Ice, Ice Baby no more!

[al Roumi]

As for my solution? lol, Don't kill them? Let them be? If they break a law arrest them?

Can someone else tell him he's wrong? I don't think he'll listen to me. Maybe a short history of all the groups he just presented as nice and docile minority groups. I could give him nice picture books with all the forced assimaltion and ethnocide, of Jewish babies being ripped from there mothers arms and Amish farms being burned, all for the sake of "WELL THEY REPRESENT A DANGER" A 2% DANGER

The real danger here is the bloody government which is already qaushing expression and the ultimate expression is being a minority group

To my mind the best equivalent minority group is the Australian aborigines, the forced assimilation Vuk prescribed in his early posts sounds very much like what the (well meaning?) Australian (British?) government did -breaking apart families, fostering aboriginy children with white families, denial of the existence of an aboriginal culture...

I am so going to sig Vuk's line of "not packing heat" as a form of cultural sensitivity... LOL

[Furunculus]

damn it, my big replies rarely ever get a response, is it because my 'controversial' views are just too mundanely reasonable?

[al Roumi]

damn it, my big replies rarely ever get a response, is it because my 'controversial' views are just too mundanely reasonable?

LOL, I think that by comparison to Vuk, you appear reasonable. You are Stalin to Churchill if Vuk is Hitler

If you want a response, I think your blanket ethnographic characterisations were crude and wholely beneath you. I depsise the BNP and EDL, that doesn't mean I would least like to live next to a white family, yet for the same reason you will not contiguously exist next to any Muslims because of Islam4UK?

[Furunculus]

hah, i didn't say "any" muslim.

i deliberately referred to the "radicalised population of bradford", and then referred to this generalisation in the following statement.

on a similar note, i wanna find me some "headscarf girls"!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...737683,00.html

[al Roumi]

hah, i didn't say "any" muslim.

i deliberately referred to the "radicalised population of bradford", and then referred to this generalisation in the following statement.

Indeed you did Joseph, but not providing any other type of Muslim in your analysis is pretty suggestive.

on a similar note, i wanna find me some "headscarf girls"!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...737683,00.html

:S that's a strangely serendipitous comment to make on the same day as this article:

Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime
Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rime-tradition

[Furunculus]

Indeed you did Joseph, but not providing any other type of Muslim in your analysis is pretty suggestive.



:S that's a strangely serendipitous comment to make on the same day as this article:

Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime
Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rime-tradition

i don't subscribe to the hard-coded notion that fairness can only be demonstrated by the overscrupulous reinforcement of a positive trend if you wish to demonstrate a negative trend, if we really wished to get picky I might point out that 'other' muslims should be implicit from the reference to Commonwealth countries, but it simply isn't in my nature to care that much about how others perceive me.

i'm not sure how your link to Komment Macht Frie does anything to challenge my link..........?

[al Roumi]

i don't subscribe to the hard-coded notion that fairness can only be demonstrated by the overscrupulous reinforcement of a positive trend if you wish to demonstrate a negative trend, if we really wished to get picky I might point out that 'other' muslims should be implicit from the reference to Commonwealth countries, but it simply isn't in my nature to care that much about how others perceive me.

It's not about how people see you, it's about how people think you see them.

i'm not sure how your link to Komment Macht Frie does anything to challenge my link..........?

It doesn't, it's just funny (?) to see you (a white blocke) saying you'd like to meet a Muslim girl who has to have her sexual encounters in insalubrious conduitions when there was some thing on how Asian gangs are supposedly quite widely involved in abusing/pimping white girls.

+lol at the Komment macht frei.

