Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If police are being attacked they have the right to fight back (obviously they can;t just machine gun them down). Buy you can hold that view without the xenophobic rhetoric of 'savages'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    If police are being attacked they have the right to fight back (obviously they can;t just machine gun them down). Buy you can hold that view without the xenophobic rhetoric of 'savages'
    It's not xenophobic to brand people who are visibly attacking a legally identifying border as savages.
    Just as I viewed the participants of the London riots as savages, I view these "refugees" in an equally distasteful light.
    These savages hold no regard for the international law giving Hungary the right to close and defend its borders as a sovereign state.
    Any force can and should be used to prevent these violent menacing thugs from entering Europe and disrupting our way of life.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phoenixsilver)
    It's not xenophobic to brand people who are visibly attacking a legally identifying border as savages.
    Just as I viewed the participants of the London riots as savages, I view these "refugees" in an equally distasteful light.
    These savages hold no regard for the international law giving Hungary the right to close and defend its borders as a sovereign state.
    Any force can and should be used to prevent these violent menacing thugs from entering Europe and disrupting our way of life.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's dehumanising language and you clearly are referring to all of the refugees as savages. It's a lot easier to turn people away when they are not human. Or do things like shoot them which is clearly what a lot of people want.

    There is nothing wrong with not letting them in necessarily. But you can do that without the dehumanisation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's dehumanising language and you clearly are referring to all of the refugees as savages. It's a lot easier to turn people away when they are not human. Or do things like shoot them which is clearly what a lot of people want.

    There is nothing wrong with not letting them in necessarily. But you can do that without the dehumanisation.
    Why do we need to humanise them? That would elicit sympathy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's dehumanising language and you clearly are referring to all of the refugees as savages. It's a lot easier to turn people away when they are not human. Or do things like shoot them which is clearly what a lot of people want.

    There is nothing wrong with not letting them in necessarily. But you can do that without the dehumanisation.
    Yet again the left claims language to be dehumanising without picking up a dictionary. What do the two relevant definitions refer to :
    1) a brutal or vicious person
    Check
    2) (chiefly in historical or literary context) a member of a group of people regarded as primitive and uncivilised
    In some cases, check.

    It's also worth remembering that dehumanisation isn't always necessary to kill.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's dehumanising language and you clearly are referring to all of the refugees as savages. It's a lot easier to turn people away when they are not human. Or do things like shoot them which is clearly what a lot of people want.

    There is nothing wrong with not letting them in necessarily. But you can do that without the dehumanisation.
    It is not dehumanising. Savagery can be equally applied to humans as the previous poster defined.
    Besides which, these people are no longer refugees - they have passed many safe countries and refugee camps but instead head straight for Europe, making them economic migrants .
    Nobody is saying to shoot them. It however is necessary to use appropriate defensive tactics (which may include retaliatory violence and use of non-lethal weaponry) to protect the Hungarian border from attack by a mob of violent thugs throwing bricks and bottles, lighting fires and attacking police. If these savages - they are acting like them - are being violent and attempting to breach a sovereign border, then I encourage the use of measures such as pepper spray, water cannons and tear gas to disperse the crowds of thugs.

    The only occasion where it would be acceptable to use lethal force would be if these people were endangering the life of a person such as a fellow migrant, Hungarian citizen or police officer.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's dehumanising language and you clearly are referring to all of the refugees as savages. It's a lot easier to turn people away when they are not human. Or do things like shoot them which is clearly what a lot of people want.

