately describe the necessary conditions under which they operate. (a prerequisite of all "logic" and philosophical debate is a "defining of boundaries and conditions")

Next.... Didge...YOU are TELLING me what I should (in YOUR world) accept and believe. I am telling YOU, not what I expect YOU to believe, (after all, how you live is up to you) but how I see things, how what happens around me affects what I believe, and the things I find acceptable/unacceptable...IF for some reason, I decide that a view I have held is no longer valid, then I will change that view because I deem it the right thing to do....not because some inexperienced, wet behind the ears liberalist tells me I'm a "bad person" for holding my original view.

You cannot in anyway argue in the same sentence that firstly I should accept changes (eg, having some bloke caterwauling from the top of the mosque at god knows what time of the morning) and yet that "nothing has changed" that I have NOT had to make "compromises". That is liberalist doublespeak...(OK i accepet that that is NOT a "good" example, but it will do for the purpose of illustration....the same applies to numerous other things)

Finally stop spouting nonsense statistics....you claimed only 1000 wear the burkah.....is that in your town?

because...if you were to visit the depths of Birmingham, you could count that number in an hour, simply by sitting in your car and watching, you clearly have no idea of reality...just the reality you want.....

and this in reply to LD's post

Hmm...well LD have you tried walking through certain areas of londonistan bradfordistan and such like (I think you know the areas i mean) wearing a crop top and miniskirt???
It isnt only gays that get threatened in those areas you know.

as for christmas, how about our friend choudrey and his cronies in london over christmas, harassing and intimidating shoppers ...Just because YOU havnt experienced it doesnt mean others havnt.

now heres an example of where Didge would try the "association fallacy" nonsense...I WILL conceed the point that choudery and his cronies seem to be a small minority, HOWEVER what we DONT know is how many others actually covertly support, or at least approve of his actions..and we cant tell which is which....therefor the association fallacy argument fails, because it CANNOT show (due to lack of evidence and inherent chaos in the structure of the observable facts) that making such an association is in fact fallacious...

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:09 pm

Q: Do you support the BNP?
A: No. I don’t support any form of racism.
Q: How do you vote in elections?
A: In the past I’ve always voted for the fattest candidate on the basis that they’ll take up more room in Parliament, thereby giving me more democracy for my valuable franchise, but now that Britain is being turned into a vassal state of a federal Europe I’ll be voting Ukip
Q: Why is multiculturalism a racist ideology?
A: Because it discriminates on the basis of ethnic origin, encouraging immigrant cultures to tread on the values of the indigenous majority, while calling any reciprocation racist or Islamophobic.
http://www.patcondell.net/faqs/

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:12 pm

victorismyhero wrote:
Didge wrote:

WTF, I just gave soul as one example, before, you and others were dancing around as morris dancers or listening to classical, most modern Music has its influence from many different cultures, sorry I studied Music so on that front you are very wrong. Do you think Rock and roll came about from white European? No it was heavily influenced and brought about by blacks, so again most modern music is down to cultural influence. As to food yes it does have a huge influence to the point of our main foods now being of foreign origin, from Italian, Indian and Chinese food, so again I have no idea what planet you have been on in the last few decades but it does not seem to be Britain. One of the biggest benefits of such a society is many children grow up without such racist stereotypes, which their parents had and come to see people from other nations know different to themselves, unless of course you again use association fallacies off those who commit crimes etc. Your claim to peripheral benefits is of course nothing but a sham. Our industries have benefited greatly from foreigners, much of which many would not have survived with again you missing the point many would not be able to function without, the NHS with a third foreign doctors would have collapsed without such an influx of trained medical staff, I could go on the list is endless. Sorry everything you argue is that of someone prejudice and a grump, nothing more

Cross posted from the other thread

.

yes I already bashed this piece of rubbish, showing you have no concept of association fallacy mainly because you want to justify hating Muslims, how sad indeed, same arguments as Hitler as well that he used against the Jews, you must be very proud of yourself Victor

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:42 pm

I will leave you with this words from an anthropologist Victor, read the article in full as you fall foul of doing exactly the same :

Dispelling stereotypes

Soon after the destruction of the US embassy in Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans, a protest was held against the men who murdered them. Libyan citizens held English-language signs declaring "Benghazi is against terrorism" and "Sorry Americans this is not the behavior of our Islam and Profit [sic]". Photos of the protest, distributed by Libya Alhurra Livestream, went viral on Facebook and Twitter.

The Libyans protesting were aware that not only Libyans, but Muslims in general, would be blamed for the violence that took place, because the small group of Muslims who stormed the embassy would be seen as representative of all. They gave the rare apology that Western commentators often encourage Muslims to make on behalf of others who commit violence in the name of Islam. But while the sentiment of the protestors is appreciated by many Americans - and the photos likely assuaged some prejudices - such explanations should not be necessary. Ordinary people should not be assumed to share the beliefs of violent criminals who share their faith.

The Innocence of Muslims was made by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-American who hates Muslims. It was found on YouTube and put on Egyptian television by Sheikh Khaled Abdullah, a man trying to convince the world that Americans hate Muslims. This was a perfect storm of gross and deceitful parties depicting each other in the most vile terms, and then living up to each others' worst expectations.

The answer to such invective is not to reinforce it through media portrayals of "Muslims" as a collective. The media should instead pay more attention to individual states, conflicts and leaders, since dictatorship and factionalism have been as essential in shaping politics in Muslim-majority regions as has religion. The current crisis demonstrates how corrupt parties use religion as an incitement to violence and a means to political gain. The Western media should not play party to their prejudices.

Sarah Kendzior is an anthropologist who recently received her PhD from Washington University in St Louis.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129168313878423.html

Night

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:07 pm

Didge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

Cross posted from the other thread

.

yes I already bashed this piece of rubbish, showing you have no concept of association fallacy mainly because you want to justify hating Muslims, how sad indeed, same arguments as Hitler as well that he used against the Jews, you must be very proud of yourself Victor

fuck off didge....No where have I even suggested "hate" against muslims .this is the sort of libel you liberalist morons live by....

lets take "halal" shall we...WHERE...JUST EXACTLY WHERE.....have I suggested that the muslim should be denied their barbarically slaughtered meat?? I havnt....what I WANT, and YOUR type of idiot deny me...is the RIGHT to choose...I.E that it should be thus labeled, that where it is used by a restaurant it is so declared...so that I may make a choice as to eat there or not. Of course we all know WHY you liberalist wets dont want this to happen...COST...if folks had the choice they would buy non halal...which would mean that those who wanted halal would pay a higher price....market forces....its so transparent...and IF THAT isnt the case...why the reluctance to label...(in fact THAT is the very reason its not done...that much was admitted a couple of years back)
As to your absurd claim about football fans eating the stuff...really.... ://?roflmao?/: those that eat whats served up at footie matches would eat ANYTHING...even if it was still moving... ://?roflmao?/: jeepers...I dont even eat MacD's..i think more of my stomach than that .

Next....where??? EXACTLY where ?? have is suggested hate against muslims...where for instance have I suggested that they should be subject to any form of abuse, of violence or harm? where have i suggested that they should be subject to wholesale repatriation, genocide (since in your twisting desperation you compare me to hitler.....which btw loses you the debate....according to Godwins Law) and so on....NO again you twisting libellious louts of the liberalist camp reach for your weapon of last resort and scream "racist racist racist" for the sin of DARING to suggest that those who choose to come here, or are a minority should conform to OUR way, and accept our practices come FIRST. and where ANY conflict between their way and ours exists..OUR way is predominant.

