Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
So in other words;
No, immigration haven't changed your life.
no, but then i'm not poorly skilled and living in poor inner city area and subsisting on a poorly paid job, in short i'm not one of the million odd people who are affected enough to have voted BNP.So in other words;
No, immigration haven't changed your life.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
no, but then i'm not poorly skilled and living in poor inner city area and subsisting on a poorly paid job, in short i'm not one of the million odd people who are affected enough to have voted BNP.
So you admit that immigration hasn't made you change your life at all. no, but then i'm not poorly skilled and living in poor inner city area and subsisting on a poorly paid job, in short i'm not one of the million odd people who are affected enough to have voted BNP.
BNP votes went down at the last election. It was just that turnout dropped markedly for all the other parties in the wake of the expenses scandal.
You're hanging in the breeze here old boy.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Like I said, have some patience, the negative effects are already beginning to show in Oslo, and it's going to get worse. Like everywhere.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...icle190268.ece <- quality!
Haha!Like I said, have some patience, the negative effects are already beginning to show in Oslo, and it's going to get worse. Like everywhere.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...icle190268.ece <- quality!
"It's beginning to show"? Because of 72 rapists? With thousands of immigrants living in oslo? Plus the gazillion poles working here?
Are you serious?
Oh, and since when did "non-western" mean "muslim"...? You are aware that latino's, christian africans(sub-saharan), eastern euro's and asians are all grouped in that term, right...?
Originally Posted by Idaho:
You're hanging in the breeze here old boy.
I don't really care, my response to your questions i still deem perfectly adequate.You're hanging in the breeze here old boy.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
Every right up to the point it interferes in someone else's life. eg, british jews. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but who cares, because they live there lives without imposing that view on others.
Then for example you have the millions of ME/muslim immigrants the UK is trying to 'assimilate'. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but find themselves the object of distrust from the native population, because that native population perceives a noisy grievance culture from the newcomers which is forcing the natives to adjust their lives to accommodate a griping minority who really ought to be grateful they got citizenship and quietly set about making themselves British, i.e. the italicized English idiom above.
Some of us see those exact problems in the attempt to forge a federal europe.
i object to the fact that i have to listen to the whining from both hand-wringing liberals justifying the actions of their pet guilt and ME/muslims saying how their having a hard time.Originally Posted by Idaho:
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
Of course, as ever, none of you see the historical parrallels. The development of fascism in the early 20th century was due to the creation of new, potentially disparate nations. When Germany and Italy were created out of the various smaller states they had to impose an ideal of nationhood. Everything had to branded with the mark of the new nation. Germany still has Bundes-everything. The side-effect of this is it left a large number of people with questionable loyalty. Catholics (to Rome), Gypsies and Jews.
No, to use an old English saying; "do whatever you want, just don't scare the horses", i.e. its not my business to interfere in your life, just make sure you don't interfere in mine.The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
Of course, as ever, none of you see the historical parrallels. The development of fascism in the early 20th century was due to the creation of new, potentially disparate nations. When Germany and Italy were created out of the various smaller states they had to impose an ideal of nationhood. Everything had to branded with the mark of the new nation. Germany still has Bundes-everything. The side-effect of this is it left a large number of people with questionable loyalty. Catholics (to Rome), Gypsies and Jews.
Every right up to the point it interferes in someone else's life. eg, british jews. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but who cares, because they live there lives without imposing that view on others.
Then for example you have the millions of ME/muslim immigrants the UK is trying to 'assimilate'. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but find themselves the object of distrust from the native population, because that native population perceives a noisy grievance culture from the newcomers which is forcing the natives to adjust their lives to accommodate a griping minority who really ought to be grateful they got citizenship and quietly set about making themselves British, i.e. the italicized English idiom above.
Some of us see those exact problems in the attempt to forge a federal europe.
i don't have to listen to jews making a fuss about how they deserve more, i don't have to listen to the village of Little Uppingly whine about they are disadvantaged, nor too do i hear any complaint from the million odd Poles frequenting these isles.
therefore some groups fail my don't scare the horses test, and others pass.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Haha!
"It's beginning to show"? Because of 72 rapists? With thousands of immigrants living in oslo? Plus the gazillion poles working here?
Are you serious?
These rapes hardly ever happen in the good parts of town safe the city centre, but mostly in enriched area's. Thousands of immigrants, that would be enough to populate a small village. Let's take your 40% and fill up the rest of the village with Nordish, now we have a tiny tiny town. With a lot of rape.Haha!
"It's beginning to show"? Because of 72 rapists? With thousands of immigrants living in oslo? Plus the gazillion poles working here?
Are you serious?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
These rapes hardly ever happen in the good parts of town safe the city centre, but mostly in enriched area's. Thousands of immigrants, that would be enough to populate a small village. Let's take your 40% and fill up the rest of the village with Nordish, now we have a tiny tiny town. With a lot of rape.
WRONGThese rapes hardly ever happen in the good parts of town safe the city centre, but mostly in enriched area's. Thousands of immigrants, that would be enough to populate a small village. Let's take your 40% and fill up the rest of the village with Nordish, now we have a tiny tiny town. With a lot of rape.