    There is nothing wrong with not letting them in necessarily. But you can do that without the dehumanisation.
    They are dehumanising themselves, i.e. depraving themselves of human qualities, by acting like savages! We have developed an incredibly extensive set of laws that allow us to have rights but also lose some or all of them when we don't conform to the rules. These economic migrants are exploiting the fact that most European countries are incredibly welcoming and lenient towards minorities because we've allowed our culture to deteriorate to the point where we can't effectively enforce justice, and ignore positive discrimination just to not be branded as racists or xenophobes. One child is arrested because he's brought a strange electronic device to school, and in a country of school shooters and bombers, they just want to be careful, and the whole internet goes bonkers, politicians race each other in providing support via social networks to gain political points, and this huge piece of **** of a story that would have been solved with a simple 'sorry' fifty years ago, gets blown out of proportion... all while tens of thousands savages march to exploit Europe. That is what I call twisted priorities.

    I am confident that every human running from war and misery should be satisfied with safety, shelter and food. However, these savages have shown aggression, sense of entitlement to our help, disregard for the value of our food (by throwing it away and making a mess), etc. They are like children trying our limits and I assure you they won't just stop and assimilate when they reach their economically strong destination of choice, which is why we should not budge to their demands and accept only those that can sufficiently prove that their life is in danger at the time of asking for asylum, and send the rest back where they came from.

    Europe is rich and pleasant because our ancestors have built it that way. Why should these savages be entitled to our way of life when their countries, even those without wars, look like the most disgusting wasteland I've ever seen? How are they going to be productive when they can't take care of their own land? Why should we support them? Because they belong to the same species? Why not other sentient animals?

    Finally, most 21st century humans are imprinted with an extraordinary sense of compassion for one another but I think that being human itself shouldn't grant one any privileges unless he's willing to adjust, and I won't tolerate any economic migrants or even refugees unless they're prepared to assimilate rather than expect to bring their own culture and live just like before, yet on our land and with our income support and other benefits.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    They are dehumanising themselves, i.e. depraving themselves of human qualities, by acting like savages! We have developed an incredibly extensive set of laws that allow us to have rights but also lose some or all of them when we don't conform to the rules. These economic migrants are exploiting the fact that most European countries are incredibly welcoming and lenient towards minorities because we've allowed our culture to deteriorate to the point where we can't effectively enforce justice, and ignore positive discrimination just to not be branded as racists or xenophobes. One child is arrested because he's brought a strange electronic device to school, and in a country of school shooters and bombers, they just want to be careful, and the whole internet goes bonkers, politicians race each other in providing support via social networks to gain political points, and this huge piece of **** of a story that would have been solved with a simply sorry fifty years ago, gets blown out of proportion... all while tens of thousands savages march to exploit Europe. That is what I call twisted priorities.

    I am confident that every human running from war and misery should be satisfied with safety, shelter and food. However, these savages have shown aggression, sense of entitlement to our help, disregard for the value of our food (by throwing it away and making a mess), etc. They are like children trying our limits and I assure you they won't just stop and assimilate when they reach their economically strong destination, which is why we should not budge to their demands and accept only those that can sufficiently prove that their life is in danger at the time of asking for asylum, and send those remaining ca. 90% back where they came from.

    Europe is rich and pleasant because our ancestors have built it that way. Why should these savages be entitled to our way of life when their countries, even those without wars, look like the most disgusting wasteland I've ever seen? How are they going to be productive when they can't take care of their own land? Why should we support them? Because they belong to the same species? Why not other sentient animals?

    Finally, most 21st century humans are imprinted with an extraordinary sense of compassion for one another but I think that being human itself shouldn't grant one any privileges unless he's willing to adjust, and I won't tolerate any economic migrants or even refugees unless they're prepared to assimilate rather than expect to bring their own culture and live just like before, yet on our land and with our income support and other benefits.
    For about 40 years, sort of.

    Lets be honest, you wouldn't want them coming here even if they "adjusted". The ones coming here (trying to get in from France) speak English. Quite a few had middle class type jobs. Even the rioters (non dehumnasing word, it's factual) do not represent all of them. Maybe they feel desperate. It is what crowds of people do. That doesn't mean you can let them walk all over you.

