[MagicNMedicine]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
Your post contradicts itself almost. How can multiculturalism have succeeded if the BNP and EDL exist?

They are small insignificant groups, there will always be groups opposed to things.

Its like saying how can the market economy have succeeded if there are groups like Socialist Workers Party and anti capitalist protestors?

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
Haha. You are joking, right?

I was being hyperbolic. But being serious, our NHS sucks donkey balls compared to the provisions of say France. It may be totally free, with no contributions from the individual, but it doesn't have the best results and is therefore not a system I think we should be that proud of. It's like being proud of your own stubborn stupidity. It's like Leeds Met celebrating how good they are while Oxbridge are watching...

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I was being hyperbolic. But being serious, our NHS sucks donkey balls compared to the provisions of say France. It may be totally free, with no contributions from the individual, but it doesn't have the best results and is therefore not a system I think we should be that proud of. It's like being proud of your own stubborn stupidity. It's like Leeds Met celebrating how good they are while Oxbridge are watching...

It also costs about 2/3 of the French system, which is a lovely health system and all, but ultimately they still get pretty much the same job done.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by milkytea)
I probably should have made it clearer that I have no doubt that race exists, in that there exists a certain amount of physiological diversity in the human species. However, I maintain that these minor physiological differences are not socially or politically significant.

These physiological differences are clinal and non-concordant; 'race' is a social construct.

"Studies of different markers yield an even more complicated picture, where the only common element we can recognise is that each one is inconsistent with all the others. The only way we see to interpret this contradictory set of results is to admit that its incongruences are not due to errors in the choice of the markers or of the methods, but rather represent a basic feature of human diversity. In other words, different genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model"

We show that statistically significant boundaries can be described between groups of populations, but different clusters are identified, depending on the assumptions of the model. In addition, these clusters do not correspond to the clusters inferred from previous analyses of the same or of other polymorphisms. We conclude that it is indeed possible to cluster genotypes according to geography, but no study so far identified unambiguously anything that can be regarded as a major genetic subdivision of humankind, and hence discontinuous models of human diversity are unsupported by data." (Barbujani and Belle, 2006)

In other words, you can categorise by skin tone, lip size and nose width, for example, but given they are just as significant as eye colour, earwax consistency or hair colour, arbitrarily choosing particular traits whilst pretermitting others makes the classification system a social construct that is devoid of a fundamental logical system; i,e, there is no particular reason that any given trait was chosen other than society's/the researcher's opinion of what is important. The only objective unit is the individual organism.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by milkytea)
Well at least we're finally agreed, to an extent, on the race issue

Surely you could equally say that in Western culture there is a certain inevitability in the existence of e.g. violent youth culture? All cultures have their adverse qualities. It's true that with Islam at the moment this adverse effect is very serious, but what can you do about that? Due to the fact that most Muslims are essentially normal, good people, it would be wrong to discriminate against Islam as a whole. In any case, you can't just discriminate against minority cultures in policy without sacrificing the liberal principles that we're supposed to be proud of in the West.

I think this should be reflected in our immigration policies. The Muslim population of this country has doubled in the last decade. I don't think it would be wise to allow it to double again if say 1% of them are proven nutters. I know that a certain percentage of whites are chavs, but that can be countered by education. I don't see a solution to the pervasive elements that follow Muslims wherever they go, even though I am happy to admit that most of them are good people. I don't think that Islam really gels well with the West full stop though either, even when they are 'moderate'. It is proactively against the values you are trying to defend, it's a catch 22.

[AspiringGenius]

I wasn't irritated by the number of ethnic people, that's down to who gets involved etc (wanna talk about integration? ) not some Quasi-agenda that some peopple invent when they don't see a sea of white faces.

I was irritated by the fact the French was spoken before the English all the time

Zut alors!

[Elipsis]

(Original post by MancStudent098)
It also costs about 2/3 of the French system, which is a lovely health system and all, but ultimately they still get pretty much the same job done.

I think they get a better service than we do. You'd be surprised how quickly you get seen in A&E there for example. Or that having your own room isn't something reserved solely for those with MRSA. The problem with a non-contributing system is that contribution systems are a way of shaking that little bit more out of people's pockets, so we have missed a trick.

[milkytea]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
These physiological differences are clinal and non-concordant; 'race' is a social construct.

"Studies of different markers yield an even more complicated picture, where the only common element we can recognise is that each one is inconsistent with all the others. The only way we see to interpret this contradictory set of results is to admit that its incongruences are not due to errors in the choice of the markers or of the methods, but rather represent a basic feature of human diversity. In other words, different genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model"

We show that statistically significant boundaries can be described between groups of populations, but different clusters are identified, depending on the assumptions of the model. In addition, these clusters do not correspond to the clusters inferred from previous analyses of the same or of other polymorphisms. We conclude that it is indeed possible to cluster genotypes according to geography, but no study so far identified unambiguously anything that can be regarded as a major genetic subdivision of humankind, and hence discontinuous models of human diversity are unsupported by data." (Barbujani and Belle, 2006)

In other words, you can categorise by skin tone, lip size and nose width, for example, but given they are just as significant as eye colour, earwax consistency or hair colour, arbitrarily choosing particular traits whilst pretermitting others makes the classification system a social construct that is devoid of a fundamental logical system; i,e, there is no particular reason that any given trait was chosen other than society's/the researcher's opinion of what is important. The only objective unit is the individual organism.

Yes, I don't have a problem with any of this. The word "race" could be said to have a meaning, within the bounds of it being a social construct - but I don't agree with race being considered politically significant basically because of the ideas you just posted.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Come on now, do you honestly think there weren't thousands and thousands of people who failed to get in, because they clearly chose to put loads more minorities in. You didn't see this happen in China. You saw Chinese people celebrating their country. I'm not adversed to having lots of minorities involved, but pretending that every other person during the industrial revolution was brown is just plane ridiculous.

Just out of interest, a friend of mine was born here and so were her parents, grandparents and great grandparents. She is an "ethnic minority" and yet proudly British- much more so than your actual native. Out of interest, what makes her less British than your average "native"?

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I was being hyperbolic. But being serious, our NHS sucks donkey balls compared to the provisions of say France. It may be totally free, with no contributions from the individual, but it doesn't have the best results and is therefore not a system I think we should be that proud of. It's like being proud of your own stubborn stupidity. It's like Leeds Met celebrating how good they are while Oxbridge are watching...

I think you're still being hyperbolic. We have lagged a little behind in the past but all the evidence suggests that at last we are improving. Earlier diagnosis are making all the difference, and since it seems we've been pretty much up there with the best in terms of treatment, that will hopefully see us continue closing the gap on the better performing European countries. Of course, everyone is treated - moreorless - free here, and although many disagree, I think that is incredibly valuable. I totally agree that our emergency services were poorly represented by comparison, but with the NHS being what it is, I think it was right to take center stage in a show such as the Olympic opening ceremony.

There's plenty of other issue with comparing ours and european/american stats and i'm sure you're probably well aware of that, many of which throw a little light on the puzzling differences in survival rates. There's no denying there's room for improvement though.

[ConnorB]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Come on now, do you honestly think there weren't thousands and thousands of people who failed to get in, because they clearly chose to put loads more minorities in. You didn't see this happen in China. You saw Chinese people celebrating their country. I'm not adversed to having lots of minorities involved, but pretending that every other person during the industrial revolution was brown is just plane ridiculous.

This is plane Ridiculous

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
Just out of interest, a friend of mine was born here and so were her parents, grandparents and great grandparents. She is an "ethnic minority" and yet proudly British- much more so than your actual native. Out of interest, what makes her less British than your average "native"?

Where is it inferred that she is any less British because of the colour of her skin? I am happy to admit plenty of minorities do buy into Britishness properly, whereas you are totally blind to the hoards that are a million things before they are British... I don't care about the colour of people's skin, I care about using the opening of the British Olympics to shove this multiculturalism bs down our throats. This country is 85% white still, and I think it would have made sense if the performers were closer to this ratio.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by ConnorB)
This is plane Ridiculous

Very good.

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I think they get a better service than we do. You'd be surprised how quickly you get seen in A&E there for example. Or that having your own room isn't something reserved solely for those with MRSA. The problem with a non-contributing system is that contribution systems are a way of shaking that little bit more out of people's pockets, so we have missed a trick.

Wasn't denying that they're better, my point is just that it's a question of value, not of absolute quality. Personally I'm happy with having a fairly cheap system that gets the job done - but I acknowledge it's ultimately a matter of taste not how objectively good the system is.

[whyumadtho]

Why is skin tone more important than hair colour, eye colour, weight, height, shoe size, etc.?

[Elipsis]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Why is skin tone more important than hair colour, eye colour, weight, height, shoe size, etc.?

Because people with blue eyes and people with brown eyes don't generally have different cultures and beliefs. And that's before we get into genetics. I don't give a crap if you deny it with your academic papers, which are the equivalent of me posting up the bell curve. This area of study is pretty much null and void because if a scientist actually did discover that fundamentally blacks have a cluster of genes that make them less intelligent and he puts it in a peer reviewed paper, people like you will make sure he never gets an academic position ever again and that he will be excluded from the scientific community in general. It isn't a hot bed of scientific interest and debate. It's something scientists who aren't happy to blag and twist their way out of the facts want to go anywhere near, and I don't blame them.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Well, what a thing to choose to show off about when the world is looking at you... hey guys, look at our NHS, with it's terrible cancer survival rates compared to the country you're from. You guys should emulate us, and maybe one day you can have next to zero chance to surviving for more than 5 years after your diagnosis.

Why show of the NHS and not our education system or our police and fire service?

Don't showcase the NHS because some other countries have a better healthcare system but showcase the police and fire service even though probably even more countries exceed ours in that regard.

Solid logic again.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Elipsis)
whereas you are totally blind to the hoards that are a million things before they are British....

since when has 'Britishness' been something we can define anyway. Half the world's been here at some point and screwed our 'Britishness' into us

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
Don't showcase the NHS because some other countries have a better healthcare system but showcase the police and fire service even though probably even more countries exceed ours in that regard.

Solid logic again.

I wasn't advocating show casing the police and fire service, I was pointing out that we could have also showcased those as things to be proud of as well. Why was the NHS singled out, if not as a political middle finger to the Tories by Boyle?

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
since when has 'Britishness' been something we can define anyway. Half the world's been here at some point and screwed our 'Britishness' into us

I consider being British to be considering yourself to be British. All it takes is for a person to say it and genuinely mean it. It doesn't matter if they speak broken English and wear a turban, I would consider them British. This whole "there is no such thing as Britishness" thing is really ridiculous. There are, or were, many things that made us a very homogenous island, even if there were also many things that make us different. Tea is just one example. We choose our cultural identity, and what defines us. There is clearly a difference between those Pakistan born people on this island who consider themselves Pakistani, to those Pakistani born people who consider themselves to be British.

Conciousness is also a tricky thing to define adequately, does that mean you don't possess it?