IMMIGRATION thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

If you were attentive, you could have noticed that my remark referred to a country leader using XIXth century politics and annexing parts of other countries. Or does the fact of Putin not having reached something excuse/cancel everything else he has done (and is still doing)?

---

Everything is excused because he did not reach the goals you set for him.

So, any new rapes in Germany lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

So, any new rapes in Germany lately?

---

Police isn't allowed to report them in Germany, Collogne got a bit too big. Been plenty all over Europe, the little children of the childless mutti are to her astonishment not behaving all that well. I envisiion her laying in her bed with an iceback on her head muttering 'wir schaffen das... wir.. schaffen...das'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

So, any new rapes in Germany lately?

---

Most likely according to Pape's (or any other) statistics. Why do you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Police isn't allowed to report them in Germany

---

Where do you always get this bullhonkey from?
There are apparently cases of no or underreporting but how can you say everything is swept under the rug when politicians of the current government openly talk about it on TV? I guess mr De Maiziere has been fired already for disobeying Merkel since we all know that nothing in Germany is done without her approval and she wants this swept under the rug. :dizzy2:

Or how about we you stop with the dramatic, exaggerating blanket statements?

https://youtu.be/OjkUVJ3E2Uw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Everything is excused because he did not reach the goals you set for him.

---

If a racist wishes to kill all blacks and doesn't reach his goal, does it make him less racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So you still don't see how you are contradicting yourself and the cited materials?

Modification is not a subset of apposition, nor are they synonymous.

---

The sources you cite try to draw the line between apposition and (pre)modification. It is nonsense. Apposition (as a grammatical construction) may stand in pre-position (premodifying the antecedent) and post-position (post-modifying the antecedent). But it doesn't change its NATURE.
The classification that your sources offer reminds me the classification of animals in one old Chinese "encyclopaedia". According to it all animals are divided into embalmed ones, suckling piglets and those that belong to the emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Most likely according to Pape's (or any other) statistics. Why do you ask?



Where do you always get this bullhonkey from?
There are apparently cases of no or underreporting but how can you say everything is swept under the rug when politicians of the current government openly talk about it on TV? I guess mr De Maiziere has been fired already for disobeying Merkel since we all know that nothing in Germany is done without her approval and she wants this swept under the rug. :dizzy2:

Or how about we you stop with the dramatic, exaggerating blanket statements?

---

German police said so themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

German police said so themselves.

---

Really? Suddenly an unsourced, off the record statement by a few unnamed police officers on social media is "German police said so"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Or how about we you stop with the dramatic, exaggerating blanket statements?

---

If he could do that, he wouldn't be a bigot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

If a racist wishes to kill all blacks and doesn't reach his goal, does it make him less racist?

---

I'm gonna go full Tribesman on this

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Hey, I am a bigot in your eyes anyway so there's nothing to gain, seek sources yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

The sources you cite try to draw the line between apposition and (pre)modification. It is nonsense. Apposition (as a grammatical construction) may stand in pre-position (premodifying the antecedent) and post-position (post-modifying the antecedent). But it doesn't change its NATURE.
The classification that your sources offer reminds me the classification of animals in one old Chinese "encyclopaedia". According to it all animals are divided into embalmed ones, suckling piglets and those that belong to the emperor.

---

The Meyer classification gives the characteristics of apposition and formally distinguishes them from other grammatical relations. The classification you favor is, like what, that all animals are divided into - animals? That isn't much of an insight into the nature of animals.

Perhaps this overview diagram from Meyer will help:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Attachment 17335

Also, here's a recent full treatment that also uses Dutch as a case language, though it's even further from your preference than my previous reference, Meyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p.3

(4) a. My brother Peter is still at college.
b. My brother, Peter, is still at college.

(5) a. The poet Pushkin was born in Moskow.
b. The poet, Pushkin, was born in Moskow.

The restrictive example (4a) suggests that the speaker has several brothers and picks
out the one called Peter. In the appositive variant (4b), however, the anchor refers to
only one brother and the apposition just adds that this brother is called Peter.
Similarly, in the restrictive (5a), the poet Pushkin can be used to introduce someone
the speaker did not know before, whereas the poet in itself does not have a referent
yet. In (5b), on the other hand, a poet must have been introduced in the previous
discourse. Therefore, the poet directly refers to this person and the apposition just
adds that his name is Pushkin

Though almost everyone mentions both close and loose apposition
nowadays, the main focus is on the loose, or non-restrictive, construction. This
construction is usually taken as apposition proper. In the common view, loose and
close apposition are not considered two variants of one construction, but two
different constructions with a different structure and meaning. Still, a relatively new
work like Meyer (1992) views the two as just two classes of the same grammatical
phenomenon. However, I think that close and loose apposition do not only differ in
intonation and meaning, but also in structure.

