IMMIGRATION thread

[Fragony]

Hyenas comparison.



So you made a mistake. You meant to say "who" but said "what" instead, is that right?

So if a woman calls you a pig when your table-manners failed she's dehumanising you? Try again, you already decided on the outcome, equation please. I called them hyena's because they isolated a victin, encircled the victims (1000 or so) and started groping and ripping underwear. A second circle kept others out of the way.

edit, don't sweat it Hussie I know you don't dislike me

[Sarmatian]

So if a woman calls you a pig when your table-manners failed she's dehumanising you? Try again, you already decided on the outcome, equation please. I called them hyena's because they isolated a victin, encircled the victims (1000 or so) and started groping and ripping underwear. A second circle kept others out of the way.

edit, don't sweat it Hussie I know you don't dislike me

Actually, that's how most of pack predators hunt. You could have called them lions just as well, but you choose hyena. You've already decided on the outcome, so you've picked hyenas.

You're continuously refuse to acknowledge actual police reports from Cologne which differ greatly from what you've been parroting. Then again, you've already decided on the outcome, so who needs fact.

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I like you Frags. People who cling to their views and ignore overwhelming number of facts which say otherwise are usually happiest. If something goes wrong, you don't have to waste time to find out why, you just blame Muslims.

[Fragony]

Why shouldn't I say that all were muslims if all were muslims. Doesn't mean I blame all muslims. What facts are you referring to as facts won't be kind for you

[Kralizec]

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I don't see a comparison with a hyeana as something entirely different from comparison to a pig. I've heard people make hyena comparisons before in other contexts. When I didn't have my drivers license yet my instructor called bicycle and scooter drivers hyeanas whenever he saw them breaking trafic rules (happens often), like callously ignoring traffic lights when they think they can safely get away with it. Likewise, comparisons with vultures are commonplace when people are perceived to take financial advantage of other people's misery. The idea being that both hyenas and vultures are opportunistic and "cowardly". It's not flattering, but calling it "dehumanising" is a long stretch.

....

Also, Gaius is right to stress the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee". I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Oh, and Snowhobbit is entirely justified in making a fuss about the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee"*. I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(* an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

Errmm...that was actually my point.....that the terms were being used interchangably....a point Snowhobbit was oblivious to, actually...

[Kralizec]

You're right, I looked at page 2 again and it seems I confused your post about Keulen with someone else. I'll edit my earlier post.

[Snowhobbit]

Errmm...that was actually my point.....that the terms were being used interchangably....a point Snowhobbit was oblivious to, actually...

That you use words improperly is no reason to keep using them improperly. The different words denote different things but if you want to insist that apples are pears that is your problem.

[Snowhobbit]

Also, Gaius is right to stress the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee". I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

But Gaius is not stressing the distinction, he is claiming that they are two words meaning the same thing.

[Sarmatian]

You should read about the Mui Tsai then, where the British ignored their pledge to rule according to Chinese custom and traditions, and ended a longstanding Chinese custom because of British moral values, against much native Chinese opposition. Today, that tradition is seen as a source of shame for the Chinese, and its banning by the British as an overdue move to bring Hong Kong in line with the modern world and values. Absolutely nothing to do with British interests, and everything to do with Britain's own tradition of opposing slavery and anything that smells of slavery.

I'm sure there are positive examples and cases where British went against their interest to help the local population, but on the whole, the point still stands.

I don't see a comparison with a hyeana as something entirely different from comparison to a pig. I've heard people make hyena comparisons before in other contexts. When I didn't have my drivers license yet my instructor called bicycle and scooter drivers hyeanas whenever he saw them breaking trafic rules (happens often), like callously ignoring traffic lights when they think they can safely get away with it. Likewise, comparisons with vultures are commonplace when people are perceived to take financial advantage of other people's misery. The idea being that both hyenas and vultures are opportunistic and "cowardly". It's not flattering, but calling it "dehumanising" is a long stretch.

Really? Well try using both and tell me if the reaction was the same.

Did someone ever tell you you are boring, must have

While you consider repeating childless mutti and wir schafen das about 50 times is an example of a stimulating discussion. Interesting...

[Snowhobbit]

Really? Well try using both and tell me if the reaction was the same.

I hope you are aware that the connotation of words can be very different in different cultures. In Sweden neither of those words would render you a slap if used. You might be viewed as impolite depending on the situation though (or deranged).

[Fragony]

While you consider repeating childless mutti and wir schafen das about 50 times is an example of a stimulating discussion. Interesting...