And Yes didge...food, music, literature and such ARE but minor concerns as far as it goes, I enjoy "some " of them..(but not eastern music OF ANY ethnicity....sorry but an octave has 8 not 10 notes....) but not to the point where i consider them a significant benefit of multiculturalism....

as for their contribution to our NHS...not denied, BUT whilst they may make up 1/3rd of our doctors and nurses....unfortunately, experience has proved to me that of that 1/3 I cant understand or have difficulty in understanding 2/3 of them when they speak....That doesnt mean to say they are not good at their job...but it rather helps if you can communicate clearly and accurately with your doctor or the guy thats about to remove your whatever.....Now this is soley due to accent WHICH the individual...if he/she wants to can adjust quite quickly to suit local conditions... Again THEIR lack of adjustment is made MY problem. For some absurd liberalist reason I am somehow expected to be able to understand 900 different regional accents, whist the multitude of foreign folk are NOT expected to make the simpler change of ONE accent.......GET THIS...they only have to learn "the queens english" and anyone in britain...even a dyed in the wool glaswegian will be able to understand them.
WHY is it not a REQUIREMENT for doctors and nurses (especially) to be able to speak CLEAR non heavily accented english...OH I forget the liberalist wet letteuce would see that as RACIST....Damn the patient....

so...dont call me racist Didge....not when I dont deal in racism. only MY rights.....

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:18 pm

Eli:

But as I say I see both sides and understand and agree with aspects of both. But the hostility to multiculturalism is disproportionate for sure; especially in cities I see nothing but the success of multiculturalism, and it is a wonderful thing Smile

What do you see in the cities that tells you multiculturalism is a success?

Smile

.

by Guest Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:58 pm

Catman wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:well one things for sure....the ozzi culture aint one of them.....i mean...beer and sheep......
Now if you are talking the "real culture " of Oz... the indiginous people(where not poisoned by the incomers)
then i might have to give some agreement, though I must admit to having a paucity of knowledge as to the full scope of their culture.

That is your culture which exists in the dark ages! ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Druids!

which just goes to show what an intellectually challenged cretin you are...If you believe THAT is druidism then you are truely stupid. Maybe the alcohol has fully addled your tiny intellect....

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:21 am

And here we have it folks, the liberty of the liberalist..think anything you like ...as long as it floows OUR path
hold any opinion you want...as long as we agree with it
have freedom of thought and speech, as long as you ONLY think and say what we approve of...

yes folks...the liberalist is VERY liberal....NOT

here we are discussing a "concept" (multiculturalism)

and I have suddenly become "hitler" ....because I disagree with both the concept and the fact that it is either "real or necessarily good" I am accused of racism...because I use examples of where the "concept" fails (which of course cannot be done WITHOUT examples) Even though I have NOT made ONE racist post...

THIS is the "liberalist" devious liars, twisting truths and evading, to them, unanswerable problems.

This IS the liberalist, labeling any opposition to their view as "racist" to stifle criticism.

This is the liberalist, posting "faux facts" that actually cannot stand up to even the most cursory observation.
(viz my point about the burkah...visit some of the areas in Birmingham, MOST of the ladies there are walking around like animated duvets, and dige recons its only 1000 in the country

This is the Liberalist, who in their arrogance, purports to know better than the collective wisdom of the BVA.

BEWARE the liberalist.....they are NOT liberal....

by veya_victaous Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:51 am

victorismyhero wrote:And here we have it folks, the liberty of the liberalist..think anything you like ...as long as it floows OUR path
hold any opinion you want...as long as we agree with it
have freedom of thought and speech, as long as you ONLY think and say what we approve of...

yes folks...the liberalist is VERY liberal....NOT

here we are discussing a "concept" (multiculturalism)

and I have suddenly become "hitler" ....because I disagree with both the concept and the fact that it is either "real or necessarily good" I am accused of racism...because I use examples of where the "concept" fails (which of course cannot be done WITHOUT examples) Even though I have NOT made ONE racist post...

THIS is the "liberalist" devious liars, twisting truths and evading, to them, unanswerable problems.

This IS the liberalist, labeling any opposition to their view as "racist" to stifle criticism.

This is the liberalist, posting "faux facts" that actually cannot stand up to even the most cursory observation.
(viz my point about the burkah...visit some of the areas in Birmingham, MOST of the ladies there are walking around like animated duvets, and dige recons its only 1000 in the country

This is the Liberalist, who in their arrogance, purports to know better than the collective wisdom of the BVA.

BEWARE the liberalist.....they are NOT liberal....

I don't know what the BVA is? but if there opinion is your, than they do know better. tongue

The Liberals are the RW here, the whole Idea of Liberal as political platform is stupid, liberal towards who? the good people just trying to live a better life in a better world(like the LW) or liberal towards big business and racist homophobic morons (like the RW) Suspect

I don't get the fear of Muslims they are no more fucktarded than Christians. Both will eventually have to succumb to the truth that their magic sky giant is make believe, and that Enlightenment is achieved through SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY.

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:12 am

victorismyhero wrote:

fuck off didge....No where have I even suggested "hate" against muslims .this is the sort of libel you liberalist morons live by....
Yet make every argument to hate them based off many association fallacies, so now you claim many utterly ignorant hateful things about them and then try to deny you do not hate them, sorry you are talking utter bullshit and I see through your hate, there is no denying it

lets take "halal" shall we...WHERE...JUST EXACTLY WHERE.....have I suggested that the muslim should be denied their barbarically slaughtered meat??
Back to fucking halal, but no mention of Kosher, so why selective only to halal, because again it is because you only identify as seeing Muslims as a problem not Jews, thus negating any argument you are making. The fact is their method of killing animals is no different to how others do, as all slit the throats of animals, you though thinking passing electricity into an animal is humane, what utter nonsense, but again your issue is not with Kosher, only Halal, because you do not mention Kosher, only halal, thus exposing your hypocrisy. Lets face it before 9/11, there was no such conviction and issue with people over the Halal/Kosher method

I havnt....what I WANT, and YOUR type of idiot deny me...is the RIGHT to choose...I.E that it should be thus labeled, that where it is used by a restaurant it is so declared...so that I may make a choice as to eat there or not. Of course we all know WHY you liberalist wets dont want this to happen...COST...if folks had the choice they would buy non halal...which would mean that those who wanted halal would pay a higher price....market forces....its so transparent...and IF THAT isnt the case...why the reluctance to label...(in fact THAT is the very reason its not done...that much was admitted a couple of years back)
Dear me I have no problem with Halal or Kosher meat being labelled but again the argument that it should when in reality like any other meat it has had its throat slit to be killed is utterly pathetic to claim you would not want to eat meat that has been killed in the exact same manner, because it has been killed in the same manner its throat slit and you want to be pedantic over whether it has been hurt by electrocution first, utterly daft exposing your real reason is again not the process but Muslims themselves

As to your absurd claim about football fans eating the stuff...really.... ://?roflmao?/: those that eat whats served up at footie matches would eat ANYTHING...even if it was still moving... ://?roflmao?/: jeepers...I dont even eat MacD's..i think more of my stomach than that .
Hilarious, what it shows is that many people do not give two shits about what they eat, if people saw many methods of the killing process of animals for food many would have reservations, but many do not, you yourself are the biggest hypocrite here as an advocate of hunting which is nothing but the selfish need of someone to butcher animals in a sporting fashion, do I get to know what food has been served on my plate through your barbaric method of execution, hunting? No, but I do not make a big song and dance about it and it shows what an utter hypocrite you are, so please spare me the bullshit on halal

Next....where??? EXACTLY where ?? have is suggested hate against muslims...where for instance have I suggested that they should be subject to any form of abuse, of violence or harm? where have i suggested that they should be subject to wholesale repatriation, genocide (since in your twisting desperation you compare me to hitler.....which btw loses you the debate....according to Godwins Law) and so on....NO again you twisting libellious louts of the liberalist camp reach for your weapon of last resort and scream "racist racist racist" for the sin of DARING to suggest that those who choose to come here, or are a minority should conform to OUR way, and accept our practices come FIRST. and where ANY conflict between their way and ours exists..OUR way is predominant.
No you just complain at how people are dressed, make absurd claims as if they are all rapist predators, how they roam as gangs making areas all over the UK as no-go areas, no you are in love of Muslims by all these daft and of which again are nothing more than poor association fallacies , to make your hate acceptable, because again your argument uses fallacies to promote a distorted view of Muslims, and nobody without hate does that. Thus you expose yourself as being of hate because you use fear and prejudice to promote a view of people. Now you wish to use a man made conception Godwins law, when the reality is you are using the same arguments of previous groups against other religious people, that is evidence to the absurd views you and hold. Okay lets smash your idiocy to grounds on the ethics of debating shall we as happy to concede mistakes I make but show there is no coherent form to any of yours.

