|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2018 10:03:41 GMT
Does clinging on to your big, shiny, semi-automatic really make you feel safer and closer to the 'Prince of Peace', Winter? I prefer one of my bolt-actions so I can stop the Prince of Peace if he gets within 500 yards. The only thing that stopped him was a nail gun.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Feb 13, 2018 10:31:11 GMT
That is chief Brexit negotiator. Remeber we said that was the aim of the EU and remainers told us we were stupid? Doesn’t look like Michel Barnier to me. Do you often get foreigners mixed up? Edit: Regardless, Verhofstadt is an MEP who wants a federal Europe. That no more makes it an accurate gauge of the way the EU is going than another MEP Farage wanting its demise. Keep grasping at those straws though as the reality of how shit Brexit is going to be for the country slowly sinks in.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2018 12:22:32 GMT
FilmFlaneur Others don't [know the levels of hate crime]. Flim. Thats the point. As the quote you previously quoted said, although it was cute of you to leave unbolded the fact that it was an opinion. Reports are not always crimes. What part of that don'y [sic] you get? I certainly get that, once again, it is apparently you against the world, lol. But your problem now is this: that, since you admit you "don't know" anyway, then this ignorance means you are rather constrained in making further judgements on the levels of UK hate crime, be it up or down. So thanks anyway. I will still stick with the official figures, the wide consensus (except from right-wing ideologues who have their own agendas, of course) and anecdotal evidence. As already suggested, it is simply absurd to suggest that people can have no idea of the 'direction of travel' at all of hate crime levels in this country, especially when different contributory factors are recognised and allowed for. It appears that it is only you who professes such ignorance, as it suits your preference. Mr Hairspray, your roots are showing. An example of another minority you have issues with? Thank for increasing the potential levels of hate crime, since add-ons like this would make the levels go up, would they not? QED. Remember, as you "don't know", then you can't really form a judgement, either way. You know repeated childish name-calling makes you look childish, right? So then: you do find the existing legislation and restrictions against intimidating and hate speech irksome, just as I said. QED. You also appear to ignore any idea or sense of proportion, public interest and common sense among police and prosecutors. But an insult is still not an argument, so time for you to stop your mood music. Are you saying that there is no Xenophobic element among the Leave camp? But be careful, your persecution complex is showing. And my 'argument' is the same: that, since Brexit, and probably helped by the debate, the emphasis on unwanted immigrants & etc there has been an increase in social division and hate crime in the UK. But then of course now you "don't know" whether this is the case or not. Then please quote where I say that "race and religion are the same." Should I hold my breath? QED then. After all if the cap fits, wear it.
It's called anti-semitism. And, in connection with this and your comment it can be noted that some people confuse, or mix. anti-semitism with anti-Zionism. Or is this something else you "don't know" about?
As for Islam, I would suggest that Islam (and Muslims) often have hader a hard time in this country of late, whether justified or not, what with people trying to kill them using hire trucks at Finsbury Park and all or ranting on social media and other sites, slagging the religion off, perhaps wanting hate speech laws removed to help things along some more.
asianworldnews.co.uk/globalnews/pakistani-schools-preach-hatred-of-hindus/ but keep going... They don't like the term 'Islamophobia' being used? Really? No, unfortunately you haven't. Please re-read. I have italicised the relevant words above and hope that helps. So, no quote then as I requested. No surprise either. The trouble with the excessive use of hyperbole is that it is easily shot down by a dose of reality. I think many here have drawn any implications of your characteristic railing against minorities, diversity, work-place equality, Islam etc and now the attack on the compilation of homophobic crime figures - all levelled under a nationalist flag - a long time since, Thor. If it worries you, then stop.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 13, 2018 12:30:11 GMT
Fair enough; I will accept your explanation. Although in the light of your characteristic rhetoric, one can see how it could be read both ways. Did you mean "Sorry I have repeatedly lied about you by making up a false quote and attributing it to you in two different threads?" You didn't just misunderstand my point, which is entirely forgivable, you made up some words and attributed them to me. But, I'm not even buying the "I misunderstood line." No person with any reasonable grasp of English would take "means nothing to" to mean "Worse than" You're reaching Ada levels here Flim Flam and neatly demonstrating why I changed your name. Because what you just said was deceptive nonsense. I have already said I accept your explanation, and yes, your original phrase can be read both ways as the present example showed, duh. With an English Lang and Lit degree, my command of English usually passes muster. But thanks for caring.
