Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:53 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... Like Mintball you are protected and can post with impunity - "More equal than most" odd on board run by supposed socialists!!

From someone who refuses to acknowledge it when shown to be posting factually incorrect nonsense (frequently) and bleats on about "the real wold", that's a compliment.

And who, 'running this board', as you put it, claims to be a "socialist"? I certainly don't: I dislike labels and find them as unhelpful and frequently lacking in intellectual rigour as 'you don't live in the real world', which is perhaps one of the most infuriatingly cretinous displays of an inability to actually construct a proper argument that one is likely to find anywhere.

It assumes, with extraordinary arrogance, that only the speaker's experience is somehow 'real'; that only the confines of the speaker's existence are valid.

It is factually utter nonsense. You may not like it, but everyone else's experience of life - of the world - is just as valid as yours. Life in inner city Bethnal Green is no less real than that in refined Chorlton cum Hardy is no less real than that in a farm on the top of Shap Fell.

The experience of the carer who wipes the sh*t from an elderly person's bottom is no less real than that of someone who stacks shelves in a supermarket or someone who shuffles money from continent to continent to someone working in the media. Oh, they might be very different lives and very different experiences, but they are all quite real.

To suggest otherwise is utter and complete hogwash.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:54 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Whoah, I reckon you don't actually mean that.

The way it reads is that it's OK to say that non-white are less than honest, which is an over-simplification and over-extrapolation that could very easily be racist.

You mad socialist, you. Don't you know Sal is reporting to us from 'the real world'?

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:15 pm  

Mintball wrote:

From someone who refuses to acknowledge it when shown to be posting factually incorrect nonsense (frequently) and bleats on about "the real wold", that's a compliment.

And who, 'running this board', as you put it, claims to be a "socialist"? I certainly don't: I dislike labels and find them as unhelpful and frequently lacking in intellectual rigour as 'you don't live in the real world', which is perhaps one of the most infuriatingly cretinous displays of an inability to actually construct a proper argument that one is likely to find anywhere.

It assumes, with extraordinary arrogance, that only the speaker's experience is somehow 'real'; that only the confines of the speaker's existence are valid.

It is factually utter nonsense. You may not like it, but everyone else's experience of life - of the world - is just as valid as yours. Life in inner city Bethnal Green is no less real than that in refined Chorlton cum Hardy is no less real than that in a farm on the top of Shap Fell.

The experience of the carer who wipes the sh*t from an elderly person's bottom is no less real than that of someone who stacks shelves in a supermarket or someone who shuffles money from continent to continent to someone working in the media. Oh, they might be very different lives and very different experiences, but they are all quite real.

To suggest otherwise is utter and complete hogwash.

Refined Chorlton cum Hardy? Things must have changed. Lived there as a student in the 70's. Mugged a few times. Frequently woken up in the early hours by blokes confusing our house with the knocking shop next door.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:07 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

What a load of rubbish - on here virtually anyone who suggets non white British people are less than totally honest is accused ... being a racist - even if the facts support the post.

Let me start with this: I am of the opinion that non white British people, as a group, contain the same sort of mix of totally honest, less than honest and dishonest as any other group.

Your pathetic whingeing implies that somehow you may not understand what you've put, so let me dissect it for you.

1. You assert that people have, on here, suggested that "non white British people are less than totally honest"

2. When this has happened, they have been accused of racism.

3. You claim some have advanced "facts" to support the proposition that "non white British people are less than totally honest". By deduction, some have not advanced any such "facts".

4. So, some have simply claimed that "non white British people are less than totally honest" without even trying to justify the claim.

5. A claim such as in (4) is pure, unadulterated racism.

6. There are no "facts" which support the claim that "non white British people are less than totally honest". So anyone making this claim and then inventing some "facts" would be bullshitting.

