If we had post of the week we would have a winner here..

BigAndy9 wrote:The USA - successful multicultural society??

Australia - successful multicultural society??

Hang on, lemme just turn to my left and ask Jeronimo...

...Jeronimo says "fuck off you stupid dumbfuck".

Didge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:The USA - successful multicultural society??

Australia - successful multicultural society??

Hang on, lemme just turn to my left and ask Jeronimo...

...Jeronimo says "fuck off you stupid dumbfuck".

Who was Jeronimo?

Did you mean Geronimo?


Again that was mainly people taking lands, all very wrong, what we are talking about is established cities where there was mass immigration, which at first again was difficult also, where the same prejudice arguments were used but again many identified with the new nation whilst retaining their ethnic identities and cultures, which created for a nation that worked

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:wow how far off the rails did this thread go...

BigAndy9 wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:wow how far off the rails did this thread go...

Very lol

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Very lol

it only started because victorismyhero wrote a fantastic post...  

BigAndy9 wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

it only started because victorismyhero wrote a fantastic post...  

I agree - the post by victor was very good.

All common sense - some don't like that.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

it only started because victorismyhero wrote a fantastic post...  

I agree - the post by victor was very good.

All common sense - some don't like that.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:spot on by victorismyhero...

Re: If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner
Post by victorismyhero Today at 8:20 pm

Sorry.....libralist lefty claptrap...

OH YES               we, as in white, "average" person is supposed to to become "tolerant" and "multicultural". we are supposed to accept a noise like a scalded cat at crazy times of the morning as the local mosque call forth the "faithful". WE are expected to "respect" our "multicultural" neighbours sensitivity, whilst they ignore ours (the ENFORCED feeding of halal meat to those who dont want it being ONE example). We are "encouraged" to conform to "new standards "of so called decency of dress, if it affects our "sensitive " neighbours...whilst THEY continue to wear the disguise and concealment of the bukah and so on. WE are not allowed to protest about their "festivities" whilst THEY are allowed to disrupt christmas unchallenged (not that I personally give a flying f**k but lets have some reciprocity here).
try finding a pork butcher in these "multicultural" areas....or even a pork sausage.....

BigAndy9 wrote:The USA - successful multicultural society??

Australia - successful multicultural society??

Hang on, lemme just turn to my left and ask Jeronimo...

...Jeronimo says "fuck off you stupid dumbfuck".

VOD(original) wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

it only started because victorismyhero wrote a fantastic post...  

I agree - the post by victor was very good.

All common sense - some don't like that.

exactly

Ben_Reilly wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:

exactly

Good lord, people, the ass-kissing is making me nauseous!

Handy Andy wrote:Oi, leave my ass kissing out of this. Even her that must be endured hasn't visited that particular part for decades.

lovedust wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:spot on by victorismyhero...

Re: If you don't think multiculturalism is working, look at your street corner
Post by victorismyhero Today at 8:20 pm

Sorry.....libralist lefty claptrap...

OH YES               we, as in white, "average" person is supposed to to become "tolerant" and "multicultural". we are supposed to accept a noise like a scalded cat at crazy times of the morning as the local mosque call forth the "faithful". WE are expected to "respect" our "multicultural" neighbours sensitivity, whilst they ignore ours (the ENFORCED feeding of halal meat to those who dont want it being ONE example). We are "encouraged" to conform to "new standards "of so called decency of dress, if it affects our "sensitive " neighbours...whilst THEY continue to wear the disguise and concealment of the bukah and so on. WE are not allowed to protest about their "festivities" whilst THEY are allowed to disrupt christmas unchallenged (not that I personally give a flying f**k but lets have some reciprocity here).
try finding a pork butcher in these "multicultural" areas....or even a pork sausage.....

Vic: I don't think I've ever had anyone impose "new standards" of dress on me, as the result of multiculturalism. Neither has anyone ever stopped me or anyone else I know celebrating Christmas. No offence but I don't see what you're talking about?

  

victorismyhero wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Vic: I don't think I've ever had anyone impose "new standards" of dress on me, as the result of multiculturalism. Neither has anyone ever stopped me or anyone else I know celebrating Christmas. No offence but I don't see what you're talking about?

  

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...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:

exactly

Good lord, people, the ass-kissing is making me nauseous!

victorismyhero wrote: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.
Yes it does apply, when you associate many people from a group with nothing more the actions of some individuals or groups of people, that is association fallacy, you cannot change the meaning because it makes your argument look absurd

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...
 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 

PMSL, when you association people through an assumption the onus is on you to prove it, thus if you base solely off association, then it is a fallacy you silly boy

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.
Just like any human being, so lets take your daft analogy further, because in south America the murder rates are the highest in the world and being as they are christian using your daft analogy, we cannot thus who do not commit murder are indistinguishable from those who, in other words the most stupid load of rbbish I have ever heard, but please do keep going Victor you are making a great case for saying you hate Muslims, without backing any evidence that you have proof, even if the majority for argument sake were murders, rapists, to then look at any Muslim and claim that person is a murderer and rapist, but only knowing they are a Muslim, is flawed, because you associate off those who do, when there is every chance that Muslim does not, hence association fallacy, which clearly you have utterly no understanding of. If 9 out of 10 dogs bite, to say all dogs bite is wrong thus to associate all dogs as biters would be wrong because some dogs just do not bite people, is this starting to sink through? Hence your whole argument is utterly flawed

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")


failed before you start, because again you are banking your view that because some are you cannot say who is or isn't the same would be daft to say in regards to who is a sex offender, we know thousands of men are thus all men are then indistinguishable from those who carry out this sick act, which do you now associate all men as peado's? No and no need to further embarrasses your poor logic here

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.....