I forgive you.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 13, 2018 23:35:21 GMT
"Brexit means nothing to this." Clearly means that Brexit will have no affect on immigration levels from Pakistan. Since the assertion by Goz was that Brexit would curb Muslim immigration. So no, it means nothing like "worse than" because its not a comparative statement. The term "means nothing to " means "has no affect on." Fair enough; I will accept your explanation. Although in the light of your characteristic rhetoric, one can see how it could be read both ways. I actually meant from Europe and phrased it poorly.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:07:09 GMT
etc etc While Thor's rhetorical question is full of his usual provocative hyperbole, there is no doubt that feelings towards 'the other', whether described through race or religion have grown much worse of late, not helped by the emotions around Brexit. It certainly hasn't help the struggle against xeno- and Islamophobia, for instance, or the feelings of east Europeans here about their future. Personally I think the more united Europe is, the better - at least it will keep Germany and France from ever fighting again - one of the main intentions of the original set-up of the European Community. It is just a shame that the UK will have to stand outside, determined now to be outside the customs union, so working through tariffs and yet (it looks like) obeying all the EU rules of commercial engagement anyway, but without a say in the matter. But hey, with the authority of the House of Lords over UK legislation, at least, er, we won't have to put up with unelected bureaucrats eh? Britain's veto is gone too, so look forward to things like the European army in due course. Looking forward, too, to that early, quick trade deal with Donald "America First" Trump... what exactly would france and germany fight about? The only european countries in danger of going to war are greece and turkey. This isnt the fucking 30s.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:08:47 GMT
The European Union is fetishised by remainers as a bastion of progressiveness, unity and economic growth. The reality is that its an imperialist shithole that shits on human rights and props up big banks and businesses while spitting on working class people.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:11:34 GMT
That is chief Brexit negotiator. Remeber we said that was the aim of the EU and remainers told us we were stupid? Doesn’t look like Michel Barnier to me. Do you often get foreigners mixed up? Edit: Regardless, Verhofstadt is an MEP who wants a federal Europe. That no more makes it an accurate gauge of the way the EU is going than another MEP Farage wanting its demise. Keep grasping at those straws though as the reality of how shit Brexit is going to be for the country slowly sinks in. Jean-Claude Juncker himself has said he wants a USE (United States of Europe). As have other prominent figures like Donald Tusk.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 12:12:42 GMT
etc etc While Thor's rhetorical question is full of his usual provocative hyperbole, there is no doubt that feelings towards 'the other', whether described through race or religion have grown much worse of late, not helped by the emotions around Brexit. It certainly hasn't help the struggle against xeno- and Islamophobia, for instance, or the feelings of east Europeans here about their future. Personally I think the more united Europe is, the better - at least it will keep Germany and France from ever fighting again - one of the main intentions of the original set-up of the European Community. It is just a shame that the UK will have to stand outside, determined now to be outside the customs union, so working through tariffs and yet (it looks like) obeying all the EU rules of commercial engagement anyway, but without a say in the matter. But hey, with the authority of the House of Lords over UK legislation, at least, er, we won't have to put up with unelected bureaucrats eh? Britain's veto is gone too, so look forward to things like the European army in due course. Looking forward, too, to that early, quick trade deal with Donald "America First" Trump... what exactly would france and germany fight about? The only european countries in danger of going to war are greece and turkey. This isnt the fucking 30s. It is arguable that it is precisely because of the coming together of Europe that today is, indeed, nothing like the thirties. When everyone (except those who chose to leave) are bound together by voluntary agreement, with so much to lose commercially by coming adrift, then you are right: there is nothing to fight about, instead everything just thrashed out by bureaucrats in committee rooms and parliaments.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:17:10 GMT
what exactly would france and germany fight about? The only european countries in danger of going to war are greece and turkey. This isnt the fucking 30s. It is arguable that it is precisely because of the coming together of Europe that today is, indeed, nothing like the thirties. When everyone (except those who chose to leave) are bound together by voluntary agreement, with so much to lose commercially by coming adrift, then you are right: there is nothing to fight about, instead everything just thrashed out by bureaucrats in committee rooms and parliaments. Even if you are right there is no reason to think the european union breaking up would suddenly cause presently non-existing issues between france and germany to suddenly pop into existence. France and Germany are very friendly with eachother and have absolutely nothing to fight about, nevermind go to war over. Please educate yourself on international relations en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Germany_relationsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Germany_relations
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 12:22:33 GMT
It is arguable that it is precisely because of the coming together of Europe that today is, indeed, nothing like the thirties. When everyone (except those who chose to leave) are bound together by voluntary agreement, with so much to lose commercially by coming adrift, then you are right: there is nothing to fight about, instead everything just thrashed out by bureaucrats in committee rooms and parliaments. Even if you are right there is no reason to think the european union breaking up would suddenly cause presently non-existing issues between france and germany to suddenly pop into existence. France and Germany are very friendly with eachother and have absolutely nothing to fight about, nevermind go to war over. Indeed; but with division dissent between former partners is probably more likely, while no one can foresee the future. In any case my point was to explain one reason why the original union came to be. It terms of keeping the peace in Europe it seems to have largely worked. I agree that tensions exist between the two countries you mention, though.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:29:17 GMT