[Furunculus]

i treat everyone i meet on an absolutely impartial basis, and weigh them on their merits.
where i employ my judgement and make assumptions based on knowledge and experience (aka discrimination) is where i do not have the privilege of first hand knowledge.

when i talk of preferences with regards to who is my neighbour i talk merely of idle preference, not remonstrations or restrictions.
to put this another way; the people i would choose to live next to in order of preference are as follows:
1. pleasant, none interfering, and law-abiding
2. none interfering, and law-abiding
3. law-abiding
4. average joe.
5. unpleasant
6. unpleasant, and interfering
7. unpleasant, interfering, and unlawful

in the absence of perfect knowledge, i.e. without a brain scan of all aspiring neighbours (and the ability to forbid them the house next door) i am reduced to discrimination (again, i refer you to the dictionary definition).

from personal experience, and knowledge otherwise acquired, i'm pretty sure that living next to a random Jewish family will meet a category #1 desirable neighbour.
therefore that family will sit high on my list of desirable neighbours.

from personal experience, and knowledge otherwise acquired, i'm pretty sure that living next to an attendant of (insert random radical mosque) is less likely to meet the criteria of a category #1 desirable neighbour.
therefore that family will be less likely to sit so high on my list of desirable neighbours.

from personal experience, and knowledge otherwise acquired, i'm less likely to purchase an IBM/Hitachi or Seagate hard-drive because i understand that many people have had problems in the past with them.
even tho i know that there is a 99.9% probability of just such a drive functioning perfectly today.
does that mean i will immediately junk an IBM/Hitachi or Seagate hard-drive if one happens into my possession? no, i will weigh it on its merits.
does that mean i will petition the gov't to forbid the sale of IBM/Hitachi or Seagate hard-drive from favoured retailers? absolutely not.

in my example i deliberately chose not to write off an entire sector of society because it is not right to do so in the absence of first hand-knowledge of every individual within that sector, which is an impossibility so i did not.

the reason why i say this is not because i really care about immigration or particular colours/creeds, because i do not, it is because i disapprove to the subversion of behaviour that is perfectly healthy in the name of political correctness.
i likewise disapprove of the subversion of language including such words as "discriminate".

i expect all friends family and associates to discriminate and use good judgement, it is a prerequisite for a none-destructive life given that the alternative leaves fate to random chance, but that in no way implies i support, advocate, or otherwise encourage sectarianism.

outside of the bare essentials for a functioning civic society the attribute I most prize is none-interference in the lives of others, both ways round, and that which i like least is unwarranted interference in my life. that is a personal 'prejudice'.

as to the comment is free joke, my pleasure.

do you really believe this is an unworthy personal characteristic, and is that merely because it is 'uncomfortable' to discuss such things in anything other than banal equivocations?

[edit] funnily enough, i have just found that my new 2TB samsung drive is duff, from a manufacturer that is generally considered to have an excellent record of reliability. who'da thunk it? [/edit]

[HoreTore]

lol, apparently if the EC demands changes to hungary's media laws then it will have an immediate impact on the media laws in Germany, France and the Netherlands who all have similar legal strictures:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl...arys_media_law

:D

I was unaware that the ruling parties of Germany, France and the Netherlands assign party comrades to work with journalists i opposition to the current regime.

And by similar, do you perhaps by any chance mean "completely different"?

[Louis VI the Fat]

:S that's a strangely serendipitous comment to make on the same day as this article:

Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime
Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rime-tradition

Ah, I see:

But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested.

The Times investigation is based around 56 men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997, 50 from Muslim backgrounds. Granted, such prosecutions are notoriously difficult to sustain, but, nonetheless, this is a small sample used to evidence the "tidal wave" of offending referred to by unnamed police sources. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo's, which has run projects in the areas concerned for many years, tells me that, while he is pleased to see open discussion of child sexual exploitation, he worries that "decent Pakistani men will now be looked at as potential child abusers". He insists: "This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country."

While Narey acknowledges that "in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men in [offending] groups", he argues strongly that no useful conclusions can be drawn until the government undertakes a serious piece of research into what is a nationwide problem. (Keith Vaz, who chairs the Commons home affairs select committee called for such an inquiry today.) Narey also refutes the allegation that Muslim men are grooming white girls because of cultural assumptions about their sexual availability, as girls from minority backgrounds have been similarly abused.

Thus no official data exists on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators of this form of child abuse, and local charities have stated publicly that they do not consider it a race issue.

50 out of 56 offenders belong to a single minority group. Then follow several paragraphs of mental exercises why this is, of course!, a useless statistic.