Didge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:


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...

Some racist stereotypes if I ever heard them, Londonistan, seriously you would make a great poster boy for Nick Griffin for goodness sake. Where is the mass media stories of no go areas? There is none, you have the odd idiots, of which 3 have been jailed where it was poorly claim there was loads of sharia gangs, so yes, you again have this daft and silly association fallacy as if loads of Muslims everywhere do not integrate which I am sorry is utter bollocks Victor, I wonder if you have been through Bradford and London, because I used to live in London and still visit London often, and I do not see any of the claims you are making they are again fueled by reading garbage in the media, and even worse believing it. So no, your whole argument fails because it is based off poor assumptions, none of which you can back up showing a substantial proportion of the Muslim population complicit to any of these absurd claims

victorismyhero wrote:

Didge wrote:


Some racist stereotypes if I ever heard them, Londonistan, seriously you would make a great poster boy for Nick Griffin for goodness sake. Where is the mass media stories of no go areas? There is none, you have the odd idiots, of which 3 have been jailed where it was poorly claim there was loads of sharia gangs, so yes, you again have this daft and silly association fallacy as if loads of Muslims everywhere do not integrate which I am sorry is utter bollocks Victor, I wonder if you have been through Bradford and London, because I used to live in London and still visit London often, and I do not see any of the claims you are making they are again fueled by reading garbage in the media, and even worse believing it. So no, your whole argument fails because it is based off poor assumptions, none of which you can back up showing a substantial proportion of the Muslim population complicit to any of these absurd claims

Ashton-under-lyne.... june 2013
Hitchin ....................june 2013
THIS  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html

Didge wrote:

victorismyhero wrote: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.
Yes it does apply, when you associate many people from a group with nothing more the actions of some individuals or groups of people, that is association fallacy, you cannot change the meaning because it makes your argument look absurd

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...
 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 

PMSL, when you association people through an assumption the onus is on you to prove it, thus if you base solely off association, then it is a fallacy you silly boy

Right ho....association fallacy depends upon the premise that you are associating one trait which is present within a group to all members of that group. THAT CAN ONLY BE HELD STRICTLY TRUE if and ONLY if the composition of both the sub group AND the whole group is known to a reasonable degree of accuracy. NOW how do we determine a given trait which may not be obvious to simple observation....well generally we ask (surveys polls etc.) Now are these reliable, no they are not, the result you get commonly predicates upon the question asked (and HOW it is asked) and more seriously it depends upon the subjects perception of the person asking the question, and of their perception of the motives of the questioner....therefor people LIE...the ONLY thing that is up for question is by how much they lie, and with what frequency this happens.

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.
Just like any human being, so lets take your daft analogy further, because in south America the murder rates are the highest in the world and being as they are christian using your daft analogy, we cannot thus who do not commit murder are indistinguishable from those who, in other words the most stupid load of rbbish I have ever heard, but please do keep going Victor you are making a great case for saying you hate Muslims, without backing any evidence that you have proof, even if the majority for argument sake were murders, rapists, to then look at any Muslim and claim that person is a murderer and rapist, but only knowing they are a Muslim, is flawed, because you associate off those who do, when there is every chance that Muslim does not, hence association fallacy, which clearly you have utterly no understanding of. If 9 out of 10 dogs bite, to say all dogs bite is wrong thus to associate all dogs as biters would be wrong because some dogs just do not bite people, is this starting to sink through? Hence your whole argument is utterly flawed    

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")


failed before you start, because again you are banking your view that because some are you cannot say who is or isn't the same would be daft to say in regards to who is a sex offender, we know thousands of men are thus all men are then indistinguishable from those who carry out this sick act, which do you now associate all men as peado's?  No and no need to further embarrasses your poor logic here  

No Didge it is You who have failed via your own reasoning....Let us for the moment and purposes of this point leave out of the equation those people who we personally know (and thus trust due to experience)AND those who are supposed to be vetted for us (teachers and such like). IF you had a child, would you leave it in the care of a random, unknown single male for the day. NO? ...neither would I, why? because that person represents an unknown, unquantifiable, and potential danger, thus PROVING the point that we ALL treat other males as potentia paedos/child murderers/dangerous individuals. therefor your arguments of association fallacy FAIL upon the very reason I have given. It fails because of the unpredictability and inability to identify these traits......

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.....

Well you are claiming it is more so how many, because I tell you it is no more than around a thousand, because now you say visit Birmingham, sorry my eyes have been opened to the hate filled person you are Victor and I pity you for that, because you would fit very well back in the 11th century with such daft and absurd views. So you claim it is more back it up and to be honest does it bother so much because they dress that way and other people dress far worse but because you use it as an excuse to vent your hate of Muslims, just the same with Halal, you show hypocrisy in your pathetic arguments

Blimey smelly would be proud of that bile  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
wow how far off the rails did this thread go...

Lone Wolf wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
wow how far off the rails did this thread go...

  

ABOUT as far as BigAndy wants to take it...

Typical BigAndy tactics ~ when he's well and truly lost the argument, than it's time for him to "lose the plot" as well.. 

OFTEN re-directing and misdirecting threads into completely new directions ~ into unchartered and untested waters, and sometimes "completely off the rails" !