hese rules for critical discussion 'represent ten different norms which are to be observed for resolving the difference' (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1994b: 63) and are as follows:

1. the freedom rule: participants must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints;
2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so;
3. the standpoint rule: an attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the protagonist;
4. the relevance rule: a participant may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint;
5. the unexpressed premise rule: a participant can be held to the premises he leaves implicit; equally, an antagonist may not falsely suggest that a premise has been left unexpressed by the other participant;
6. the starting point rule: no participant may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point;
7. the argument scheme rule: a standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied;
8. the validity, or logic rule: the reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises;
9. the closure rule: the failed defence of a standpoint must result in a protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defence of a standpoint must result in an antagonist retracting his or her doubts;
10. the ambiguity, or usage rule: participants must not use any formations that are not sufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formations of the other participant as carefully and accurately as possible;
(from van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992: 208-209).

Violations of these rules produce unreasonable argumentation of various kinds in the form of fallacies. The strategies of essentialisation cited above for example, in which the negative actions of (people who happen to be) Muslims are presented as representative of either all Muslims or of Islam as a religion, are fallacies of composition because they contravene rule 8. These are by no means the only fallacies - indeed 'it is possible with each of the formulated discussion rules to indicate precisely which classical fallacies can be controlled through these rules' (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1994a: 23). Take the following example:

'I shall save my rejoicing over the recent announcement about state funding of two Islamic schools in Britain until I hear that a stronghold of Islam - Saudi Arabia - has put an end to its unashamed persecution of Christians' (Pastor Graham Horsnell, 1998).

This letter to the editor, in which the granting of voluntary aided status to two British Muslim schools is used as a cover to enable the author to insert a rather incoherent pseudo-analogous argument, is fallacious because it contravenes rule 4 - the relevance rule. The irrelevance of the argument to the conclusion offered illustrates the lengths to which the author is willing to go in order to argue for continuing anti-Muslim discrimination.

By way of a third and final example, the argumentum ad hominem is another traditional fallacy frequently committed by rhetors attempting to disparage Islam or exclude Muslims. To explain this fallacy it is necessary to quote van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1994b) at length:

'An implication of the first discussion rule is that a party may not improperly harm his collocutor's position as a serious discussion partner in any way. And this is precisely what happens in the various variants of the argumentum ad hominem. .

Thus all your arguments as seen are flawed if you want to get serious and make an even bigger prat of yourself Victor

And Yes didge...food, music, literature and such ARE but minor concerns as far as it goes, I enjoy "some " of them..(but not eastern music OF ANY ethnicity....sorry but an octave has 8 not 10 notes....) but not to the point where i consider them a significant benefit of multiculturalism....
Fuck me again Eastern, when are nation is made up of many different ethnicity, but you place only those who you see as Muslim as the only thing in regards to Multiculturalism, it is hilarious and utterly stupid to argue as such on your own preference also when many people do like the fact of different Music brought about by cultural change, the same with food, so your own preference means fuck all. What it shows is you are a sour puss, and a cultural pessimist.

CULTURAL PESSIMISM AND THE ‘ISLAMISATION’ MYTH

Cultural pessimism has a long history and is perhaps most clearly represented today in the
‘Islamisation’ myth. A good example of contemporary cultural pessimism is found in the work of
Melanie Phillips. Phillips writes of a ‘world turned upside down’, the West ‘taking leave of its
senses’, and an ‘age of irrationality’ in which the West is ‘sleepwalking into Islamisation’. She,
and other writers with a similar outlook, are self-styled ‘defenders of national identity and
traditional morality’; voices crying in the wilderness of a civilisation in decline.
Such narratives of doom are persuasive because they offer easy explanations for the very real
problems we face in modern society, yet they do so not by laying out a positive vision for the
improvement of Western civilisation, but rather through a relentless condemnation of modernity as
a degenerate negation of an imagined ideal culture of old. Such doom-laden assessments of the
world have always been popular. Pessimism sells, and always has done. It is almost as though human
beings thrive on fear and despair. As nothing is new about this, contemporary narratives of
‘Islamisation’ and Western decay have many historical antecedents. In the early Twentieth Century,
Oswald Spengler wrote his influential text on ‘The Decline of the West’; today, Patrick Buchanan
writes of ‘The Death of West’ and ‘How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our
Culture’.

In a CATO policy report paper, Tyler Cowen offers the following brief history of cultural
pessimism:

Cultural pessimism has been around as long as culture. Pessimistic attacks have been leveled for
centuries, although the target has changed frequently. Many moralists and philosophers,
including Plato, criticized theater and poetry for their corrupting influence. Books became a
target after the onset of publishing. Eighteenth-century pessimists accused novels of preventing
readers from thinking, preaching disobedience to parents (note the contradictory charges),
undermining women’s sense of subservience, breaking down class distinctions, and making
readers sick. Libraries, especially privately run circulating libraries, were another target.
Edward Mangin remarked in 1808, ‘There is scarcely a street of the metropolis, or a village in
the country, in which a circulating library may not be found: nor is there a corner of the
empire, where the English language is understood, that has not suffered from the effects of this
institution’.

In the 18th and 19th centuries the targets included epistolary romances, newspapers, opera,
the music hall, photography, and instrumental virtuosi, such as Liszt and Paganini. The 20th
century brought the scapegoats of radio, movies, modern art, professional sports, the
automobile, television, rhythm and blues, rock ‘n’ roll, comic books, MTV music videos, and
rap music. Each new medium or genre has been accused of corrupting youth and promoting
excess sensuality, political subversion, and moral relativism

Narratives of national and civilisational decline were widespread in the Nineteenth Century, as the
rapid changes brought about by industrialisation and the growth of democracy invoked fears that a
traditional, morally and culturally pure order was under attack. In 1892, Max Nordau’s book
Degeneration was published and found a wide readership. For Nordau, modern art and the culture
of the Fin de siècle were evidence of ‘the end of an established order, which for thousands of years
has satisfied logic, fettered depravity, and in every art matured something of beauty’. Nordau
believed that:

One epoch of history is unmistakably in its decline, and another is announcing its approach.
There is a sound of rending in every tradition, and it is as though the morrow would not link
itself with to-day. Things as they are totter and plunge, and they are suffered to reel and foil,
because man is weary, and there is no faith that it is worth an effort to up-hold them. Views that
have hitherto governed minds are dead or driven hence like disenthroned kings, and for their
inheritance they that hold the titles and they that would usurp are locked in struggle.

Many Nineteenth Century narratives of decline focussed on race. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories
arose to explain the supposed degeneration of the West, with Jews presented as a ‘hidden hand’, an
alien and parasitic force conspiring to destroy all that was good and pure. Such theories eventually
reached their apotheosis in Nazi anti-Semitism and its pseudo-religious desire to exterminate the
supposed root of Western decline.

That sums you up Victor

as for their contribution to our NHS...not denied, BUT whilst they may make up 1/3rd of our doctors and nurses....unfortunately, experience has proved to me that of that 1/3 I cant understand or have difficulty in understanding 2/3 of them when they speak....That doesnt mean to say they are not good at their job...but it rather helps if you can communicate clearly and accurately with your doctor or the guy thats about to remove your whatever.....Now this is soley due to accent WHICH the individual...if he/she wants to can adjust quite quickly to suit local conditions... Again THEIR lack of adjustment is made MY problem. For some absurd liberalist reason I am somehow expected to be able to understand 900 different regional accents, whist the multitude of foreign folk are NOT expected to make the simpler change of ONE accent.......GET THIS...they only have to learn "the queens english" and anyone in britain...even a dyed in the wool glaswegian will be able to understand them.
WHY is it not a REQUIREMENT for doctors and nurses (especially) to be able to speak CLEAR non heavily accented english...OH I forget the liberalist wet letteuce would see that as RACIST....Damn the patient....

so...dont call me racist Didge....not when I dont deal in racism. only MY rights.....

