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

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage 'Barricaded' In Pub & 'Rescued By Police From Protesters' Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    [B]
    Genetic ancestry doesn't follow human constructed borders. Genetic ancestry markers, if you drew a map of it, are very much widespread and cover greater geographical distances. If you studied even a bit of it, you'd notice what we consider a 'race' shares little in the very minimal genetic variations of the human race.
    There is enough of a distinction to be able to trace us to varying nationalities and Geographic areas though.

    ]Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation
    Are you saying Germans don't have a unique cultural, genetic, ethnic, geographical , historical, linguistic or social atributes?
    That none of these are in any way different from nations around them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_G)
    What? In what way is the current left-wing thinking dangerous? Because it's mostly anti-UKIP? I'd be more inclined to say that it's the current thinking of the right that is dangerous. Not even mentioning the ridiculous actions of the Tory party that are being driven by a minority party with no representation in parliament.
    How about:

    Actions such as this to stamp out the voices of people they disagree with

    Curtailing free speech and thought

    Pushing class warfare which is divisive

    Wanting to bankrupt the nation

    Mass immigration just to spite the right

    Defending people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro

    Thinking that being unpatriotic is a good virtue

    Defending criminals

    If you can't see the damage done by Labour over the years then you're either a tyrant or an idiot. My guess is that you're some perverse compromise of the two.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    There is enough of a distinction to be able to trace us to varying nationalities and Geographic areas though.



    Are you saying Germans don't have a unique cultural, genetic, ethnic, geographical , historical, linguistic or social atributes?
    That none of these are in any way different from nations around them?
    But you're missing the point. Using the word 'German' and using that as your template for some true blood 'German' is ignoring what constitutes a 'German' today. Germany is a social construct, our genetics map up do not fit neatly within state borders. Look it up, large swathes of population share the same genetic make ups that ignore state boundaries. I'm not trying to accuse you of this, but that is exactly what the Nazi's tried to do. But Hitler is a failure at science and people believed him. Anyway a German, just like a Briton. Is not defined by ones genetic ancestry and thank goodness it isn't, so it's useless to bang on about it. I can trace my genetic ancestry to Jamaica & the USA, what of it? means nothing to me in reality.

    Oh and for the record, I think people like yourself overplay the uniqueness of nation-states. Especially now within the context of the European Union. Germany's geographic and linguistic attributes spill over the state borders into say Austria. Which has considerable commonalities. Plus I believe ones social-economic status cuts across state boundaries too. On my exchange, I felt I had much more in common with my French student counterparts than many in Britain.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    But you're missing the point. Using the word 'German' and using that as your template for some true blood 'German' is ignoring what constitutes a 'German' today. Germany is a social construct, our genetics map up do not fit neatly within state borders. Look it up, large swathes of population share the same genetic make ups that ignore state boundaries. I'm not trying to accuse you of this, but that is exactly what the Nazi's tried to do. But Hitler is a failure at science and people believed him.
    But you would say that a person from Black individual from Nigeria and a white person from Ireland had a different race wouldn't you?

    Why?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    But you would say that a person from Black individual from Nigeria and a white person from Ireland had a different race wouldn't you?

    Why?
    Of course, I would say it only because of social convention and ease of communication. It's easy!

    But I know enough, scientifically and personally, about genetic ancestry to know it is more complex than that on an individual level. I have 'white' great grand parents on one side and Jamaican great grand parents on the other. But because of social convention, I am simply Black British. Besides, we're all from Africa anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    Actually they were middle class tossers from the EUSA.
    There was a group of them - about a third of it, perhaps. But the largest contingent were the organisers from a fairly extreme Scottish nationalist grouping. They certainly weren't middle class.

    Aside from that, it was chiefly journalists and bemused tourists who got caught up in it all.

    (Original post by GremlinFace)
    but the general feeling in Scotland is that UKIP's policies are abhorrent.
    That's just made-up nonsense with no bearing on reality.

    (Original post by Callum96)
    I would love the Scottish to vote for their own independence, just to see how long it would take before the country falls to ruin and it no longer becomes possible to have no university fees etc. As for these anti racism campaigners, isn't it funny that they call him 'English scum,' whilst calling UKIP racists
    They weren't "anti racism campaigners". These people were a Scottish nationalist group who, despite holding fairly repugnant views themselves, tried to dress it up as something like that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    Of course, I would say it only because of social convention and ease of communication. It's easy!

