I am penguinophobic

[Kirkatronics]

I think the counter arguement (and not neccessarily one I agree with), is that soldiers have put themselves in that situation to begin with. When they signed up, they knew that there is the possibility they could be involved in a firefight. I think the self defence situation only applies when you find yourself in a fight through no fault of your own.

 

For the record: I may or may not agree with the politics behind the war (I'll be honest, I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision), but I do support the troops. Except for the ones that are truly psychopaths/sadists, but I imagine they're the minority. Unfortunately those are the ones that get featured in the media (Guantanamo bay etc) and give the rest a bad name. I think that's where a lot of the hostility comes from.

Thats wrong. What if you were arguing with someone, and they went to attack you. You hitting them is defending your self, would you agree?

[Daft]

I really cant be arsed commenting on this any more as i think i will get more sense from the wardrobe next to me.

 

That's a shame. We were having a good discussion.

[Goafer]

Thats wrong. What if you were arguing with someone, and they went to attack you. You hitting them is defending your self, would you agree?

 

I guess it would depend on circumstance. If provoked them to take a swing, it's no longer self defence. But I'll admit that is a grey area otherwise, too much to take into account (who started the arguement, why did the person take a swing, things said etc). Although I don't think an arguement is reason enough to take a swing, so the person could still be seen as faultless as far as violence is concerned, unless they did something to provoke it.

 

The point I was trying to make anyway is that I dont really think a soldier can claim self defence in the normal way. If self defence was their main concern, they wouldn't have joined the army. Especially not to become a soldier. The closest example I can think of is walking into a crocodile pen and killing it when it attacks me, claiming self defence. Sure it is technically defending myself, but how can I claim self defence when I willingly put myself in an area of danger to begin with?

 

Not that I think soldiers are murderers. I just like to see the rationale of everyone. Soldier spitters included. That's why I mentioned about a few soldiers giving the rest a bad name. I imagine the spitters probably saw those types of story, mixed it all up with the politics behind the war and formed the general oppinion that all soldiers are scum. It really is a shame.

 

If you have to hate something, hate the game, not the players.

[McPhee]

We should kill them all then invade their countries and conduct mass-genocide until they realise that they are in-fact a sub-species. A new era of the British Empire! Who's with me?

[navarre]

Immigrants are generally good for the UK. In my views, as soons as their applications for citizenship have been approved, they're as British as you or I. The reason most immigrants choose the UK is due to our quality of life. For example, I know quite a few who faced religious persecution in the Middle East, or were just starving and needed shelter, or faced poverty and tyranny. If I were in their shoes, I'd do exactly the same thing. Being British, to me, is more than a nationality- it's a value, and a value anyone can share.

 

That said, there are still issues. I'm fine with people coming to the UK, but learning English should be their first responsibilty.

 

*wonders if it's a good time to admit that he's Muslim*

 

D'oh.

 

But surely all Muslims are terrorists!

Edited April 29, 2009 by navarre
Automerged Doublepost

[Chris the great]

In my views, as soons as they're applications for citizenship have been approved, they're as British as you or I.

 

thats a pretty decent view, though i dont think nationality is the problem i have with imigration. a country has limits to how many people it can support. if britan is to maintain its current standard of living, we simply cant allow so many people in.

 

for me, its not about race or religion or political view, its about how much a country can afford to take on.

[Ramar]

thats a pretty decent view, though i dont think nationality is the problem i have with imigration. a country has limits to how many people it can support. if britan is to maintain its current standard of living, we simply cant allow so many people in.

 

for me, its not about race or religion or political view, its about how much a country can afford to take on.

 

I've agreed a lot with your posts in this topic, the last setence describes what I tried to put across but failed miserably.

[The fish]

for me, its not about race or religion or political view, its about how much a country can afford to take on.

 

If the immigrants are all of good quality for the economy (ie create money through work), then a country can increase its carrying capacity. Look at the Thirteen Colonies/USA - originally, it could support jack-shit, but due to immigrants bringing money and skills, it rose itself to being, for a while, the World's only superpower.

[Ramar]

If the immigrants are all of good quality for the economy (ie create money through work), then a country can increase its carrying capacity. Look at the Thirteen Colonies/USA - originally, it could support jack-shit, but due to immigrants bringing money and skills, it rose itself to being, for a while, the World's only superpower.

 

But America has size on its side, we're a tiny island in comparison.

[Chris the great]

If the immigrants are all of good quality for the economy (ie create money through work), then a country can increase its carrying capacity. Look at the Thirteen Colonies/USA - originally, it could support jack-shit, but due to immigrants bringing money and skills, it rose itself to being, for a while, the World's only superpower.

 

true but thats a different situation mind, there was a tiny population to land ratio, and more then enough natural resorces to support them.