A lot/most of them happen in the area from Akerselva to Frogner, the really good part of town
"Thousands of immigrants" was just something I said because I don't really know the exact number.... But if the 14,3% the article states is correct, then it's it's around 71.500 immigrants in Oslo.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
WRONG
A lot/most of them happen in the area from Akerselva to Frogner, the really good part of town
Don't know the name of the area's, but I have family in Oslo and that is simply bull.WRONG
A lot/most of them happen in the area from Akerselva to Frogner, the really good part of town
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Don't know the name of the area's, but I have family in Oslo and that is simply bull.
Better call them back then.Don't know the name of the area's, but I have family in Oslo and that is simply bull.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Better call them back then.
No need, you speak fine english, I don't need to learn the Norwegian word for 'bull'Better call them back then.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
No need, you speak fine english, I don't need to learn the Norwegian word for 'bull'
"okse" No need, you speak fine english, I don't need to learn the Norwegian word for 'bull'
Wouldn't that be an ox? As in a castrated bull?
At least here we have "Bulle" and "Ochse" and they're different.
...
Google translate agrees with me.
At least here we have "Bulle" and "Ochse" and they're different.
...
Google translate agrees with me.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i don't have to listen to jews making a fuss about how they deserve more, i don't have to listen to the village of Little Uppingly whine about they are disadvantaged, nor too do i hear any complaint from the million odd Poles frequenting these isles.
therefore some groups fail my don't scare the horses test, and others pass.
Really? I find that you just have to look at the Israeli flag funny to get shrieks of anti-semitism. And the news is cram-packs with nonsense about little-englanders under seige or our culture being eroded by these scary foreigners. My horses get scared daily by all this bollo.i don't have to listen to jews making a fuss about how they deserve more, i don't have to listen to the village of Little Uppingly whine about they are disadvantaged, nor too do i hear any complaint from the million odd Poles frequenting these isles.
therefore some groups fail my don't scare the horses test, and others pass.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Wouldn't that be an ox? As in a castrated bull?
At least here we have "Bulle" and "Ochse" and they're different.
...
Google translate agrees with me.
No. "Okse" is what you call a male cow of all versions. Or "kvegokse" if you're an agriculture geek.Wouldn't that be an ox? As in a castrated bull?
At least here we have "Bulle" and "Ochse" and they're different.
...
Google translate agrees with me.
If you want to specify further which kind of "okse" you're talking about, then it's "tyr" for an uncastrated one, "stut" for one that's castrated and under 2 years and just "okse" for one that's castrated and over 2 years.
odd, i don't see that.
so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.
again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.
so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.
again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
odd, i don't see that.
so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.
again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.
Oh come on. We've been irritated by every single foreign group in our country.odd, i don't see that.
so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.
again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.
Now it's Islam. Before that it was the eastern euro's and gypsies. Then it was the jews. For crying out loud, when there weren't any foreigners to whine about we simply whined about our own countrymen from other patrs of the country!
It's not long ago that there were signs on rental apartments in oslo specifying "no negro's or northerners".
oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.
I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:
Originally Posted by Idaho:
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
The answer is that people are idiots.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.
I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.
I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).
Originally Posted by Idaho:
... Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country....
Lot of truth here. May not apply to all cultures at all times, but I suspect there would be more immigrant/neighbor scapegoating than not throughout history. ... Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country....
Didn't the greeks deride the Macedonians as uncultured boobs even while Phillip was keeping his foot on their collective neck?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"
The answer is that people are idiots.
no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"
The answer is that people are idiots.
this question does not revolve around whether muslims are bad people.
the question revolves around whether they as a group are identified as a problem by a significant number of british passport holders, particularly, a problem appreciably greater than any other group which is why the issue stands prominent.
idaho asked;
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
i provided an answer to that question, not to a broader argument about who is the most despicable form or criminal or anything else.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.
It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).
not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.
It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).
i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.
Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.
Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".
Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.
nonsense, i refer only to the concept of not interfering with other people, as i explicitly stated in my response to Idaho, a concept enshrined in British lexicon ever since Henry VIII/Beatrice Stella Tanner coined the phrase:Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".
Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.
"We do not care what you do as long as you don't frighten the horses."
that is the opposite of the tyranny of the majority, unless you choose to define it as oppressing the minorities right to interfere in the lives of everyone else...........? in which case i have just realised myself to be more authoritarian than previously recognised!
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.
i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.
In the 1300s it was Jews.not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.
i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.
Same old same old.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
In the 1300s it was Jews.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.
Same old same old.
You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....In the 1300s it was Jews.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.
Same old same old.
It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....
I guess this is one aspect in which the good old Soviet Union was light years ahead of the rest of the world. In the good old USSR (at least in 1970s-80s) nobody gave a crap about ones racial/ethnic background and all religions received equal amount of hate from the state.
Originally Posted by :
In the 1800s it was the Irish
Didn't they always hate the Irish?In the 1800s it was the Irish
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....
It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....
Indeed I only picked the top few from a long and varied line in one country. People in all countries have spread the hate in all different directions over the years. Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"... You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....
It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"...
They're only sheep, bleeting sheep!Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"...
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Indeed I only picked the top few from a long and varied line in one country. People in all countries have spread the hate in all different directions over the years. Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"...
There are reasons all those people were victimised, and they are actual reasons. That doesn't make it right at all, but it makes your point; it isn't different this time.Indeed I only picked the top few from a long and varied line in one country. People in all countries have spread the hate in all different directions over the years. Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO