[Bonged.]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
I meant in relation to attacking multiculturalism, minorities/Pakistanis. Let's not forget most of these girls were from care homes, the reason they were vulnerable was precisely because they had no parents and used to be on the streets often. The EDL clearly had no interest in these girls beforehand and only jumped on it when they could use it as a stick to beat Muslims with (although one of the victims was a Bangladeshi Muslim girl). No doubt the EDL will be ensuring these girls find foster homes and pay for their future no?

What does that have to do with our debate?

It's worrying that you view attacking a particular form of state authoritarianism with attacking specific ethnic groups. I suppose it makes it easier to defend multiculturalism though if you imagine everyone that dislikes multiculturalism is a rabid racist.

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Yes. I believe this is because asians have been permitted to retain their culture.

Oh, I don't think that we can reverse the damage that's been done. We can't exactly force asians to be more modern or british and the white working class has had it's population reduced massively I don't think they can reattain their culture.

Considering Asian pupils aren't the ones who are bottom of the pile in schooling but it's gypsies, white working class and African-Caribbean working class why should they adopt the lifestyle of their black/white peers? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't white/black working class boys and gypsies adopt the values/culture of their working class Asian counterparts? You could say the same for white/black working class families generally. Why should Asians have to adopt an approach which is clearly failing?

(Original post by Bonged.)
What does that have to do with our debate?

It's worrying that you view attacking a particular form of state authoritarianism with attacking specific ethnic groups. I suppose it makes it easier to defend multiculturalism though if you imagine everyone that dislikes multiculturalism is a rabid racist.

I'm actually very much a libertarian. I oppose state authoritarianism in any form. Your last sentence is a strawman and I think that part of the conversation is at a dead end as you mentioned.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
Considering Asian pupils aren't the ones who are bottom of the pile in schooling but it's gypsies, white working class and African-Caribbean working class why should they adopt the lifestyle of their black/white peers? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't white/black working class boys and gypsies adopt the values/culture of their working class Asian counterparts? You could say the same for white/black working class families generally. Why should Asians have to adopt an approach which is clearly failing?



I'm actually very much a libertarian. I oppose state authoritarianism in any form. Your last sentence is a strawman and I think that part of the conversation is at a dead end as you mentioned.

They shouldn't, hence the "nobody can force" part. Maybe some wounds could be healed if english pupils were allowed to express their english identity without being persecuted.

I presume you're against ethnically exclusive funding, scholarships, treatment in law etc then?

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Bonged.)
They shouldn't, hence the "nobody can force" part. Maybe some wounds could be healed if english pupils were allowed to express their english identity without being persecuted.

I presume you're against ethnically exclusive funding, scholarships, treatment in law etc then?

Absolutely I'm against state funding of any cultural institution, I'm against the state being involved in culture in any form. People should be able to live their lives how they wish not having to adopt any specific culture because the government told them to. Grants would be scrapped and everyone would be treated equally in law. That being said, I don't see white/black/Asian people being treated differently by the justice system. There was institutional racism in the police force as exposed by the Stephen Lawrence enquiry but we've moved on from that I hope.

What I oppose is state enforced monoculture.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
Absolutely I'm against state funding of any cultural institution, I'm against the state being involved in culture in any form. People should be able to live their lives how they wish not having to adopt any specific culture because the government told them to. Grants would be scrapped and everyone would be treated equally in law. That being said, I don't see white/black/Asian people being treated differently by the justice system. There was institutional racism in the police force as exposed by the Stephen Lawrence enquiry but we've moved on from that I hope.

What I oppose is state enforced monoculture.

Well that took awhile but it looks like we agree in the end!

They aren't mostly, only when it comes to race issues are they treated differently.

[someonesomewherexx]

I am Black African, I think the main reason black families tend to stay together even through rough times is society. When you get married you get married for life, believe me when I say that divorce is almost not an option, you will be seen as someone who is tainted if you do.........When I told my mom I would divorce my husband if he cheated on me, she said God forbid and I was really shocked, I then asked why but she had no concrete reason except for the family's image. I think it's easier for white and Caribbean families to divorce mostly because marriage vows are not held so sacred anymore, I'm not sure people read and understand the vows they say I do to when they get married, it's through the good and bad times, through sickness and health sigh..doesn't mean I wont divorce my husband if he cheated on me or did something just has bad.

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Well that took awhile but it looks like we agree in the end!

They aren't mostly, only when it comes to race issues are they treated differently.

I don't see this being true although the Somalian case is worrying. You don't think the government should force Asians to integrate then? Let them do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others? This includes wearing the burqa, having curry houses and sari stores, purchasing land and building mosques/temples etc.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
I don't see this being true although the Somalian case is worrying. You don't think the government should force Asians to integrate then? Let them do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others? This includes wearing the burqa, having curry houses and sari stores, purchasing land and building mosques/temples etc.

Well yeah it's not their fault that they weren't initially integrated. They were told they should be as separate as possible.

I would really, really rather that they didn't build more religious buildings because it's taken us the last 1500 years or so to get rid of our own religion. Maybe have a swiss style democratic referendum on if the majority of the british pop wants more mosques?