 

we have relativly little room, and over 60 million residents. plus, when imigrants coming in are not necicarily skilled, they may not boost our economy.

[navarre]

But America has size on its side, we're a tiny island in comparison.

 

Frankly, the 'poor island' excuse is pathetic. Japan has a far higher population density than us (despite being bigger, a lot of Japan is uninhabitable), and the Japanese economy and society is booming. We're not some tiny island struggling to make room, we're 244,820 km squared. We can fit a lot more people in here before we need to worry.

[Rick Dangerous]

Frankly, the 'poor island' excuse is pathetic. Japan has a far higher population density than us (despite being bigger, a lot of Japan is uninhabitable), and the Japanese economy and society is booming. We're not some tiny island struggling to make room, we're 244,820 km squared. We can fit a lot more people in here before we need to worry.

 

Although thats true Japan has to import alot of its food (where the uk tends to just out of lazyness) and the population is begining to shrink. Also they have a good railway system the trains are never late...ever.

The south of england is rammed with people already and that is where people will generally be attracted too because that is where the money is.

[navarre]

The south of england is rammed with people already and that is where people will generally be attracted too because that is where the money is.

 

And the weather, and the big cities, and the beaches, and the countryside, and the people:grin:

[danny]

a lot of Japan is uninhabitable

 

As in reality is much of Scotland. Maybe it technically it isnt but people do not wish to live in the highlands (not that theres anything wrong with scotland or the highlands) thats for sure.

[The fish]

Although thats true Japan has to import alot of its food (where the uk tends to just out of lazyness)

 

Actually, no, the UK probably can't. Why do you think we went after getting a massive fuck-off empire in the first place? I should point out, however, when you increase the scale to Europe, the EU and it's Common Agricultural Policy demonstrated that not only can Europe produce enough food for its inhabitants, but an abundance. It got the point were the USA threatened to block all EU imports as we stopped buying their grain.

 

As in reality is much of Scotland. Maybe it technically it isnt but people do not wish to live in the highlands (not that theres anything wrong with scotland or the highlands) thats for sure.

 

Not enough flatland, so communications (in the geographical sense) are poor.

[Rick Dangerous]

Actually, no, the UK probably can't. Why do you think we went after getting a massive fuck-off empire in the first place? I should point out, however, when you increase the scale to Europe, the EU and it's Common Agricultural Policy demonstrated that not only can Europe produce enough food for its inhabitants, but an abundance. It got the point were the USA threatened to block all EU imports as we stopped buying their grain.

 

 

 

Not enough flatland, so communications (in the geographical sense) are poor.

This is getting way off to topic but:

Maybe we cant produe 100% now, but the Uk wastes alot of its resources. Since I work in the cider industry I know we import alot of apples unecesarily from say france and spain while UK orchards are being laid to waste. All I was getting at is Japan imports loads of food since alot of its land is unsuitable for growing food and its got to be grown somewhere, it seems a waste to loose fertile land to housing. Though saying that I support immigration so im not sure why im writing this!

The empire was there for imperialistic luxuries such as tea sugar and slaves rather than a need for food if you ask me.

[Iun]

 

 

But surely all Muslims are terrorists!

 

And have seck-sew-all relations with camels! And all they ever eat is curry!

 

On a serious note, I have a number of muslim friends, and at various times I've asked them how they feel about the world perceiving them as terrorists and terrorist sympathisers...

 

...most laughed it off and asked me how I felt about being perceived by the muslim world as a cursed infidel dog, whom death was too good for...

 

But a few answers worried me, some of them said if they knew people with Jihadist tendancies, they'd turn a blind eye. Others said they would try and reform the person(s) but not make it known to the wider community. Maybe one or two said that if that's their version of Islam, then they should go ahead an be the bestest suicide bombers they can be, Allah bless 'em!

 

But in fairness, a lot of religious groups are fairly insular... look at the Jews. Many in England are pretty anti-integration, mind you, what with the suspicion that they are faced with they kind of have a right.

 

Or is that one a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

Religious group: People fear us/distrust us, so we should close our ranks to them.

 

Others: We don't quite understand them, why are they so insular? What have they got to hide?

[Rummy]

I have read like, all the posts in this thread, a damn lot of them. Alot of it kind of off topic but rather good/important stuff to be discussing. I won't comment much on war and soldiers and armies and murder, the circumstances are murky, but I'm sure murder still does occur within armed forces. Yes, I do mean murder.

 

Here's my two cents.

 

I can't stand immigrants who come into this country and claim benefits. However I can't stand British people who falsely claim benefits (and anyone who thinks that this is a minority is hugely mistaken, but that's for another debate). I don't agree with Polish people claiming child benefits (can't remember what it's called, working family something?) when their children live in Poland.