The quote above shows why Fragony is right.

[HoreTore]

50 offenders? Yes, the actions taken by those 50 offends should influence how we treat the million law-abiding ones...

Stop focusing on percentage, start focusing on actual number of offendrs. Also realize that every assault rape is reported, nearly every rape where there isn't a pre-existng relationship between the victim and offend is reported(which would be the case with most newly arrived immigrants) and that almost no rapes are reported when there is a pr-existing relationship and/or alcohol is involved.

Also, the black numbers are so extreme when it comes to rape that any avaiable numbers are basically junk that no sane person would dare draw a conclusion from.

[Furunculus]

I was unaware that the ruling parties of Germany, France and the Netherlands assign party comrades to work with journalists i opposition to the current regime.

And by similar, do you perhaps by any chance mean "completely different"?

i'm not a lawyer to understand the intricate ins and outs of the comparitive media laws of those countries, so i'm not in a position to explain why the economist is wrong to report this 'allegation', perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten me..........?

[HoreTore]

Uhm, the economist reported the Hungarian PM claiming that. the economist didn't touch the comment.

Understandably.

[Furunculus]

granted, i wasn't just going to be so blase as to write off the allegation. it's not as if i like hungary's ridiculous laws.

[HoreTore]

An easy way to check the truth in that statement, would be to turn on a german, french or dutch radio station right now and see if they're playing any hip hop....

I'm betting 10 dollars they are.

[Furunculus]

An easy way to check the truth in that statement, would be to turn on a german, french or dutch radio station right now and see if they're playing any hip hop....

I'm betting 10 dollars they are.

i'm afraid that is rather valueless if we wish to assess the legal principles upon which the law was based because it takes no account of how the law is interpretted in different legal jurisdictions.

it isn't the fact that hip-hop has been banned that matters, it is the fact that arbitrary laws exist which permit the censorship of public material for no 'good' reason.

[HoreTore]

i'm afraid that is rather valueless if we wish to assess the legal principles upon which the law was based because it takes no account of how the law is interpretted in different legal jurisdictions.

it isn't the fact that hip-hop has been banned that matters, it is the fact that arbitrary laws exist which permit the censorship of public material for no 'good' reason.

No, what a law is in theory is irrelevant, what matters is how it is applied in practice.

As an example, Norway had a blasphemy law until the socialist government removed it a couple of years ago(2008 IIRC). The law was quite similar to the tribal laws against blasphemy you find in Pakistan. Does that mean that we wwere the same as Pakistan in that area? No, of course not, because while Pakietans law is actively used, our law had not been used since the Øverland case in the 30's, which was even dismissed by the courts even though it was a clear violation.

If France has a law that could in theory ban Ice-T in the afternoons, but never uses it, then you cannot say that France's laws are similar to Hungary's.

[Furunculus]

If France has a law that could in theory ban Ice-T in the afternoons, but never uses it, then you cannot say that France's laws are similar to Hungary's.

no, you can say that france and hungary have different judicial outcomes.

what is funny is that the EU will have to be very careful at how it attempts to apply pressure on hungary, for if it deems the law incompatible with its goals then that will perforce have an impact on other countries with similar laws.

in the end, the EU may be forced to grin and bear hungary's silly law that is foolishly applied, for it lacks the levers to do anything about it.

[HoreTore]

I rathere doubt that any Frenchman will cry over a dead law that is overturned.

Desperation from an idiotic Hungarian PM, nothing less. Kinda like what we see from every other dictator whenever they implement a new law of oppression: "but country X does Y!!11".

Read China Daily's articles on Liu Xiaobo. All of their arguments are based on "western country X does/would do Y". And most of the time, they do point at real inaccuracies in our laws abd behaviour, but its stll completely besides the point and completely irrelevant when it comes to China's criminal behaviour. Just like french media laws are comletely irrelevant to Hungarys criminal behaviour.

Especially since hip hop is played in France all day long.

[Furunculus]

no argument there.

------------------------------

more on the fiduz business:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl...opean_politics
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl...ean_politics_0