    You talk of human rights and letting those that need it in, the 'humans' as opposed to the 'savages'. What if the 'savages' are the ones fleeing from war? We can easily deal with this without all this dehumanising rhetoric, if people are not human they don't have human rights and its a slippery slop from there. We don't care when savages drown but we do when it is a human that drowns.

    Moaning about how we as countries and our culture have deteriorated just sounds like a cry for the good old days of intense nationalism. We finally shook of Fascism not too long ago. In the history of Europe since the enlightenment that isn't that long at all. I don't long for it to come back.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Cameron is admittedly good at presenting himself.

    May flip flops on policy so if she tried to play the Thatcher card I doubt it'd work.

    IDS is very incompetent yes.

    Hague wasn't the worst of the tories.

    Gove is also very extreme in his views.

    Osbourne is relatively intelligent although he's not exactly a great economical mind.

    Hunt will come out pretty badly if he messes up on the NHS.
    I don't think that will be detrimental for May since she's perceived as tough on crime ect.. and her immigration rhetoric is what the people like. I suspect if the media back her, she'll be Thatcher 2.0 and actually outside the kind of places that will never vote Tory even if they cure cancer and poverty, that will go down well.

    Bar a death penalty comment about 15 years ago there's nothing to suggest Gove is extreme. Most people have a dislike for him because he annoys teachers, the average joe can't actually give you a specific reason beyond that. Indeed the Tory group he's part of with Tim Montgomerie (called the 'New Right' or something) actually supports things like a MacMillan style housing programme.

    http://immersive.sh/thegoodright/jgH2fubhI

    (Original post by United1892)
    lower prices also encourage spending, that would generally be a sign of deflation.
    Short sales are fine but persistent declining prices (without a similar wage decline) are very bad because consumers defer spending. Ideally you want more or less flat inflation with a slight rise.

    ...

    Is there a complete MP list for Labour?

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Cameron and Hunt represent the most electable version of the Tories.

    Cameron is a fantastic PR man, and portrays himself in public very well.

    May would (and should) play the Thatcher card

    IDS is incompetent.

    Hague came across as reasonable, but lacked authority in speech or ability to inspire.

    Gove has the right breed of arrogance (in a Farage way) but lacks the support.

    Osborne seems to be very intelligent, but he really seems to have a few screws loose.

    Hunt is like Cameron, but will suffer, as he most oversee the ideological destruction of the health service, he will come out either incompetent or evil.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Regarding Hague i think your right for his stint as leader but actually the version we got a decade later was intelligent, had gravitas and oozed the image of a Prime Minister.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the government have done the wrong thing from taking from the syrian refugee camps as this gives ISIS a free pass to the UK
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    For about 40 years, sort of.

    Lets be honest, you wouldn't want them coming here even if they "adjusted". The ones coming here (trying to get in from France) speak English. Quite a few had middle class type jobs. Even the rioters (non dehumnasing word, it's factual) do not represent all of them. Maybe they feel desperate. It is what crowds of people do. That doesn't mean you can let them walk all over you.

    You talk of human rights and letting those that need it in, the 'humans' as opposed to the 'savages'. What if the 'savages' are the ones fleeing from war? We can easily deal with this without all this dehumanising rhetoric, if people are not human they don't have human rights and its a slippery slop from there. We don't care when savages drown but we do when it is a human that drowns.

    Moaning about how we as countries and our culture have deteriorated just sounds like a cry for the good old days of intense nationalism. We finally shook of Fascism not too long ago. In the history of Europe since the enlightenment that isn't that long at all. I don't long for it to come back.
    Only for the last 40? Or are you considering the soviet union, in which case you don't even get 30. But I guess LP's comments could be refined to western Europe, being where the migrants want to be.

    And I see you still continue to ignore dictionary definitions and, at the very least, international convention since I guess you reject this "first safe country, notion. And we are dealing with it without giving the migrants ahead they feel entitled to, we DUI have that thing called " international aid " and it is being used, you don't have to let people into your country to help them, and unless you force them home later, something that won't happen, all you do is damage their country by taking in anybody who claims to be an asylum seeker.