    But I know enough, scientifically and personally, about genetic ancestry to know it is more complex than that on an individual level. I have 'white' great grand parents on one side and Jamaican great grand parents on the other. But because of social convention, I am simply Black British. Besides, we're all from Africa anyway.
    Good, Racism doesn't exist then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That's just made-up nonsense with no bearing on reality.
    Abhorrent is too strong a word but the majority of Scots are against their policies. UKIP got 0.28% of the vote in the last Scottish election. The latest MORI poll, conducted earlier this month, found that only 2 in 1001 Scots would vote for UKIP.

    - 64% of Scots support gay marriage (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpu...-marriage.aspx)

    - Only 34% of Scots are opposed to the UK staying in the EU (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Doc...013-tables.pdf)

    - At the time of the Scottish smoking ban, 77% were in favour of a no-smoking policy in restaurants and cafes. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...oking.politics)

    - Only 37% of Scots would like to see immigration "reduced a lot". (http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...immigration-uk)

    My initial statement was perhaps too strong. But Scotland clearly does not agree with UKIP's policies and this is reflected in the level of support for the party: on par with the Monster Raving Looney Party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    What. The. Hell. Do YOU know what you're talking about?

    So I can disagree with women right to vote & divorce and not be sexist? I can disagree with giving black people the right to marry white people and not be racist? Earth to reality, come in reality. The very fact that people think denying gay people rights is not homophobic or equal to being sexist or racist, is proof how unequal people like Nigel Farage treat homosexuals. In other words, it's discrimination.

    Democracy? Are you having a laugh! Nigel Farage supports an undemocratic second chamber (House of Lords), head of state (Queen) & voting system (First Past The Post) in the UK. He opposes direct elections for the EU commission President & opposed the Lisbon Treaty which gave the European Parliament (democratically elected by the European citizens) more power. He supports democracy as a tool, a simple means to achieve his own end. He doesn't value democracy as an end. The guy doesn't give a flying **** about democracy.

    Germany is not a race of people, it's a multicultural sovereign-state now a member of the EU. The irony is, there was once a man who thought German people were a race... but anyway, you can be married to a German and still be racist. Your wife could be a White German and you could still hate Germans with African-Caribbean ethnicity (black people)

    Genetic ancestry doesn't follow human constructed borders. Genetic ancestry markers, if you drew a map of it, are very much widespread and cover greater geographical distances. If you studied even a bit of it, you'd notice what we consider a 'race' shares little in the very minimal genetic variations of the human race.
    You appear to be randomly throwing words out.

    UKIP have been accused of many things, I was merely pointing out that they can hardly be accused of being racist with so many of it's members and politicians being members of the ethnic minority as well as a leader who is married to a non British person.

    Incidentally, Germany is a multicultural nation state that even their government has acknowledged has failed in it's experiment in multiculturalism.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    How about:

    Actions such as this to stamp out the voices of people they disagree with

    Curtailing free speech and thought

    Pushing class warfare which is divisive

    Wanting to bankrupt the nation

    Mass immigration just to spite the right

    Defending people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro

    Thinking that being unpatriotic is a good virtue

    Defending criminals

    If you can't see the damage done by Labour over the years then you're either a tyrant or an idiot. My guess is that you're some perverse compromise of the two.
    The attacks against Farage were people using their free speech and a libertarian like Farage has absolutely nothing that he can say against people using it. If he did then it would be deeply hypocritical and against his own beliefs. There are very few people in this country that actively hunt down and try to repress free speech and until you can provide sincere evidence that the left are trying to do exactly this then it's a pile of bull to me.

    Again, there is a distinct lack of any sentiments to do with class warfare in our country. There has been absolutely no action taken that hints at any party wanting class warfare. The most obvious divisions between people in this country are much more clearly defined between the North and the South whilst class division is much less obvious now than it ever has been. Hence, there is relatively little cause to push class warfare to the forefront of society.

    This next point is just funny. Wanting to bankrupt the nation. What crackpot newspaper did you read that in? My guess would be the Daily Mail.

    Mass immigration, I doubt there are many people that refute that this has happened. Though I must say that I highly doubt Labour took such little against it for the soul purpose of spiting the right. Get real.

    First and foremost, I'd bet a lot of money that you couldn't really claim much knowledge of Hugo Chavez at all, other than what was read in the Daily Fail. Fidel Castro is an entirely different matter though, then again I don't recall any significant portion of the Left ever praising him to the high heavens. Post-revolutionary Cuba was mix of socialist policy and anti-Batista retaliations against much of the population. I don't think many people with their heads screwed on that would say the gangster-led government of Batista was any better or any less repressive than that of Castro but I do think that many would say that the immediate development of Cuba after the revolution was a lot more successful than anything the population could ever have anticipated under Batista. Enough of that anyway.