---

To highlight the difference in perspectives then, "the poet Burns/Pushkin" is not considered appositive here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5

Taking the arguments above into account, together with the clear difference in
intonation and meaning, I conclude that close and loose appositions are structurally
different constructions. I therefore exclude the restrictive construction from the class
of appositions. For more details on the restrictive construction, I refer to De Vries
(2008a), who analyses most of its subtypes as attributive modifying direct speech. In
the rest of this thesis, I will only be concerned with the non-restrictive variant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 76

As we saw above, an appositional construction conveys its own proposition,
separate from the main proposition. The next question is then how this proposition is
built from the underlying structure. The first step in answering this question is to
show that appositions have the properties of nominal predicates, not of arguments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 78

Doron’s third argument to analyze appositions as nominal predicates is
based on the possibility for some nominals to appear without an article in predicate
position. Whereas this possibility is rather restricted in English, bare nominals as
predicates are quite common in many other Germanic and Romance languages (De
Swart et al. 2007). These predicates usually relate to capacities like professions,
religions, nationalities and titles. Here are some Dutch examples, illustrating that
bare nominals occur in appositions and in predicate positions, but not in argument
positions. Note that (46c) and (47c) would be acceptable in newspaper headlines,
where determiners are often left out. Such telegram style writing is irrelevant for our
purposes, however.

(46) a. Drs. Mallebrootje, uitvinder van de automatische [Dutch]
MA Mallebrootje inventor of the automatic
appositieontleder, doet mee aan de verkiezingen.
apposition.analyser does with at the elections
‘Mallebrootje MA, the inventor of the automatic apposition analyser,
takes part in the elections.’

b. Drs. Mallebrootje is uitvinder.
MA Mallebrootje is inventor
‘Mallebrootje MA is an inventor.’

c. * Uitvinder doet mee aan de verkiezingen.
inventor does with at the elections
Intended: ‘An/The inventor takes part in the elections.’

(47) a. Hadassa, jood van geboorte, eet geen varkensvlees.
Hadassa jew of birth eats no pork
‘Hadassa, a jew by birth, does not eat pork.’

b. Hadassa is jood van geboorte.
Hadassa is jew of birth
‘Hadassa is a jew by birth.’

c. * Jood van geboorte eet geen varkensvlees.
jew of birth eats no pork
Intended: ‘A/The jew by birth eats no pork.’

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Hey, I am a bigot in your eyes anyway so there's nothing to gain

---

'Hey, I am a negro in your eyes anyway so there's nothing to gain'

I think this is an important and revealing juxtaposition, especially as it relates to the "pluralism saturation" I discussed earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

youtube

---

It is a decent opinion piece. I learnt a new word, Taharrush. Reminds me of similar incidents that have happened in Japan where they do it on trains (for example). Group of people do a wall on a carriage, isolating a woman, then assault her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is a decent opinion piece. I learnt a new word, Taharrush. Reminds me of similar incidents that have happened in Japan where they do it on trains (for example). Group of people do a wall on a carriage, isolating a woman, then assault her.

---

In Korea, they call it "Zerg Rush". :tomato:

What's so nice about racism that you need to exist it Monty, comfort zone?. Didn't know you are black, don't care either

None of that has anything to do with the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What's so nice about racism that you need to exist it Monty, comfort zone?. Didn't know you are black, don't care either

---

"Exist it"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

"Exist it"?

---

I think he needs to means "experience it", or "What's so nice about racism is that it only there because the reasons exist"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

"Exist it"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I think he needs to means "experience it", or "What's so nice about racism is that it only there because the reasons exist"

---

I assumed it is "that you need it to exist", basically saying that Monty wants there to be racism so he can get some kind of advantage from it. Too bad that he himself took Monty's made-up "quote" literally and assumed that Monty is black. Although of course it still works for Fragony if Monty is not black because then he can just accuse him of multiculturalist dhimmitude or bleeding heart liberalism wanting to feel bad about himself. At this point I have probably said something that offends someone myself because I'm a horrible person and I hate myself and want to feel guilty about something because I'm so liberal. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is a decent opinion piece. I learnt a new word, Taharrush. Reminds me of similar incidents that have happened in Japan where they do it on trains (for example). Group of people do a wall on a carriage, isolating a woman, then assault her.

---

it's worth noting that a lot of the pieces he references are from the first week or so after the attacks, before we knew the majority of the attackers thus far identified were recent immigrants from the North African and Levantine "refugee" nations.

So, essentially, he has more information available to him than the Feminists he lambastes.

With that said, however, he is exactly right when he attacks them for conflating "Feminism" and Marxist social thought. Feminists should not necessarily defend minority groups, now should they be concerned with racism or post-Colonialism due to their being Feminists.

The suggestion from British feminists that Germany is a "rape culture" is, from what I know, quite ignorant because it specifically isn't in the same way Scandinavia isn't, more advanced socially than the US and even the UK.

By contrast, most Arab nations are rape cultures, or contain rape sub-cultures. I had to live with a Syrian at one point in university housing. In the end we got him thrown out because he and his friends were a bunch of disgusting animals. They smoked Pot, played Dubstep at all hours at insane volumes, literally lived in filth and the girls in the flat didn't feel safe. I remember being in the corridor once and hearing one of his friends say, out loud "shock her! Rape her!". It was something about a girl he wasn't getting on with - the response stuck with me.