Do you see where this is going? If I said "SOME non white British people are less than totally honest" then in one sense that would be a statement of the obvious - but what would be my motivation for the claim? Since clearly there are dishonest people in any racial or ethnic group, or for that matter in any other category. (So there are SOME clergymen, politicians, males, homosexuals, unidexters, blind people, ginger people, people who have had their wisdom teeth extracted, [name own sub-classification] who are "less than totally honest".)

You did not even say "some". And thus by singling out "non white British people" as "less than totally honest" in your comment, as well as implicitly accepting that there are, or even could be "facts" which support that outrageous proposition, you are waving a huge red flag which says "I am a racist". If that was not your intention, then you have some explaining to do.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 pm  

Mintball wrote:

From someone who refuses to acknowledge it when shown to be posting factually incorrect nonsense (frequently) and bleats on about "the real wold", that's a compliment.

And who, 'running this board', as you put it, claims to be a "socialist"? I certainly don't: I dislike labels and find them as unhelpful and frequently lacking in intellectual rigour as 'you don't live in the real world', which is perhaps one of the most infuriatingly cretinous displays of an inability to actually construct a proper argument that one is likely to find anywhere.

It assumes, with extraordinary arrogance, that only the speaker's experience is somehow 'real'; that only the confines of the speaker's existence are valid.

It is factually utter nonsense. You may not like it, but everyone else's experience of life - of the world - is just as valid as yours. Life in inner city Bethnal Green is no less real than that in refined Chorlton cum Hardy is no less real than that in a farm on the top of Shap Fell.

The experience of the carer who wipes the sh*t from an elderly person's bottom is no less real than that of someone who stacks shelves in a supermarket or someone who shuffles money from continent to continent to someone working in the media. Oh, they might be very different lives and very different experiences, but they are all quite real.

To suggest otherwise is utter and complete hogwash.

In a few words kettle and pot - arrogance - you should read 99% of your posts. Backed up by links to someone with an agenda that supports your messed up thought processes - the supermarket stuff but one example. Not surprisingly you critisise someone - anyone who quotes the Dail Mail - for doing exactly the same when its agenda isn't yours.

I will say it again the majority of your views are so nieve as to laughable - I have listed a few in this very thread. You spout lefty theory from your ivory tower a hypocrite of the very worst kind. This rant is typical of your norrowing down to the only thing left you can argue - you don't know anything about me or what my life experiences are you just assume I was born with an "Expense Account"!!

You are in a select group on here who are "More equal than the rest" like a lot things those that post have to accept most don't play in a level playing field that is the "Real world"

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Let me start with this: I am of the opinion that non white British people, as a group, contain the same sort of mix of totally honest, less than honest and dishonest as any other group.

Your pathetic whingeing implies that somehow you may not understand what you've put, so let me dissect it for you.

1. You assert that people have, on here, suggested that "non white British people are less than totally honest"

2. When this has happened, they have been accused of racism.

3. You claim some have advanced "facts" to support the proposition that "non white British people are less than totally honest". By deduction, some have not advanced any such "facts".

4. So, some have simply claimed that "non white British people are less than totally honest" without even trying to justify the claim.

5. A claim such as in (4) is pure, unadulterated racism.

6. There are no "facts" which support the claim that "non white British people are less than totally honest". So anyone making this claim and then inventing some "facts" would be bullshitting.

Do you see where this is going? If I said "SOME non white British people are less than totally honest" then in one sense that would be a statement of the obvious - but what would be my motivation for the claim? Since clearly there are dishonest people in any racial or ethnic group, or for that matter in any other category. (So there are SOME clergymen, politicians, males, homosexuals, unidexters, blind people, ginger people, people who have had their wisdom teeth extracted, [name own sub-classification] who are "less than totally honest".)

You did not even say "some". And thus by singling out "non white British people" as "less than totally honest" in your comment, as well as implicitly accepting that there are, or even could be "facts" which support that outrageous proposition, you are waving a huge red flag which says "I am a racist". If that was not your intention, then you have some explaining to do.

Wow all the usual suspects are ganging together!!