[lukas1051]

I imagine that Asian families have exactly the same sorts of problems as other ethnicities, but divorce is more frowned upon in those cultures, people are more likely to choose to remain married and unhappy than face the shame of breaking up with their partner.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Well yeah it's not their fault that they weren't initially integrated. They were told they should be as separate as possible.

I would really, really rather that they didn't build more religious buildings because it's taken us the last 1500 years or so to get rid of our own religion. Maybe have a swiss style democratic referendum on if the majority of the british pop wants more mosques?

À la ochlocracy? Why shouldn't they be able to build a place of worship providing the council has approved planning permissions?

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
À la ochlocracy? Why shouldn't they be able to build a place of worship providing the council has approved planning permissions?

Populism. Yes I know its unpopular amongst the liberal elite but the swiss people are very much in favour. I wouldn't like to try and take it from them.

The reasons why are irrelevant. If the majority of the populace opposes, that's that.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Populism. Yes I know its unpopular amongst the liberal elite but the swiss people are very much in favour. I wouldn't like to try and take it from them.

I'm contesting the application of this philosophy in this country, especially on a national scale where people who have no connection to the site in question will be able to impose their unwarranted opinions on what happens elsewhere.

The reasons why are irrelevant. If the majority of the populace opposes, that's that.

That's not the developmental paradigm in this country, else people would be able to vote for all sorts of atrocities.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm contesting the application of this philosophy in this country, especially on a national scale where people who have no connection to the site in question will be able to impose their unwarranted opinions on what happens elsewhere.

That's not the developmental paradigm in this country, else people would be able to vote for all sorts of atrocities.

For you, that's quite a good point. You're right people inhabiting the towns where new mosques are getting built should be given the right to choose.

Besides banning the building of minarets, what other atrocities have occurred in switzerland as a result of direct democracy?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
For you, that's quite a good point. You're right people inhabiting the towns where new mosques are getting built should be given the right to choose.

For aesthetic purposes only, as those are directly influential. If a mosque is constructed in a manner that does not vitiate the aesthetic homogeneity of the landscape, it does not directly affect anybody who doesn't use it and should not be banned.

Besides banning the building of minarets, what other atrocities have occurred in switzerland as a result of direct democracy?

That was a maxim, not a commentary of direct democracy's application in Switzerland.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
For aesthetic purposes only, as those are directly influential. If a mosque is constructed in a manner that does not vitiate the aesthetic homogeneity of the landscape, it does not directly affect anybody who doesn't use it and should not be banned.

That was a maxim, not a commentary of direct democracy's application in Switzerland.

No, there's alot of debating to be done about this still. It's the locals that have their daughters raped by sex gangs and sons beaten when they go to the wrong part of town etc.

oic. The Swiss are extremely happy with their populist system and it's direct democracy. I can see why people like yourself wouldn't want to extend full democracy to the British people though.

[FrogInABog]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Besides banning the building of minarets, what other atrocities have occurred in switzerland as a result of direct democracy?

Oh please...

I'd hardly call banning minarets 'an atrocity'. I am a Christian, if a predominantly Muslim country voted to prevent Christian churches being constructed with enormous, bell-adorned towers, I would hardly see that as an atrocity. In fact, several newly-democratic Arabic countries look set to elect strongly Muslim political parties to government. Is that an atrocity too?

If allowing people to decide for themselves isn't what democracy is about then what is it?

[Bonged.]

(Original post by FrogInABog)
Oh please...

I'd hardly call banning minarets 'an atrocity'. I am a Christian, if a predominantly Muslim country voted to prevent Christian churches being constructed with enormous, bell-adorned towers, I would hardly see that as an atrocity. In fact, several newly-democratic Arabic countries look set to elect strongly Muslim political parties to government. Is that an atrocity too?

If allowing people to decide for themselves isn't what democracy is about then what is it?

Haha. You misunderstood mate, I was taking the piss out of whyumadtho. Of course it's not an atrocity. He was arguing against direct democracy.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
No, there's alot of debating to be done about this still. It's the locals that have their daughters raped by sex gangs and sons beaten when they go to the wrong part of town etc.

This is not influenced by the presence or lack of presence of a mosque.

oic. The Swiss are extremely happy with their populist system and it's direct democracy. I can see why people like yourself wouldn't want to extend full democracy to the British people though.

Because there is a liberal paradigm that takes precedence.

[criminal]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
In general, I think people rely on each other less as more groups are becoming socially and economically enabled in society and there are greater opportunities for individual prosperity. The decline of religion and traditional communities as cohesive systems also plays a role. These combine to create a stronger sense of individualism and less (if any) disapproval from others when a family breaks down. Previously, everyone was in everyone else's business, so conformity to social norms was far more significant as a facilitator of amicable cohabitation with others.

lack of family values

[FrogInABog]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Haha. You misunderstood mate, I was taking the piss out of whyumadtho. Of course it's not an atrocity. He was arguing against direct democracy.

Oops My apologies!