You are xenophobic, not racist by your own admission and the use of trying to promote hateful arguments against groups of people, because again these ignorant arguments have been used before and if you do not like to have labels attached onto you then you need to learn you are wrong to attach labels onto others, of which you are doing.
Fuck me again with the poor sterotypes, now Victor has met one hundred thousand foreign born doctors and none speak English when the reality is many speak good English with again no evidence to site his claims going back to:

2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so;

So back up your stance, not with hearsay but facts, if many do not speak English then you should have countless evidence to back this up, in fact what it is again is a poor stereotype you have not from actually meeting anyone let alone the fact I doubt you have met more than 10 foreign doctors but you make such a poor association fallacy again based again of your prejudice. Your ignorance is really shining through and is the product of nothing more than hate, because I am not even a liberalism but someone who reasons, and you do not reason.

You make so many unfounded claims and base them using fallacies, never once looking at our own culture as if that is perfect, but then I guess you ignore all this as it does not conform to your way of thinking mainly because you are so utterly prejudiced it is beyond belief, you may not be racist, but your arguments are racial and again born from hate

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:16 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

He speaks the truth and if you listen to him he knows and does mention that most muslims are okay , but he is correct in everything he says .

He doesn't like Christianity and will speak against it but he also knows that Christians are not treated fairly .

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:18 am

The same Pat condell who looked daft over his all rapists were Muslims in Oslo claim, yes he really looked daft when he claimed thatf

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:21 am

Last week the National Secular Society's favourite "comedian" Pat Condell posted his latest video on YouTube. Entitled "Islamic cultural terrorism", it was enthusiastically received by Condell's fellow anti-Muslim racists in the English Defence League.
If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 EDL%20Pat%20Condell

If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 EDL%20Pat%20Condell

As we have pointed out before, one of the most sickening aspects of Condell's increasingly unhinged anti-Muslim rants is his obsession with "immigrant rapists". In this latest video Condell asserts, with regard to the Norwegian capital of Oslo, that "all the rapes in that city over the past three years – all of them – were committed by Muslim immigrants using rape as a weapon of cultural terrorism".
The source that Condell gives for this claim – which had already been taken up by the British National Party and other far-rightists – is a news report by the Norwegian TV station NRK that stated: "In Oslo all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by males of non-western background – this was the conclusion of a police report published today. This means that in every single rape assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin."
The police report referred to is Voldtekt i den globale byen (Rape in the global city) which provides a detailed analysis of the rape statistics in Oslo during 2010. The report in fact shows that, of 131 individuals charged with the 152 rapes in which the perpetrator could be identified, 45.8% were of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin while the majority – 54.2% – were of Norwegian, other European or American origin.
If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 Rape%20statistics%20Oslo

If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner - Page 2 Rape%20statistics%20Oslo

The claim that "all rapists in Oslo are immigrants" is based exclusively on the figures for "assault rape", i.e. rape aggravated by physical violence, a category that included only 6 of the 152 cases and 5 of the 131 identified individuals. All of those 5 individuals were indeed of African, Middle Eastern or Asian origin. However, the police report adds that in other cases of assault rape, where the individual responsible was not identified and the police relied on the description provided by the victim, "8 of the perpetrators were African / dark-skinned appearance, 5 were Western / light / Nordic and 4 had an Asian appearance". Which falls some way short of substantiating the claim that all perpetrators of aggravated rape in Oslo are of non-western origin, never mind the assertion that "Muslim immigrants" are responsible for all rapes in the city.
The police report also points out that "it must be stressed that the strong over-representation of people from minority backgrounds for several types of rape can not be interpreted as meaning that foreign culture is a causal explanation of rape" and that "the statistical difference in criminal behaviour between ethnic groups disappears when controlling for socio-economic conditions". It concludes: "Gross generalisations that have given the impression that the rapists are only foreigners – and largely Muslim – prove inadequate and erroneous."
In other words, on the basis of their detailed factual analysis the Norwegian police draw exactly the opposite conclusion about rape in Oslo from that promoted in Pat Condell's latest anti-Muslim video rant. But then, when have facts ever been of any concern to racist bigots like Condell?

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:27 am

Didge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:

fuck off didge....No where have I even suggested "hate" against muslims .this is the sort of libel you liberalist morons live by....
Yet make every argument to hate them based off many association fallacies, so now you claim many utterly ignorant hateful things about them and then try to deny you do not hate them, sorry you are talking utter bullshit and I see through your hate, there is no denying it

No didge, that is YOUR pathetic interpretation....Oh and you are breaking that list of rules you posted already,,,,

lets take "halal" shall we...WHERE...JUST EXACTLY WHERE.....have I suggested that the muslim should be denied their barbarically slaughtered meat??
Back to fucking halal, but no mention of Kosher, so why selective only to halal, because again it is because you only identify as seeing Muslims as a problem not Jews, thus negating any argument you are making. The fact is their method of killing animals is no different to how others do, as all slit the throats of animals, you though thinking passing electricity into an animal is humane, what utter nonsense, but again your issue is not with Kosher, only Halal, because you do not mention Kosher, only halal, thus exposing your hypocrisy. Lets face it before 9/11, there was no such conviction and issue with people over the Halal/Kosher method

granted i havnt mentioned kosher, but the same argument applies...Do I HAVE to find EVERY example of a practice I dislike, Carried out by EVERY group, or do EXAMPLES suffice in what is a GENERAL argument about a "concept" YOU are the one who EMPHASISES the specificity of my examples...perhaps I should choose from a greater variety, I suppose that would strengthen my point

I havnt....what I WANT, and YOUR type of idiot deny me...is the RIGHT to choose...I.E that it should be thus labeled, that where it is used by a restaurant it is so declared...so that I may make a choice as to eat there or not. Of course we all know WHY you liberalist wets dont want this to happen...COST...if folks had the choice they would buy non halal...which would mean that those who wanted halal would pay a higher price....market forces....its so transparent...and IF THAT isnt the case...why the reluctance to label...(in fact THAT is the very reason its not done...that much was admitted a couple of years back)
Dear me I have no problem with Halal or Kosher meat being labelled but again the argument that it should when in reality like any other meat it has had its throat slit to be killed is utterly pathetic to claim you would not want to eat meat that has been killed in the exact same manner, because it has been killed in the same manner its throat slit and you want to be pedantic over whether it has been hurt by electrocution first, utterly daft exposing your real reason is again not the process but Muslims themselves

you spout emotive tosh and again claim to know better than the BVA ://?roflmao?/:

As to your absurd claim about football fans eating the stuff...really.... ://?roflmao?/: those that eat whats served up at footie matches would eat ANYTHING...even if it was still moving... ://?roflmao?/: jeepers...I dont even eat MacD's..i think more of my stomach than that .
Hilarious, what it shows is that many people do not give two shits about what they eat,thats true in so many ways if people saw many methods of the killing process of animals for food many would have reservations, but many do not, you yourself are the biggest hypocrite here as an advocate of hunting which is nothing but the selfish need of someone to butcher animals in a sporting fashion, do I get to know what food has been served on my plate through your barbaric method of execution, hunting? "dont be a pillock of course you do...unless you are in the habit of eating FRESH GAME from a butcher or eating Game dishes in a restaurant (who would in any case tell you if you asked, unlike the cover up over halal...where the answer to asking is "i dont know") you are NOT buying "hunted meat" so stop being stupid and "making things up" to suit your agenda No, but I do not make a big song and dance about it and it shows what an utter hypocrite you are, (so now who's the hypocrite??? since that argument is destroyed...you DO know and can easily tell) so please spare me the bullshit on halal And YES you do make a song and dance about it when it suits your agenda, as above....