    I'm more than happy to furnish you with the (1974) OED definitions of savage, as a noun, refugee and migrant (I guess I could throw economic in there too while I'm at it)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't think that will be detrimental for May since she's perceived as tough on crime ect.. and her immigration rhetoric is what the people like. I suspect if the media back her, she'll be Thatcher 2.0 and actually outside the kind of places that will never vote Tory even if they cure cancer and poverty, that will go down well.

    Bar a death penalty comment about 15 years ago there's nothing to suggest Gove is extreme. Most people have a dislike for him because he annoys teachers, the average joe can't actually give you a specific reason beyond that. Indeed the Tory group he's part of with Tim Montgomerie (called the 'New Right' or something) actually supports things like a MacMillan style housing programme.

    http://immersive.sh/thegoodright/jgH2fubhI



    Short sales are fine but persistent declining prices (without a similar wage decline) are very bad because consumers defer spending. Ideally you want more or less flat inflation with a slight rise.

    ...

    Is there a complete MP list for Labour?




    Regarding Hague i think your right for his stint as leader but actually the version we got a decade later was intelligent, had gravitas and oozed the image of a Prime Minister.
    http://www.labour.org.uk/people
    Scroll through the alphabet
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigItch)
    http://www.labour.org.uk/people
    Scroll through the alphabet
    TSR Labour. Ha.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    TSR Labour. Ha.
    I thought you meant the party as a whole
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    TSR Labour. Ha.
    RayApparently
    junaidk7
    Saracen's Fez
    cranbrook_aspie
    honeywell17
    James222
    James Milibanter
    Kay_Winters
    localblackguy
    RotatingPhasor
    Saoirse:3
    StatusRed
    That Bearded Man
    tmpearce99
    United1892
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Only for the last 40? Or are you considering the soviet union, in which case you don't even get 30. But I guess LP's comments could be refined to western Europe, being where the migrants want to be.

    And I see you still continue to ignore dictionary definitions and, at the very least, international convention since I guess you reject this "first safe country, notion. And we are dealing with it without giving the migrants ahead they feel entitled to, we DUI have that thing called " international aid " and it is being used, you don't have to let people into your country to help them, and unless you force them home later, something that won't happen, all you do is damage their country by taking in anybody who claims to be an asylum seeker.

    I'm more than happy to furnish you with the (1974) OED definitions of savage, as a noun, refugee and migrant (I guess I could throw economic in there too while I'm at it)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well I was counting western Europe really. It's been about that long since the likes of Greece and Spain shook of fascism properly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well I was counting western Europe really. It's been about that long since the likes of Greece and Spain shook of fascism properly.
    Greece is in West Europe? And it hardly changes the fact that Western Europe has been "rich" for centuries, especially the last few, and pleasant is highly subjective, and it relative terms it would not be at all off to argue that it has consistently been one of the more pleasant areas for a similar time span.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Greece is in West Europe? And it hardly changes the fact that Western Europe has been "rich" for centuries, especially the last few, and pleasant is highly subjective, and it relative terms it would not be at all off to argue that it has consistently been one of the more pleasant areas for a similar time span.
    I don;t see Greece as being any more foreign than France or Germany.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don;t see Greece as being any more foreign than France or Germany.
    And what of the rest of the Balkan states and Eastern Europe? You did specifically say that you were thinking of Western Europe, something Greece is not a part of and is, in many respects, quite far from, beyond geography.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And what of the rest of the Balkan states and Eastern Europe? You did specifically say that you were thinking of Western Europe, something Greece is not a part of and is, in many respects, quite far from, beyond geography.
    Well I included Greece in that. Spain and Italy both got lumped with fascism for fat too long. Eastern Europe had it;s share of Soviet 'Fascism' The flipping Berlin wall only fell just before I was born for gods sake. What we have now does not have to last at all and it is very much unique and not the norm.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 14, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.