 

I have nothing against immigrants, but they should embrace our culture, not us theirs. It disgusts me in areas like Bradford where people of a certain ethnicity flock to areas populated largely by people of their own ethnicity. If they come here they should integrate into our society. I also can't stand it how, for example, we aren't allowed to wear hats and hoodies inside shopping centres yet muslims can wear those clothes that cover all of their face. That's fucking disgraceful. I wouldn't even agree with it if it was part of their religion, but it isn't, it's a life choice. They can even wear head scarves on their passport photos. It's a joke.

 

This, I dunno...I found it sort of contradictory to itself. Asking for tolerance intergration and acceptance of culture, when one won't even take it himself? Hypocritical no less, the biggest problem with the country maybe.

 

my views on imigration, by an unemployed dissolusioned university graduate.

 

 

i dont mind imigrants, or imigration, its the way forward in society. what i do mind is the fact that many imigrants get jobs i could have. If any one trys to tell me most people on bennefits are fiddling the system, or dont want to work, then please follow me to the gateway to learning course ive been enroled on. people are DESPERATE for jobs, of my group, the majority want to work, the majority are fairly decent people who just need to catch a break. there are some people who fiddle, and dont want a job, but they are the minority...

 

Your claim of a majority of people on your course who want to work, compared with your post about the wasters in your class acting like children. Why is it that such a majority is not standing against this minority of wasters, if that's the case?

 

 

Onto the subject of immigration. We are a country and a nation, and no country or nation can ever survive if its outgoings are more than its incomings, I'm sure that's true and I'm sure that's simple logic and maths. Thus, I feel any immigrant admitted/accepted into the country should give to the country at least what they take, if after say X amount of time, they are not, then look to not have them in the country or cut them off from the government's support. Judge their application and acceptance upon what they could or can offer, but not as anything extra compared to a british born national, on an equal measurement.

 

However, that leads to a problem, one which I'm not sure if Dan Dare was hinting at earlier. The arugments of people 'milking' the state and in particular it seems to be implied that it is immigrants doing so, how many 'british' people are doing so in comparison? How many of these have actually contributed more than they have taken out? Same for the immigrants, also.

 

This talk of the 'cheaper' polish/european etc workers, were they actually cheaper, or just better at their jobs than the british people they're 'replacing' and 'taking' jobs from? I realise if you pay two people the same wage but one does twice as much as the other, they are then effectively cheaper. That's no different to the job market in the current climate(and previously) however surely, even between two british people themselves? What about the ones coming and 'stealing' the jobs that no british person wishes to do?

 

Someone, I believe twas Moogle in the quoted post above, referred to a flocking behaviour of certain ethnicities to certain areas. Is this really so straighforward? Is it really so much and such a conscious effort to not mingle with the larger crowd of the country? Are you sure about the answer you just gave in your head? Really? Reason it through and figure out why you're so sure, does it make rational sense? I fear alot of assumptions and judgements are being made, mainly upon hearsay and stereotypes, just as someone else mentioned.

 

I think, theres a bit too much nationalism sometimes, I think it contributes to the problems and hearsay. I'm not fully confident in that, I've not looked into it. I've been the subject of baseless racism before though, which leans me towards it. It reminds me of St Georges and as much as I'd love to, I don't tend to celebrate St George's day publicly because I find there's always people who seem to have the idea that being 'English' is synonymous with being White.

 

I'll end with a brief story from this year's; Somewhat ironically(in the wrongly used sense of the word) this year I was heading to my friend's on the bus and a local town/centre was nearly shut down and traffic was very slow because of a massive fight down there, apparently between some white people, bottles flying, being smashed on heads, all sorts, there was definitely the most police I've seen in one place in my life. I got informed about the actual incidences by a drinker I see round the area and people he was with on the bus(they got on in said town), 'See, the problem with white people is that they just don't like each other, they don't like anyone'. I declined to comment, being on a bus full of boozey young lads on St George's day.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Rummy

[MoogleViper]

This, I dunno...I found it sort of contradictory to itself. Asking for tolerance intergration and acceptance of culture, when one won't even take it himself? Hypocritical no less, the biggest problem with the country maybe.

 

Maybe I phrased it badly. I think if people go into another country they should accept that culture. I'm not saying that they should completely disregard their own, but in public they should accept the native culture.

 

Just like the Brits who retire to spain and don't bother learning the language or integrating with their society. And they have their own little British communities.

[Happenstance]

Logged onto Facebook earlier and saw this Facebook status update from someone on my friends list:

 

"ingland till i die fuck all the others fuck u immigrants go back where u cum FROM!!!!!"

 

.......he's no longer on my friends list.