What I am saying is this there are certain topics which cannot be discussed on here because a certain group of prominent posters attempt to strangle the debate

Here are some examples of racial differences two quick ones - factual examples!!

Years ago when I had another user name I raised the issue of grooming by Pakistani boys of young girls especially in Keighley - I was pilloried on here as a racist for even bringing up this. This was and still is a major issue in West Yorkshire and their have been criminal convictions to support this.

Uninsured vehicles is another instance of non white British, most will be born here but of immigrant origin - Bradford post codes being two of the top four and these post codes being predominently inhabited by immigrants and their offspring. Now it could be that is the white population that don't insure their vehicles but the balance of probability and common sense would suggest that if 90% of the population is of ethnic origin then 90% of the un-insured vehicles are owned by the ethnics? Unless you can list all the those who are not insured individually and produce photographic evidence the "more equals" will see this as an opportunity to label you a racist.

Islam is now something that cannot be discussed on here anymore - anyone who dared to suggest all was not well in Muhammad's house was well and truly set upon by the usual suspects!!

I have no objection to some posters having special rights - life is not fair - as long as we all know the rules of engagement.

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:50 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... you don't know anything about me or what my life experiences are you just assume I was born with an "Expense Account"!!

I assume absolutely nothing about you - and I have never suggested that you were "born with an 'Expense Account'": where you get this from I have no idea, but it simply illustrates, yet again, your chippiness.

Now, I suggest that, instead of derailing this thread with your paranoid whinging, you concentrate on the discussion itself.

Get it?

Good!

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:05 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I assume absolutely nothing about you - and I have never suggested that you were "born with an 'Expense Account'": where you get this from I have no idea, but it simply illustrates, yet again, your chippiness.

Now, I suggest that, instead of derailing this thread with your paranoid whinging, you concentrate on the discussion itself.

Get it?

Good!

that would be a good idea as i'm sure most of us are getting fed up with the sniping...

so "What now for the UK ?"

I have no idea but what I do know is that whatever happens in the EU or Japan or the US or wherever will have an impact on the UK,whether the UK is in the euozone or not.

We are all in the same boat and the smart countries will do their best to alleviate the symptoms which to me seems the best case scenario ! - Sarko & Merkel are trying to work out some kind of franco-german pact but also fighting each other at the same time which doesn't help matters - what worries me is the Chinese stance which appears to be to 'let well alone' and get on with building world trade domination...

which ever way you look at it the situation is pretty grim.....

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:24 pm  

Notice how countries like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland don't want to be in the Euro with their strong economies (Ok Iceland had a set back but look to berecovering quite well) and poor countries like Kosovo, Romania, even going back a bit the Greeks couldn't wait. That to me should say that someone smells a rat and they don't want to have to help prop up the weak economies and watch their own suffer, whereas the poor countries can't wait to come to the table like Oliver Twist and beg for more.

What's wrong with countries just having their own currency and economies and just keeping the things that work like the free movement through Europe and trade benefits?
All the backside kissing this country as done to Europe and the other countries still treat us with contempt and suspect always will, sod them, let their banks go to the wall, Iceland did, and they are recovering. Lets just start again and if there are casualties on the way, so be it, humans are resilient enough to come back from it.
To quote Maximo Park, "what happens when you lose every thing, you just start again"

Re: What now for the UK? : Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:48 pm  

believe it or not the french have a lot of respect for the brits - i'm not talking about politicians who have their own agendas but the french man or woman in the street
many are saddened by the minority of british spongers who give the rest a bad name (we've done this before) but the french are very nationalistic and xenophobic - they are a proud bunch not liking change but the majority I know are rascist especially toward the north african community and more latterly,the eastern europeans.
The UMP,the party of Chirac etc are now demanding that 'foreigners' don't have the right to vote in france which is quite a big thing for a party of Social Democrats ?
Showing such nationalistic tendencies is going against the EU ideals but the majority now want to see France out of the EU and looking after themselves first and foremost,instead of helping to prop up (along with the UK,Germany & Holland etc) the poorer eastern european countries.