More girly bunny hugging nonsense from you, properly hunted game is THE MOST HUMANE method of providing meat, and THAT can be proven.
foirstly it is NOT subject to inhumane farming, secondly it is NOT subjecteed to the transport and holding at a slaughterhouse and finally it is killed quickly and efficiently..so perhaps YOPU should stop talking your emotive bull crap when you have run out of arguments. IN THIS area you are just PLAIN WRONG

Next....where??? EXACTLY where ?? have is suggested hate against muslims...where for instance have I suggested that they should be subject to any form of abuse, of violence or harm? where have i suggested that they should be subject to wholesale repatriation, genocide (since in your twisting desperation you compare me to hitler.....which btw loses you the debate....according to Godwins Law) and so on....NO again you twisting libellious louts of the liberalist camp reach for your weapon of last resort and scream "racist racist racist" for the sin of DARING to suggest that those who choose to come here, or are a minority should conform to OUR way, and accept our practices come FIRST. and where ANY conflict between their way and ours exists..OUR way is predominant.
No you just complain at how people are dressed, make absurd claims as if they are all rapist predators LIAR, oh thats bad form didge...lies now to try to enforce your rules.., how they roam as gangs making areas all over the UK as no-go areas, LIAR again...no you are in love of Muslims by all these daft and of which again are nothing more than poor association fallacies , to make your hate acceptable, because again your argument uses fallacies to promote a distorted view of Muslims, and nobody without hate does that. Thus you expose yourself as being of hate because you use fear and prejudice to promote a view of people. Now you wish to use a man made conception Godwins law, when the reality is you are using the same arguments of previous groups against other religious people, that is evidence to the absurd views you and hold. Okay lets smash your idiocy to grounds on the ethics of debating shall we as happy to concede mistakes I make but show there is no coherent form to any of yours.

Nice diversion didge...but not gonna work....the debate is about "multiculturalism and its supposed "benefits" You clearly didnt notice the emoticon indicating that the comment was IRONY...thats the problem you see....your lack of insight....only YOUR way is right.....typical liberalist....

hese rules for critical discussion 'represent ten different norms which are to be observed for resolving the difference' (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1994b: 63) and are as follows:

1. the freedom rule: participants must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints; which you do...by suggesting inherent "racism"
2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so;which you never do
3. the standpoint rule: an attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the protagonist;
4. the relevance rule: a participant may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint;Didge the dodge
5. the unexpressed premise rule: a participant can be held to the premises he leaves implicit; equally, an antagonist may not falsely suggest that a premise has been left unexpressed by the other participant;
6. the starting point rule: no participant may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point;
7. the argument scheme rule: a standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied;
8. the validity, or logic rule: the reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises;since YOUR arguments are purely emotive and rely on appeal to emotion perhaps yoou should take this on board
9. the closure rule: the failed defence of a standpoint must result in a protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defence of a standpoint must result in an antagonist retracting his or her doubts;
10. the ambiguity, or usage rule: participants must not use any formations that are not sufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formations of the other participant as carefully and accurately as possible; didge the master of ambiguity...
(from van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992: 208-209).

Violations of these rules produce unreasonable argumentation of various kinds in the form of fallacies. The strategies of essentialisation cited above for example, in which the negative actions of (people who happen to be) Muslims are presented as representative of either all Muslims or of Islam as a religion, are fallacies of composition because they contravene rule 8. These are by no means the only fallacies - indeed 'it is possible with each of the formulated discussion rules to indicate precisely which classical fallacies can be controlled through these rules' (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1994a: 23). Take the following example:

'I shall save my rejoicing over the recent announcement about state funding of two Islamic schools in Britain until I hear that a stronghold of Islam - Saudi Arabia - has put an end to its unashamed persecution of Christians' (Pastor Graham Horsnell, 1998).

This letter to the editor, in which the granting of voluntary aided status to two British Muslim schools is used as a cover to enable the author to insert a rather incoherent pseudo-analogous argument, is fallacious because it contravenes rule 4 - the relevance rule. The irrelevance of the argument to the conclusion offered illustrates the lengths to which the author is willing to go in order to argue for continuing anti-Muslim discrimination.

By way of a third and final example, the argumentum ad hominem is another traditional fallacy frequently committed by rhetors attempting to disparage Islam or exclude Muslims. To explain this fallacy it is necessary to quote van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1994b) at length:

'An implication of the first discussion rule is that a party may not improperly harm his collocutor's position as a serious discussion partner in any way. And this is precisely what happens in the various variants of the argumentum ad hominem. .

Thus all your arguments as seen are flawed if you want to get serious and make an even bigger prat of yourself Victor

And Yes didge...food, music, literature and such ARE but minor concerns as far as it goes, I enjoy "some " of them..(but not eastern music OF ANY ethnicity....sorry but an octave has 8 not 10 notes....) but not to the point where i consider them a significant benefit of multiculturalism....
Fuck me again Eastern, when are nation is made up of many different ethnicity, but you place only those who you see as Muslim as the only thing in regards to Multiculturalism, it is hilarious and utterly stupid to argue as such on your own preference also when many people do like the fact of different Music brought about by cultural change, the same with food, so your own preference means fuck all. What it shows is you are a sour puss, and a cultural pessimist.

CULTURAL PESSIMISM AND THE ‘ISLAMISATION’ MYTH

Cultural pessimism has a long history and is perhaps most clearly represented today in the
‘Islamisation’ myth. A good example of contemporary cultural pessimism is found in the work of
Melanie Phillips. Phillips writes of a ‘world turned upside down’, the West ‘taking leave of its
senses’, and an ‘age of irrationality’ in which the West is ‘sleepwalking into Islamisation’. She,
and other writers with a similar outlook, are self-styled ‘defenders of national identity and
traditional morality’; voices crying in the wilderness of a civilisation in decline.
Such narratives of doom are persuasive because they offer easy explanations for the very real
problems we face in modern society, yet they do so not by laying out a positive vision for the
improvement of Western civilisation, but rather through a relentless condemnation of modernity as
a degenerate negation of an imagined ideal culture of old. Such doom-laden assessments of the
world have always been popular. Pessimism sells, and always has done. It is almost as though human
beings thrive on fear and despair. As nothing is new about this, contemporary narratives of
‘Islamisation’ and Western decay have many historical antecedents. In the early Twentieth Century,
Oswald Spengler wrote his influential text on ‘The Decline of the West’; today, Patrick Buchanan
writes of ‘The Death of West’ and ‘How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our
Culture’.

In a CATO policy report paper, Tyler Cowen offers the following brief history of cultural
pessimism:

Cultural pessimism has been around as long as culture. Pessimistic attacks have been leveled for
centuries, although the target has changed frequently. Many moralists and philosophers,
including Plato, criticized theater and poetry for their corrupting influence. Books became a
target after the onset of publishing. Eighteenth-century pessimists accused novels of preventing
readers from thinking, preaching disobedience to parents (note the contradictory charges),
undermining women’s sense of subservience, breaking down class distinctions, and making
readers sick. Libraries, especially privately run circulating libraries, were another target.
Edward Mangin remarked in 1808, ‘There is scarcely a street of the metropolis, or a village in
the country, in which a circulating library may not be found: nor is there a corner of the
empire, where the English language is understood, that has not suffered from the effects of this
institution’.