[Rummy]

Maybe I phrased it badly. I think if people go into another country they should accept that culture. I'm not saying that they should completely disregard their own, but in public they should accept the native culture.

 

Just like the Brits who retire to spain and don't bother learning the language or integrating with their society. And they have their own little British communities.

 

Ah, I didn't mean to point any fingers as such btw, I know these discussions tend to get a massive range of opinions expressed. I do totally agree btw, and I absolutely loved it when I read about that thing Flink said, think it was some newsagent in Notts, he refused to serve a customer who didn't speak english even though he wasn't english himself. Now, had it been someone who wasn't an immigrant, the papers would have hailed it as racist, and even then I think some papers still gave him flak, but I agreed with him somewhat. I agree about us going abroad too, it's not hard to make some effort unless you're just too damned lazy. I understand it can be hard to pick up a second language at an older age, but even if you don't grasp it too well then at least try, or make some effort elsewhere. The muslim clothing thing though...hmm, it's ever so tough. I'm a bit undecided on it atm.

 

Logged onto Facebook earlier and saw this Facebook status update from someone on my friends list:

 

"ingland till i die fuck all the others fuck u immigrants go back where u cum FROM!!!!!"

 

.......he's no longer on my friends list.

 

Haha, delightful. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see things like that, honestly.

[navarre]

Regarding the veils Muslim women choose to wear- it's not a choice. They may decide how much of their face they want to cover, but generally, in public Muslims have to stick to strict clothing rules. My personal opinion is that Islam, in general, has to be taken into the Twentieth Century. Women in the Muslim World are generally not given equal rights (although Morocco and Tunisia are exceptions to this), many Islamic countries choose to show no sign of democracy, instead sticking with a monarch they believe God chose, in Saudi Arabia and Iran homsexuality is a crime punishable by death, and Muslims keep strong views about who they marry. Even though this isn't strictly true for all Muslims, it is true for a lot of Muslims in the Middle East, unfortunately.

 

Islam, however, is by no means the only religion that needs updating- the Catholic Church and its attitudes regarding contraception and homosexuality are disgraceful in the eyes of any 21s Century Liberal.

 

Anyway, too off topic. That's my two cents.

[Chris the great]

 

 

 

Your claim of a majority of people on your course who want to work, compared with your post about the wasters in your class acting like children. Why is it that such a majority is not standing against this minority of wasters, if that's the case?

 

because what can you do? tell them your listening and they are being stupid? they dont cre that they are disrupting the teacher, why would they care if they disrupted you?

 

the only thing they will likly respond to is a cut off of money or violence. im not authorised to cut off their money, and to be honest, i dont imagine id do much good in a fight against them.

 

 

 

Regarding the veils Muslim women choose to wear- it's not a choice. They may decide how much of their face they want to cover, but generally, in public Muslims have to stick to strict clothing rules. My personal opinion is that Islam, in general, has to be taken into the Twentieth Century. Women in the Muslim World are generally not given equal rights (although Morocco and Tunisia are exceptions to this), many Islamic countries choose to show no sign of democracy, instead sticking with a monarch they believe God chose, in Saudi Arabia and Iran homsexuality is a crime punishable by death, and Muslims keep strong views about who they marry. Even though this isn't strictly true for all Muslims, it is true for a lot of Muslims in the Middle East, unfortunately.

 

Islam, however, is by no means the only religion that needs updating- the Catholic Church and its attitudes regarding contraception and homosexuality are disgraceful in the eyes of any 21s Century Liberal.

 

Anyway, too off topic. That's my two cents.

 

i agree. using religion to draw up your laws is bloody stupid. using it to justify the miss treatment of woman is just wrong.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Chris the great

[Pyxis]

I'm all for immigration, but there are a lot of people who I wouldn't let in.

 

I don't think we should automatically let asylum seekers into the country and any illegals trying to sneak through the channel tunnel should be shown the door straight away. Pakistanis coming here to marry British citizens should not be entitled to a marriage visa and any religious extremists shouldn't be allowed to come here either.

 

Edit: oh yep, immigrants should be exempt from benefits and should be given a ticket home if they ask for financial support.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Pyxis

[Goafer]

i agree. using religion to draw up your laws is bloody stupid. using it to justify the miss treatment of woman is just wrong.

 

I read a bit on the Qur'an and treatment of women. I think a lot of it is taken out of context. Their views are actually very protective, although a little patronising. But even then, aren't men naturally the protectors (along with hunter gatherer)? So the idea that men should protect women isn't entirely unjustified.

 

Pakistanis coming here to marry British citizens should not be entitled to a marriage visa

 

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean sham marriages. I don't agree with sham marriages, but if it's a geniune marriage I have no problem with it. After all, the whole reason we're all here is to form relationships and reproduce, so I see it as a totally valid reason for immigration.