Even if you are right there is no reason to think the european union breaking up would suddenly cause presently non-existing issues between france and germany to suddenly pop into existence. France and Germany are very friendly with eachother and have absolutely nothing to fight about, nevermind go to war over. Indeed; but with division dissent between former partners is probably more likely, while no one can foresee the future. In any case my point was to explain one reason why the original union came to be. It terms of keeping the peace in Europe it seems to have largely worked. I agree that tensions exist between the two countries you mention, though. No nobody can be certain but you can be pretty damn sure that two countries that recently built a bridge across the Franco-German border to symbolize their friendship will most certainly not be going to war and will not be figtting very much. The vast majority of nations on Earth can get along with eachother without the EU, there is no reason France and Germany can not. I know what your point was, it was irrelevant. The policy of unity to keep the peace is outdated and currently unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 12:47:09 GMT
Indeed; but with division dissent between former partners is probably more likely, while no one can foresee the future. In any case my point was to explain one reason why the original union came to be. It terms of keeping the peace in Europe it seems to have largely worked. I agree that tensions exist between the two countries you mention, though. No nobody can be certain but you can be pretty damn sure that two countries that recently built a bridge across the Franco-German border to symbolize their friendship will most certainly not be going to war and will not be figtting very much. The vast majority of nations on Earth can get along with eachother without the EU, there is no reason France and Germany can not. I know what your point was, it was irrelevant. The policy of unity to keep the peace is outdated and currently unnecessary. You are entitled to your opinions. But to say a voluntary union of nations with a long history of aggression between themselves would not help to keep the peace seems a bit of a stretch. It of course is not the only raison d'etre, or good thing, one can see in a large trading bloc (themselves becoming more common in modern times.) In this case, as noted, it just happens to be one of the original impetuses, founded by people who had strong and fearsome recollections of what happens when European countries did have something to fight about.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:49:25 GMT
No nobody can be certain but you can be pretty damn sure that two countries that recently built a bridge across the Franco-German border to symbolize their friendship will most certainly not be going to war and will not be figtting very much. The vast majority of nations on Earth can get along with eachother without the EU, there is no reason France and Germany can not. I know what your point was, it was irrelevant. The policy of unity to keep the peace is outdated and currently unnecessary. You are entitled to your opinions. But to say a voluntary union of nations with a long history of aggression between themselves would not help to keep the peace seems a bit of a stretch. It of course is not the only raison d'etre, or good thing, one can see in a large trading bloc (themselves becoming more common in modern times.) In this case, as noted, it just happens to be one of the original impetuses. History is irrelevant, the present conditions matter. You are committing the genetic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 12:51:53 GMT
You are entitled to your opinions. But to say a voluntary union of nations with a long history of aggression between themselves would not help to keep the peace seems a bit of a stretch. It of course is not the only raison d'etre, or good thing, one can see in a large trading bloc (themselves becoming more common in modern times.) In this case, as noted, it just happens to be one of the original impetuses. History is irrelevant, the present conditions matter. You are committing the genetic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacyThose who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
I don't know why this issue would exercise you so much. The advantages of commercial and closer political union, despite problems, are fairly clear. That of stepping away from the top table of one's continent and committing to becoming poorer less so.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 12:59:04 GMT
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
I don't know why this issue would exercise you so much. The advantages of commercial and closer political union, despite problems, are fairly clear. That of stepping away from the top table of one's continent and committing to becoming poorer less so.
"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." How is that relevant? Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing pretty well despite not being in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Feb 14, 2018 14:13:19 GMT
Doesn’t look like Michel Barnier to me. Do you often get foreigners mixed up? Edit: Regardless, Verhofstadt is an MEP who wants a federal Europe. That no more makes it an accurate gauge of the way the EU is going than another MEP Farage wanting its demise. Keep grasping at those straws though as the reality of how shit Brexit is going to be for the country slowly sinks in. Jean-Claude Juncker himself has said he wants a USE (United States of Europe). As have other prominent figures like Donald Tusk. That’s nice for them. It would need affirmation from every single state in the union though, so fairly irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Feb 14, 2018 14:19:12 GMT
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
I don't know why this issue would exercise you so much. The advantages of commercial and closer political union, despite problems, are fairly clear. That of stepping away from the top table of one's continent and committing to becoming poorer less so.
"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." How is that relevant? Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing pretty well despite not being in the EU. So you’d be happy with a Swiss or Norwegian style relationship with the EU?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 14:19:54 GMT
"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." How is that relevant? Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing pretty well despite not being in the EU. So you’d be happy with a Swiss or Norwegian style relationship with the EU? yea
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Feb 14, 2018 14:28:06 GMT
So you’d be happy with a Swiss or Norwegian style relationship with the EU? yea Norway has to comply with EU laws/regulations (while having no say in them) and are part of Schengen. The U.K. government says that’s no-go. Switzerland is in a similar position, as are all the other members of EFTA.
|
|