In the 18th and 19th centuries the targets included epistolary romances, newspapers, opera,
the music hall, photography, and instrumental virtuosi, such as Liszt and Paganini. The 20th
century brought the scapegoats of radio, movies, modern art, professional sports, the
automobile, television, rhythm and blues, rock ‘n’ roll, comic books, MTV music videos, and
rap music. Each new medium or genre has been accused of corrupting youth and promoting
excess sensuality, political subversion, and moral relativism

Narratives of national and civilisational decline were widespread in the Nineteenth Century, as the
rapid changes brought about by industrialisation and the growth of democracy invoked fears that a
traditional, morally and culturally pure order was under attack. In 1892, Max Nordau’s book
Degeneration was published and found a wide readership. For Nordau, modern art and the culture
of the Fin de siècle were evidence of ‘the end of an established order, which for thousands of years
has satisfied logic, fettered depravity, and in every art matured something of beauty’. Nordau
believed that:

One epoch of history is unmistakably in its decline, and another is announcing its approach.
There is a sound of rending in every tradition, and it is as though the morrow would not link
itself with to-day. Things as they are totter and plunge, and they are suffered to reel and foil,
because man is weary, and there is no faith that it is worth an effort to up-hold them. Views that
have hitherto governed minds are dead or driven hence like disenthroned kings, and for their
inheritance they that hold the titles and they that would usurp are locked in struggle.

Many Nineteenth Century narratives of decline focussed on race. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories
arose to explain the supposed degeneration of the West, with Jews presented as a ‘hidden hand’, an
alien and parasitic force conspiring to destroy all that was good and pure. Such theories eventually
reached their apotheosis in Nazi anti-Semitism and its pseudo-religious desire to exterminate the
supposed root of Western decline.

That sums you up Victor

as for their contribution to our NHS...not denied, BUT whilst they may make up 1/3rd of our doctors and nurses....unfortunately, experience has proved to me that of that 1/3 I cant understand or have difficulty in understanding 2/3 of them when they speak....That doesnt mean to say they are not good at their job...but it rather helps if you can communicate clearly and accurately with your doctor or the guy thats about to remove your whatever.....Now this is soley due to accent WHICH the individual...if he/she wants to can adjust quite quickly to suit local conditions... Again THEIR lack of adjustment is made MY problem. For some absurd liberalist reason I am somehow expected to be able to understand 900 different regional accents, whist the multitude of foreign folk are NOT expected to make the simpler change of ONE accent.......GET THIS...they only have to learn "the queens english" and anyone in britain...even a dyed in the wool glaswegian will be able to understand them.
WHY is it not a REQUIREMENT for doctors and nurses (especially) to be able to speak CLEAR non heavily accented english...OH I forget the liberalist wet letteuce would see that as RACIST....Damn the patient....

so...dont call me racist Didge....not when I dont deal in racism. only MY rights.....

You are xenophobic, not racist by your own admission and the use of trying to promote hateful argumentsgarbage against groups of people, because again these ignorant arguments have been used before and if you do not like to have labels attached onto you then you need to learn you are wrong to attach labels onto others, of which you are doing.
Fuck me again with the poor sterotypes, now Victor has met one hundred thousand foreign born doctors and none speak English when the reality is many speak good English with again no evidence to site his claims going back to:

2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so;

How about you make a forum first and do so yourself...you just spout emotive and wet letteuce bunny hugging nonsense

So back up your stance, not with hearsay but facts, if many do not speak English then you should have countless evidence to back this up, in fact what it is again is a poor stereotype you have not from actually meeting anyone let alone the fact I doubt you have met more than 10 foreign doctors but you make such a poor association fallacy again based again of your prejudice. Your ignorance is really shining through and is the product of nothing more than hate, because I am not even a liberalism but someone who reasons, and you do not reason.

I dont care if its 10 or 10,000 if its the ones I have come across in surgeries and A&E then THAT is sufficient evidence for my point....and my point that ALL doctors, and come to that some other "professionals" should have to speak CLEAR and understandable english. AND...just for your information ONE of those I had a problem with was a Scotsman with a right manic accent... ::hdintowll::
You make so many unfounded claims and base them using fallacies, never once looking at our own culture as if that is perfect,Again more rubbish...nowhere have I said OR IMPLIEDthat out culture is "perfect" but then I guess you ignore all this as it does not conform to your way of thinking mainly because you are so utterly prejudiced it is beyond belief, you may not be racist, but your arguments are racialErrrm...HOW...can an argument about multiculturalism be based on ANYTHING other than racial issues when idiots like you cannot tell the difference between race and culture and again born from hate

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:32 am

VOD(original) wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

He speaks the truth and if you listen to him he knows and does mention that most muslims are okay , but he is correct in everything he says .

He doesn't like Christianity and will speak against it but he also knows that Christians are not treated fairly .

PAT CONDEL FOR PRIME MINISTER cheers

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:59 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Multiculturalism isn't about one culture absorbing another or forcing its values on another, it's about people from different cultures making the little adjustments needed -- AND having enough of a live-and-let-live attitude -- to get along.

If people are trying to force you into something you don't want to partake in, OR if you're trying to do the same to others -- you're doing multiculturalism wrong.

Then it stand to reason that multiculturalism is wrong since the second part of your post is the only application of multiculturalism that exists

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:26 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Multiculturalism isn't about one culture absorbing another or forcing its values on another, it's about people from different cultures making the little adjustments needed -- AND having enough of a live-and-let-live attitude -- to get along.

If people are trying to force you into something you don't want to partake in, OR if you're trying to do the same to others -- you're doing multiculturalism wrong.

Then it stand to reason that multiculturalism is wrong since the second part of your post is the only application of multiculturalism that exists

exactly right, it is always the same people giving and the same people taking...technically it's an invasion..

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Then it stand to reason that multiculturalism is wrong since the second part of your post is the only application of multiculturalism that exists

exactly right, it is always the same people giving and the same people taking...technically it's an invasion..

Invasion

Occupation

Cultural cleansing

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:10 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

exactly right, it is always the same people giving and the same people taking...technically it's an invasion..

Invasion

Occupation

Cultural cleansing

agree

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:33 pm

Moreover didge...getting back to the concept of multiculturalism. You have Still failed to show the BENEFITS of such an idea. Food, music, and such things are indeed "peripheral" benefits at best, and, given the communications of today would be aquired IN ANY CASE, regardless of the existence of multiculturalism.

As to the "professional input" i.e doctors, nurses, lawyers and such like, their coming here IS NOT predicated upon multiculturalism. As an example of this lack of necessity of the existence of multiculturalism to us gaining those skills I can show quite easily that such a concept is NOT required.

take for example saudi arabia, now it can hardly be said that they exhibit ANY of the traits needed to be considered "multicultural" Indeed a more hostile environment to such a concept would be difficult to find (though it is certain that other, perhaps somewhat less extreme, examples exist)

AND YET they are virtually dependant upon foreign specialists for much of their financial and I.T. needs. They are dependant upon foreign staff for their engineering...

THEY manage without conceding one iota to the concept of multiculturalism.

SO, please...show me the benefits...without your usual diatribe, diverting, ad hominum postings, and waffle.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:01 pm

victorismyhero wrote:And here we have it folks, the liberty of the liberalist..think anything you like ...as long as it floows OUR path
hold any opinion you want...as long as we agree with it
have freedom of thought and speech, as long as you ONLY think and say what we approve of...
yes folks...the liberalist is VERY liberal....NOT
here we are discussing a "concept" (multiculturalism)
and I have suddenly become "hitler" ....because I disagree with both the concept and the fact that it is either "real or necessarily good" I am accused of racism...because I use examples of where the "concept" fails (which of course cannot be done WITHOUT examples) Even though I have NOT made ONE racist post...
THIS is the "liberalist" devious liars, twisting truths and evading, to them, unanswerable problems.
This IS the liberalist, labeling any opposition to their view as "racist" to stifle criticism.
This is the liberalist, posting "faux facts" that actually cannot stand up to even the most cursory observation.
(viz my point about the burkah...visit some of the areas in Birmingham, MOST of the ladies there are walking around like animated duvets, and dige recons its only 1000 in the country
This is the Liberalist, who in their arrogance, purports to know better than the collective wisdom of the BVA.
BEWARE the liberalist.....they are NOT liberal....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:And here we have it folks, the liberty of the liberalist..think anything you like ...as long as it floows OUR path
hold any opinion you want...as long as we agree with it
have freedom of thought and speech, as long as you ONLY think and say what we approve of...
yes folks...the liberalist is VERY liberal....NOT
here we are discussing a "concept" (multiculturalism)
and I have suddenly become "hitler" ....because I disagree with both the concept and the fact that it is either "real or necessarily good" I am accused of racism...because I use examples of where the "concept" fails (which of course cannot be done WITHOUT examples) Even though I have NOT made ONE racist post...
THIS is the "liberalist" devious liars, twisting truths and evading, to them, unanswerable problems.
This IS the liberalist, labeling any opposition to their view as "racist" to stifle criticism.
This is the liberalist, posting "faux facts" that actually cannot stand up to even the most cursory observation.
(viz my point about the burkah...visit some of the areas in Birmingham, MOST of the ladies there are walking around like animated duvets, and dige recons its only 1000 in the country
This is the Liberalist, who in their arrogance, purports to know better than the collective wisdom of the BVA.
BEWARE the liberalist.....they are NOT liberal....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU

+1 tommy have an alien

So didge is a "progressive" hmmmmmmmmm ://?roflmao?/:

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:15 pm

As so many other so called 'liberals' are now.....