    Although I'm not completely left-leaning I think that much of the Left can be considered patriotic. It was proven during the two world wars that they are capable of being patriotic and it earned them the election of Attlee at the end of World War II. I personally consider myself patriotic to an extent but always emphasise that nationalism is a most deplorable attitude in people and that is what I think we are saying in the words and ideas of many people today.

    "Defending criminals"... what do you mean by this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GremlinFace)
    Abhorrent is too strong a word but the majority of Scots are against their policies. UKIP got 0.28% of the vote in the last Scottish election. The latest MORI poll, conducted earlier this month, found that only 2 in 1001 Scots would vote for UKIP.

    - 64% of Scots support gay marriage (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpu...-marriage.aspx)

    - Only 34% of Scots are opposed to the UK staying in the EU (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Doc...013-tables.pdf)

    - At the time of the Scottish smoking ban, 77% were in favour of a no-smoking policy in restaurants and cafes. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...oking.politics)

    - Only 37% of Scots would like to see immigration "reduced a lot". (http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...immigration-uk)

    My initial statement was perhaps too strong. But Scotland clearly does not agree with UKIP's policies and this is reflected in the level of support for the party: on par with the Monster Raving Looney Party.
    Although I'd agree with many of your points Lib, just a few points.

    Throughout the EU, support for the EU is falling, and Although UKIP don't hold in some cases majority view policies, they give a voice to those who do agree with there policies. After all, we seem to have a political system where all major party's hold similar views, and differ only slightly on economic reform. UKIP can and does give a voice to those that don't follow the mainstream view. That's not saying that the mainstream view won't get pushed through, but it just means that they'd be a degree of compromise to keep all parties happy.

    I don't for one minute fro example think that UKIP would ever turn back the smoking ban, but I do think that they'd support people being given the choice. i.e. you can smoke in some bars, and not others.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Good, Racism doesn't exist then.
    I'm laughing for so many reasons. How the hell did you jump from a light exchange on the social constructed notion of race and the misconceptions of genetics with nationality. To ''oh racism does not exist''. Seriously, that's special. :K: Just because the average Joe can't grasp the idea the genetic history of an individual is not so simplistic. Doesn't mean we just erase the concept discriminating someone on their skin tone. It's kind of like say, too late for that. Blame the European Empires for that.

    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You appear to be randomly throwing words out.

    UKIP have been accused of many things, I was merely pointing out that they can hardly be accused of being racist with so many of it's members and politicians being members of the ethnic minority as well as a leader who is married to a non British person.

    Incidentally, Germany is a multicultural nation state that even their government has acknowledged has failed in it's experiment in multiculturalism.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451
    You appear to be ignoring your post I responded to. Where you made three statements defending UKIP. Are you even reading what you type?

    (Original post by C_G)
    ...Again, there is a distinct lack of any sentiments to do with class warfare in our country. There has been absolutely no action taken that hints at any party wanting class warfare. The most obvious divisions between people in this country are much more clearly defined between the North and the South whilst class division is much less obvious now than it ever has been. Hence, there is relatively little cause to push class warfare to the forefront of society...
    I agree class warfare is not at the forefront of party politics in UK.

    However I find that view point interesting and it's one often thrown about by the BBC and the like. But let's be honest here. Are we really suggesting the likes of wealthy Harrogate, Yorkshire in the North are not more 'united' with those in say wealthy Chelsea, London in the south? Plus, the North/South 'divide' is the result of the different social-economic (class) demographic of the UK. People may use 'north/south divide' but it's just a phrase that is masking the true story here.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    However I find that view point interesting and it's one often thrown about by the BBC and the like. But let's be honest here. Are we really suggesting the likes of wealthy Harrogate, Yorkshire in the North are not more 'united' with those in say wealthy Chelsea, London in the south? Plus, the North/South 'divide' is the result of the different social-economic (class) demographic of the UK. People may use 'north/south divide' but it's just a phrase that is masking the true story here.
    I think that the differences between the North and South are a lot more based on social and cultural perceptions than anything else. A few years ago when my brother had an interview at Oxford Uni there was a girl that asked him if it was true that everyone in the North carried a weapon. I'm not sure if it was asked in sincerity but the fact that it was asked at all shows a level of ignorance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GremlinFace)
    Abhorrent is too strong a word but the majority of Scots are against their policies. UKIP got 0.28% of the vote in the last Scottish election. The latest MORI poll, conducted earlier this month, found that only 2 in 1001 Scots would vote for UKIP.
    Which demonstrates nothing. In a ComRes poll in January, they were on 14% in Scotland. In Scottish-specific polls, they are often rather discriminated against (as are the SNP in UK national polls) by being grouped into the "other" category rather than specifically spelled out as an option.