Of course it is, just not the one you want. Merkel is known to have a messias-complex, also within her own party. Wir schaffen das is the only things she keeps repeating, more than I do

[Sarmatian]

Of course it is, just not the one you want. Merkel is known to have a messias-complex, also within her own party. Wir schaffen das is the only things she keeps repeating, more than I do

Funny how messiah-complex only surfaced when the refugee crisis began.

Anyway, if you want to be taken seriously, stop parroting slogans and start acknowledging facts.
Otherwise, I will continue to call bollox on your posts when I feel like it. At the moment I feel like doing it every time but I may get bored in the future. If you can't live with that, you can put me on ignore and you won't even know when I call bollox.

Oh you are one of those? Sorry I don't have the time of day for Ukranian Nazies.

I see an epic yo mamma battle coming soon.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

But Gaius is not stressing the distinction, he is claiming that they are two words meaning the same thing.

Your incomprehension is astounding. Truly, I can't think of an individual I have ever entered discourse with who has had less insight or understanding...even of just a couple of sentences.

Readthis slowly, one word at a time. I was pointing out that the term immigrants had simply been switched for the word refugees but was clearly referring to the same proposition - ie the words were being used snonymously (to mean the same thing). NOT that the words mean the same thing (or rather, they ought not) but that they had simply been conflated. I am perfectly aware that the two terms are distinct,hence my initial suggestion that the idea that the crimes related were carried out by "refugees" (specifically, as opposed to the more general "immigrants")was something certain posters might need to get upto speed with (the implication was exactly that it was not "refugees", but was actually other "immigrants") and the next post (which you appear to want to defend...???) was a sarcastic post conflating the two terms.

Christ on a bike, could you be any more clueless? Read the actual posts....you know, the words, in their order and you'll decipher what they mean. That's how this whole writing and reading malarkey works.

[AE Bravo]

The elephant in the room is that virtually every ME country is dominated by one religious sect or another and is a hell hole that these people are trying to escape.

Religion and its opiate uses on the masses is the issue not enlightened democracies. Proof is in the lack of upward mobility, corruption and war in the countries the people are escaping and a lack of the ME countries of the same religion resolving the problems with a spectrum of initiatives ie boots on the ground, NGOs or taking in all the refugees themselves.

Western workers compounds get attacked all the time in the ME even in supposedly stable countries. What would be headline news in the west is quietly swept under in the ME.

Comeback when they have functioning middle class democracies with social mobility rather then sponging off a geographical fluke of oil that is found, pumped, refined by other people. ME will have zero clout at the UN as soon as oil subsidies are removed and other energy sources are utlised. Talk about failed states, take away oil and they have nothing the rest of the world wants.

The problem with the European rightwing mind is that...

1) Their government displaces an entire population abroad

2) Displaced people come flooding

...and they blame it on their people rather than their government. Basically their governments are fucking them over with no repercussion, Islamophobia/xenophobia is a scapegoat.

[Papewaio]

Oh I agree with you on that.

If someone is doing such horrible things we bomb them.

Then we either follow up with boots on the ground AND stabilize the region OR accept the refugees running away from the failed state.

EDIT

Also the Enemy of your Enemy might be a good reason to make friends with your Enemy not make friends with the second lot.

Bombing Lybia to help Gadaffis enemies isn't smart when those enemies are now dominated by Caliphate in a box.

[Snowhobbit]

Your incomprehension is astounding. Truly, I can't think of an individual I have ever entered discourse with who has had less insight or understanding...even of just a couple of sentences.

Readthis slowly, one word at a time. I was pointing out that the term immigrants had simply been switched for the word refugees but was clearly referring to the same proposition - ie the words were being used snonymously (to mean the same thing). NOT that the words mean the same thing (or rather, they ought not) but that they had simply been conflated. I am perfectly aware that the two terms are distinct,hence my initial suggestion that the idea that the crimes related were carried out by "refugees" (specifically, as opposed to the more general "immigrants")was something certain posters might need to get upto speed with (the implication was exactly that it was not "refugees", but was actually other "immigrants") and the next post (which you appear to want to defend...???) was a sarcastic post conflating the two terms.

Christ on a bike, could you be any more clueless? Read the actual posts....you know, the words, in their order and you'll decipher what they mean. That's how this whole writing and reading malarkey works.

Don't blame me that your parents denied you a dictionary while growing up. You'd think they'd have one in school that you could have borrowed though? I suppose we should be happy that you can string a sentence together anyway :)

I'm glad that you have come to the realization that different words mean different things.

[Kralizec]

I'm glad that you have come to the realization that different words mean different things.

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....

You know...it's so easy to get people to believe something...just write it as a headline story. Doesn't matter if the story is later shown to have no truth to it....it'll always be the thing that people remember. Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well....

Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants.

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.