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:45 pm

Oh poor Victor

Oh my such a hateful old fart lets show why not only is he ignorant on social issues but prove beyond doubt his views are hateful.

1) I brought up those rules showing how you just about broke everyone and then poorly tried to worm out of the fact you broke just about everyone.
So lets show why.now Victor is full Islamoprejudice and now antisemitic.
We will start will Halal and kosher, so his argument is it is his belief of having the best interest of animals at heart, this coming from a man who eats meats hunts and kills animals himself. So how are the animals killed? Both have their throats slit and one uses electrocution which of which there is no evidence and none even presented to show one is more humane than the other. But lets take a step back for a minute now, such an argument against how an animal is treated in the first place. If you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. So clearly there is no argument for the welfare of the animal from Victor because killing the animal is taking away its right to exist, when we do not need to sustain ourselves on meat. Now I have no problem with killing animals to eat, and thus any argument I would make claiming a method is not humane compared to another would be utterly moot because caring about the welfare of the animal would be in not killing it in the first place So argument one rendered moot. If you care about the welfare of animals and you eat meat and even hunt them, then you have no grounds to even claim what is humane because you deny that animal the chance to live. Even if we go beyond this point again to what method, of which he has not presented any factual evidence for with stunning and non-stunning, the reality is his own view to hunt has to be the most inhumane method of killing animals out of them all, as chasing an animal scared out of its wits, then shooting it which has more of a chance of not killing outright, leaving an animal slowly to die or to be finished off further renders his argument as utterly absurd in regards to Halal and Kosher. Thus if his own beliefs contradict the method of both halal and Kosher, he cease to have a critical argument on them both and thus because his own actions can create more harm to animals by hunting them, he shows the worst double standards. He thus has no viable argument and thus the only conclusion is a hateful prejudice against religious animal slaughter practices. Not only that he and many other people eat meat daily without a consideration how it is killed. He thus failed on the following points:

2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so

4. the relevance rule: a participant may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint

6. the starting point rule: no participant may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point

8. the validity, or logic rule: the reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premise

2) How a few Muslims dress in the Burka, which he now tried to poorly get out of his discrimination to how people dress. He presents no numbers on this or even forwards a valid argument on this as to why people can now not dress as they like. He takes no issue with any other traditional dress, and of those who do wear this now claims many do off no evidence what so ever even worse this is one of the few ways to actually recognise a Muslims, and thus plenty of Muslims could walk past him every day without him knowing. He has no issue with other forms of dress only this even though people have issue with all kinds of dress, but again he makes it a personal issue on Muslim women who wish to do so. It is irrelevant that I think this form of dress is dated or poor in communication, it is not my right to deny anyone how they wish to dress, I imagine he has no issue over men and women who faces are completely covered in Tattoo's. Thus again we see no valid argument why he should wish to deny people wearing a burka, unless he wishes to place restrictions on how people dress and where do we draw the line.
Argument again rendered moot. He thus failed on the following

2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so

4. the relevance rule: a participant may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint

6. the starting point rule: no participant may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point

8. the validity, or logic rule: the reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premise

3) I notice he chickened out of answering my points on the fact he is a cultural pessimist, which he knows he is and has not a leg to stand on as would be happy to go into history on this.

4) His worst discrimination to date, not all Doctors can only have this position if they have a local accent can only work within that area where the accent is fully understood, no doctor with a speech impediment can now work, because with his illogical view it has to be clear and precise, even though yet again he failed to provide a single piece of evidence out of the 100,000 foreign doctors that many cannot be understood and bases yet again on nothing more that ignorance. So as seen he wishes to deny any person with a disability the chance to be a doctor and because Scot had a strong fast accent, did not have the savvy or common sense to ask him that could he slow down as he was having difficulty understanding the accent.

So on all four points, as seen none of his arguments hold validity and are based upon his own personal prejudice, not valid views, of which in two he wishes to discriminate against women and people with disabilities.

Happy to answer the benefits on your other post

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:54 pm

victorismyhero wrote:Moreover didge...getting back to the concept of multiculturalism. You have Still failed to show the BENEFITS of such an idea. Food, music, and such things are indeed "peripheral" benefits at best, and, given the communications of today would be aquired IN ANY CASE, regardless of the existence of multiculturalism.

As to the "professional input" i.e doctors, nurses, lawyers and such like, their coming here IS NOT predicated upon multiculturalism. As an example of this lack of necessity of the existence of multiculturalism to us gaining those skills I can show quite easily that such a concept is NOT required.

take for example saudi arabia, now it can hardly be said that they exhibit ANY of the traits needed to be considered "multicultural" Indeed a more hostile environment to such a concept would be difficult to find (though it is certain that other, perhaps somewhat less extreme, examples exist)

AND YET they are virtually dependant upon foreign specialists for much of their financial and I.T. needs. They are dependant upon foreign staff for their engineering...

THEY manage without conceding one iota to the concept of multiculturalism.

SO, please...show me the benefits...without your usual diatribe, diverting, ad hominum postings, and waffle.

I will show you the benefits, what cultures do you have and adhere to?

Are all of these from native Britons or from outside influences who have come to these shores?

By this I mean, Celtic, Norma, Saxon, Jute, Angle, Roman, German, Dutch, Indian, Italian, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Jamaican, African etc.

You are saying this country has never benefited from influence from these cultures.

Take your time

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:25 pm

Didge wrote:Oh poor Victor

Oh my such a hateful old fart lets show why not only is he ignorant on social issues but prove beyond doubt his views are hateful.

1) I brought up those rules showing how you just about broke everyone and then poorly tried to worm out of the fact you broke just about everyone.
So lets show why.now Victor is full Islamoprejudice and now antisemitic.
We will start will Halal and kosher, so his argument is it is his belief of having the best interest of animals at heart, this coming from a man who eats meats hunts and kills animals himself.
Exactly ...I kill my own food....and therfore can fairly judge if its humane or not.
So how are the animals killed? Both have their throats slit and one uses electrocution which of which there is no evidence and none even presented to show one is more humane than the other. So the BVA's opinion is not correct...you know better do you ...arrogant sod that you are But lets take a step back for a minute now, such an argument against how an animal is treated in the first place. If you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. An animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. So clearly there is no argument for the welfare of the animal from Victor because killing the animal is taking away its right to exist,

that has to be the most childish, nonsensical and moronic passage I have ever read from you...a man that would eat his meat if it had had the living heart ripped out of it whilst alive....(since HE doesnt care how its killed...its all the same to him...) Animals have the right to be treated humanely and a humane end, when possible no others. ...all other "rights that you try to attach to them is anthropomorphism, is childish and nonsensical.