Quote:

---

With that said, however, he is exactly right when he attacks them for conflating "Feminism" and Marxist social thought. Feminists should not necessarily defend minority groups, now should they be concerned with racism or post-Colonialism due to their being Feminists.

---

One of the cruxes of contemporary feminism is "intersectionalism", meaning they view all the familiar 'isms' as being interlinked, or even fundamentally the same phenomenon. Moreover, contemporary feminism in the world - including in the United States - draws mostly from post-war Continental philosophy, which on its own developed various elements of old-school Marxist thought in ways that the old-school Marxists themselves disliked (and still disagree with, wheresoever they remain).

In other words, you are out of touch. The classical (now "conservative") feminism you have in mind is overshadowed by the dominance of post-modernists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The Meyer classification gives the characteristics of apposition and formally distinguishes them from other grammatical relations.

---

I encountered different classification of grammatical relations within a sentence which divided them all into parataxis, hypotaxis (which includes what Meyer terms complementation, modification, apposition and so on) and predication. So it is a matter of taste.

BUT once again, I spoke not of RELATIONS, but of a SENTENCE PART. The same relations may connect different sentence parts. For example, the relation of coordination/parataxis may connect homogeneous subjects, predicates, objects, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

To highlight the difference in perspectives then, "the poet Burns/Pushkin" is not considered appositive here.

---

Those excerpts that you cite seem to expose total agreement between my and Meyer's opinion on apposition AS A SENTENCE PART, since he (she?) considers both Burns/Pushkin examples the cases of apposition.


As for a different perspectives, I absolutely agree with the wording NOW. We should have spoken about PERSPECTIVES, or VIEWS of the phenomenon in which case such words as "wrong" or "invalid" are not applicable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I had to live with a Syrian at one point in university housing. In the end we got him thrown out because he and his friends were a bunch of disgusting animals. They smoked Pot, played Dubstep at all hours at insane volumes, literally lived in filth and the girls in the flat didn't feel safe. I remember being in the corridor once and hearing one of his friends say, out loud "shock her! Rape her!". It was something about a girl he wasn't getting on with - the response stuck with me.

---

Now you will see something like "it's a separate/nonsymptomatic case that proves nothing" as a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

One of the cruxes of contemporary feminism is "intersectionalism", meaning they view all the familiar 'isms' as being interlinked, or even fundamentally the same phenomenon.

---

indeed, that mode of thought is generally responsible for several ideological splits.

The Internet athiesm community did not weather intersecionality well; internet community leaders and forum admin started demanding followers conform to otherwise unrelated ideological standards of behavior and ended up driving away a majority of thier membership

Quote:

---

In other words, you are out of touch. The classical (now "conservative") feminism you have in mind is overshadowed by the dominance of post-modernists.

---

Which is one of the reasons more and more people refuse to identify as feminists, moving on to more classical terms like egalitarian.

Oh good... its not like I cant read german or anything.

https://translate.google.com/transla...-mehr-aus.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

http://www.welt.de/print/wams/hambur...-mehr-aus.html

The reactionaries gaining power is preferable to giving into these unwashed masses.

Bring on the fascism.

---

There need to be execution rooms at every immigration place.
But we have been pussified by all the luxury from America, we used to live from iron and steel but now we get US-engineered plastic phones from China that do all the work for us and we look at so many photos and videos of kittens on them that we just ARE the victim culture some of these immigrants take us for.

Kill them all and let god sort them out. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

indeed, that mode of thought is generally responsible for several ideological splits.

The Internet athiesm community did not weather intersecionality well; internet community leaders and forum admin started demanding followers conform to otherwise unrelated ideological standards of behavior and ended up driving away a majority of thier membership

Which is one of the reasons more and more people refuse to identify as feminists, moving on to more classical terms like egalitarian.

---

It's a common theme among the different mainstream political movements/philosophies in the UK that they make their greatest demands on themselves (per individual), whilst respecting the right of others to disagree. Hence you have that arch-Tory, the Duke of Wellington, advising fellow aristocrats to do their utmost for the country before assuming the right to put themselves about, and that arch-socialist George Orwell admitting that the English nobility, if nothing else, are singularly enthusiastic about putting themselves in the position of greatest danger. In more recent times the most hardline socialists of the Labour party were usually on good terms with the most conservative Tories of the Conservative party. It's the hardline neo-liberals who scream "Me me me" (epitomised by Thatcher) and the monolithic tendencies of fringe groups on the left and right whom I despise. Both impinge on the principle that's one's rights end where those of others begin. You want rights? What are your responsibilities? Why aren't you taking on more?

In the same vein, I can appreciate this sentiment:

Quote:

---

You want rights? What are your responsibilities? Why aren't you taking on more?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Oh good... its not like I cant read german or anything.

https://translate.google.com/transla...-mehr-aus.html

---

Maybe it is just me (or my computer, to be precise), but if I open a link with an article in an unknown language I get a small window in the upper right screen corner which offers to translate it into a language from the drop down menu.

Its you, I dont get that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Maybe it is just me (or my computer, to be precise), but if I open a link with an article in an unknown language I get a small window in the upper right screen corner which offers to translate it into a language from the drop down menu.

---

You're probably using Chrome.