    - 64% of Scots support gay marriage (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpu...-marriage.aspx)
    Which is pretty much the same as the GB-wide Populous poll last year, and several other polls have shown there is no significant divide here between Scotland and England.

    - Only 34% of Scots are opposed to the UK staying in the EU (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Doc...013-tables.pdf)
    Yet an overwhelming majority want a referendum on it.

    - Only 37% of Scots would like to see immigration "reduced a lot". (http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...immigration-uk)
    Again, relevance? I had no idea what UKIP's immigration policies were. On looking them up, I don't think they're enormously unreasonable in the grand scheme of things (a cap of 50,000 on migration). It is less of a priority to people in Scotland because Scotland hasn't had mass migration.

    My initial statement was perhaps too strong. But Scotland clearly does not agree with UKIP's policies and this is reflected in the level of support for the party: on par with the Monster Raving Looney Party.
    Actually, in Westminster elections they're the fifth party in Scotland and in the European elections they got 58,000 votes. All they'd have to do is double that and they'd have an MEP. Which isn't beyond the realms of imagination if they can organise themselves as effectively as they have in England.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_G)
    The attacks against Farage were people using their free speech and a libertarian like Farage has absolutely nothing that he can say against people using it. If he did then it would be deeply hypocritical and against his own beliefs. There are very few people in this country that actively hunt down and try to repress free speech and until you can provide sincere evidence that the left are trying to do exactly this then it's a pile of bull to me.

    Again, there is a distinct lack of any sentiments to do with class warfare in our country. There has been absolutely no action taken that hints at any party wanting class warfare. The most obvious divisions between people in this country are much more clearly defined between the North and the South whilst class division is much less obvious now than it ever has been. Hence, there is relatively little cause to push class warfare to the forefront of society.

    This next point is just funny. Wanting to bankrupt the nation. What crackpot newspaper did you read that in? My guess would be the Daily Mail.

    Mass immigration, I doubt there are many people that refute that this has happened. Though I must say that I highly doubt Labour took such little against it for the soul purpose of spiting the right. Get real.

    First and foremost, I'd bet a lot of money that you couldn't really claim much knowledge of Hugo Chavez at all, other than what was read in the Daily Fail. Fidel Castro is an entirely different matter though, then again I don't recall any significant portion of the Left ever praising him to the high heavens. Post-revolutionary Cuba was mix of socialist policy and anti-Batista retaliations against much of the population. I don't think many people with their heads screwed on that would say the gangster-led government of Batista was any better or any less repressive than that of Castro but I do think that many would say that the immediate development of Cuba after the revolution was a lot more successful than anything the population could ever have anticipated under Batista. Enough of that anyway.

    Although I'm not completely left-leaning I think that much of the Left can be considered patriotic. It was proven during the two world wars that they are capable of being patriotic and it earned them the election of Attlee at the end of World War II. I personally consider myself patriotic to an extent but always emphasise that nationalism is a most deplorable attitude in people and that is what I think we are saying in the words and ideas of many people today.

    "Defending criminals"... what do you mean by this?
    Free Speech, yes. But they silenced speech. There's a huge difference.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Free Speech, yes. But they silenced speech. There's a huge difference.
    The purpose of their protest was to let Farage know that UKIP has absolutely no place in Scottish politics. Not to silence him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed2010)
    I'm laughing for so many reasons. How the hell did you jump from a light exchange on the social constructed notion of race and the misconceptions of genetics with nationality. To ''oh racism does not exist''. Seriously, that's special. :K: Just because the average Joe can't grasp the idea the genetic history of an individual is not so simplistic. Doesn't mean we just erase the concept discriminating someone on their skin tone. It's kind of like say, too late for that. Blame the European Empires for that.
    It was a huge straw-man ill admit.

    But if Race doesn't exist, and there is absolutely no difference at all between a black Nigerian and a white-irishman, then racism can't exist...because well..race doesn't.

    What should we re-name it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_G)
    The purpose of their protest was to let Farage know that UKIP has absolutely no place in Scottish politics. Not to silence him.
    Thank you for backing my point up that they were closing down free speech.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Thank you for backing my point up that they were closing down free speech.
    lolwut?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_G)
    lolwut?
    A dozen or so protestors don't speak for Scotland. They sure as hell don't speak for me. So a dozen or so people have decided what the other 5 million of us think. That's not democracy and it's surely not freedom of speech by silencing speech.
 
 
 
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: May 26, 2013
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

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