Perhaps you would like to point out to me when I contradicted myself then, oh wise and knowing the one.
You just have to keep throwing around the race/racist card, don't you?
First of all, the girl was not my friend, I barely knew her. She was nice, and helped me find a cheap bike, but that is about as far as I ever had contact with her. I mentioned her not to show how tolerant I was toward Gypsies, but to point out that her and her family were the only example I saw in all those months of successful integration. Second of all, using race when talking about Gypsies is about as stupid as using it to talk about Muslims, considering that Gypsies used to be quite good at adopting people into their society, whatever genetics Gypsies had when they first came into Europe is probably much different than now. Must you always think of things in terms of 'racial identity'? Someone can dislike someone's culture without disliking their race (conservative southerners for instance, you seem to hate them). Just earlier you and Horetore were bashing the Magyar!
Quit throwing around your PC talking points and actually read what was posting. You have not once made any serious criticism of my argument; you just screamed "RACISM, NAZI, BABY MURDERER!"
Let me make this really simple for you. I will lay out several points, and if you feel so inclined to discuss this with me, I would be happy to hear your reply.
1. The way that a large portion of Gypsies live in Hungary is outside of the normal social order. Can we agree on that?
2. Gypsies not only often live outside of society, but do not respect the laws and institutions of Hungarian society and government? Can we agree on that one? Or do you not know?
3. When a social group lives outside of larger society and does not respect its laws and institutions, it becomes disruptive and potentially dangerous to society. Can we agree on this on? This would include everything from gun-toting, bomb-making, anti-government radicals in the US, to Gypsies in Hungary, to Militias in Sub-Saharan Africa. All very different beasts, but of the same category (described above). This would not include people living out of society, BUT respecting its laws. ie, Amish, American Indians on reserves, some Jewish communities, etc. Can we agree on that point?
4. When such a group exists, it needs to either start respecting the laws and customs of the country, or get out. If they do not agree with them, they can participate in the democratic process to change them, like everyone else who disagree with laws. If the law is enforced on everyone but them, you are discriminating against the rest of society? Can we agree on that one?
Now this one I sense is where the source of the conflict is:
5. In the case of Gypsies, they have in the past and continue to stick stubbornly to their ways of life, even when it conflicts with the laws of the Hungarian government. They deliberately segregate themselves from the rest of society, and live life in their own way, which produces a drain on society. The answer to the problem then is to give them the ultimatum to either start making progress toward integration by such and such time, or be forcibly integrated, or if they do not want that, then to leave. The lack of integration is what is allowing their lawlessness to flourish, and if you were to integrate them into society at large, you would take care of the problem of their lawlessness? I have a feeling that you are going to disagree with me here, so if you do, please do not just say that I am wrong, but tell me what you think causes such lawlessness and disrespect for law and custom amongst Gypsies, and give me your solution for it, as I have given you mine.
Bookmarks