when we do not need to sustain ourselves on meat. Now I have no problem with killing animals to eat, and thus any argument I would make claiming a method is not humane compared to another would be utterly moot because caring about the welfare of the animal would be in not killing it in the first place So argument one rendered moot. No argumanr rendered moot at all...you are talking nonsense...the welfare of an animal is NOT predicated on its existance,,,its about how its treated...This is the argument of the uneducated school yard veggie...who knopws NOTHING. If you care about the welfare of animals and you eat meat and even hunt them, then you have no grounds to even claim what is humane because you deny that animal the chance to live. childish and emotive rubbishEven if we go beyond this point again to what method, of which he has not presented any factual evidence for with stunning and non-stunning (try the BVA...which you keep choosing to ignore, the reality is his own view to hunt has to be the most inhumane method of killing animals out of them all, as chasing an animal scared out of its wits, then shooting it which has more of a chance of not killing outright, leaving an animal slowly to die or to be finished off which clearly shows you know fuck all about hunting...vis...you would be hard pushed to "chase" a rabbit. An animal hit with the appropriate round from the appropriate gun is dead...as in dead ...not injured, not suffering....how would Didge the know it all know that shooting "has more chance of not killing outright...he doesnt...he's lieing emotive propaganda AGAIN further renders his argument as utterly absurd in regards to Halal and Kosher. Thus if his own beliefs contradict the method of both halal and Kosher, he cease to have a critical argument on them both and thus because his own actions can create more harm to animals by hunting them, he shows the worst double standards. He thus has no viable argument and thus the only conclusion is a hateful prejudice against religious animal slaughter practices. Not only that he and many other people eat meat daily without a consideration how it is killed. He thus failed on the following points:

2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so

since your whole argument about hunting is a pack of lies and based on smoke and mirrors this is an invalid statement

4. the relevance rule: a participant may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint

ditto

6. the starting point rule: no participant may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point

not even relevant

8. the validity, or logic rule: the reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premise

since you use emotive claptrap and your only argument is appeal to emotion, rather than facts...this is irrelevant.

2) How a few Muslims dress in the Burka, which he now tried to poorly get out of his discrimination to how people dress. He presents no numbers on this or even forwards a valid argument on this as to why people can now not dress as they like. He takes no issue with any other traditional dress, and of those who do wear this now claims many do off no evidence what so ever even worse this is one of the few ways to actually recognise a Muslims, and thus plenty of Muslims could walk past him every day without him knowing. He has no issue with other forms of dress only this even though people have issue with all kinds of dress, but again he makes it a personal issue on Muslim women who wish to do so. It is irrelevant that I think this form of dress is dated or poor in communication, it is not my right to deny anyone how they wish to dress, I imagine he has no issue over men and women who faces are completely covered in Tattoo's. Thus again we see no valid argument why he should wish to deny people wearing a burka, unless he wishes to place restrictions on how people dress and where do we draw the line.
Argument again rendered moot. He thus failed on the following

2. the burden of proof rule: whoever who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so

4. the relevance rule: a participant may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint

6. the starting point rule: no participant may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point

8. the validity, or logic rule: the reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premise

Blah blah blah...the usual didge gobblygook smokescreen whilst in retreat.....

3) I notice he chickened out of answering my points on the fact he is a cultural pessimist, which he knows he is and has not a leg to stand on as would be happy to go into history on this.

4) His worst discrimination to date, not all Doctors can only have this position if they have a local accent can only work within that area where the accent is fully understood, no doctor with a speech impedimentcretin, of course if that speech impediment was so severe he couldnt be understood that would HAVE to be the case...sadly, unless some other way round it could be found.AND i think you will find this is actually the case.. can now work, because with his illogical view it has to be clear and precise,(So you are happy with a doctor that you cant understand ? in for instance A&E, where YOU may be having problems sufficient because of shock or a whack on the head??? Of course a Dr needs to be clear and precise) even though yet again he failed to provide a single piece of evidence out of the 100,000 foreign doctors that many cannot be understood and bases yet again on nothing more that ignorance. So as seen he wishes to deny any person with a disabilityLIAR..only with a speech disability that precludes good patient doctor understanding. the chance to be a doctor and because Scot had a strong fast accent, did not have the savvy or common sense to ask him that could he slow down as he was having difficulty understanding the accent.(did I say I didnt ...idiot....you do love false attribution....)

Again you are making a pathetic appeal to emotion, and making a false extension upon my statement..putting words and motives that dont exist into my mouth, and attributing things that are not the case to me...LIAR

So on all four points, as seen none of his arguments hold validity and are based upon his own personal prejudice, not valid views, of which in two he wishes to discriminate against women and people with disabilities.

No didge it is your childish appeal to emotion..(the preserve of the "progressive"...I shall call you that now...it fits better.....) that is wrong...you arguments have no substance than emotion....

Happy to answer the benefits on your other post

what an idiotic post full of sententious claptrap, totally childish and full of emotive,gobbldygook...

not one thing that you have posted above withstands adult inspection, It sounds like the advert of the extremist ALF propaganda.

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:26 pm

Didge wrote:
victorismyhero wrote:Moreover didge...getting back to the concept of multiculturalism. You have Still failed to show the BENEFITS of such an idea. Food, music, and such things are indeed "peripheral" benefits at best, and, given the communications of today would be aquired IN ANY CASE, regardless of the existence of multiculturalism.

As to the "professional input" i.e doctors, nurses, lawyers and such like, their coming here IS NOT predicated upon multiculturalism. As an example of this lack of necessity of the existence of multiculturalism to us gaining those skills I can show quite easily that such a concept is NOT required.

take for example saudi arabia, now it can hardly be said that they exhibit ANY of the traits needed to be considered "multicultural" Indeed a more hostile environment to such a concept would be difficult to find (though it is certain that other, perhaps somewhat less extreme, examples exist)

AND YET they are virtually dependant upon foreign specialists for much of their financial and I.T. needs. They are dependant upon foreign staff for their engineering...

THEY manage without conceding one iota to the concept of multiculturalism.

SO, please...show me the benefits...without your usual diatribe, diverting, ad hominum postings, and waffle.

I will show you the benefits, what cultures do you have and adhere to?

Are all of these from native Britons or from outside influences who have come to these shores?

By this I mean, Celtic, Norma, Saxon, Jute, Angle, Roman, German, Dutch, Indian, Italian, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Jamaican, African etc.

You are saying this country has never benefited from influence from these cultures.

Take your time

thats NOT the question is it...diverting again......

YOU show me the benefits of this "multiculturalism"

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:45 pm

Hilarious, nothing to back hiis absurd claims, all based upon his own prejudice views, thw worst being he kills animals and then moans about others who kill animals to eat making him the biggest hypocrit going, this is not a debate, but a child throwing his dummy out who avoids my points countless posts, uttely pathetic.

So now he cannot even answer in regards to where his own culture comes from, even funnier also denier the many cultures that have influenced are own, thus this nation has thrived from the influence of Multi cultures.

So we now know he discriminates against women, just because he does not like their dress, discriminates against the disabled with speech, kills animals, yet claims his way is more humane, when in both the animal has no rights, showing he does not realise when he renders his own arguments moot

Sorry I gave you too much credit, you are as clueless as smelly

Let me know when you actually have some valid answers and if you think our culture did not stem from others, you are as I suspect very thick mate

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:47 pm

I love this passage from him.

Animals have the right to be treated humanely.

By killing them?

DOH

Idiot

by Guest Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:50 pm

Pain and Suffering
Many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by hunters. A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters.(7) Twenty percent of foxes who have been wounded by hunters are shot again. Just 10 percent manage to escape, but “starvation is a likely fate” for them, according to one veterinarian.( A South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks biologist estimates that more than 3 million wounded ducks go “unretrieved” every year.(9) A British study of deer hunting found that 11 percent of deer who’d been killed by hunters died only after being shot two or more times and that some wounded deer suffered for more than 15 minutes before dying.(10)

Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families. For animals such as wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer—caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create—also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter.

Read more: http://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/wildlife-factsheets/sport-hunting-cruel-unnecessary/#ixzz2wQbrJp8q

hence why he renders his own argument on halal as bollocks, as hunting is the least humane

by Sponsored content