Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You are completely deluded. Go back to Tumblr where you belong. Or school.

    And if you read the Daily Mail you'll very well know it's stance against Northern White scroungers.
    Your talking to one of the most stupid and deluded people I have seen on the internet over the last 20 years I've had it.

    Just ignore him


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You are completely deluded. Go back to Tumblr where you belong. Or school.

    And if you read the Daily Mail you'll very well know it's stance against Northern White scroungers.
    Dont character attack. Refute the argument or shut the **** up
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    Dont character attack. Refute the argument or shut the **** up
    The reasons:
    1. An intention does have to be held by the majority of society for it to be a racist one.
    2. The fact that there are race laws preventing racist views from being carried out does not prevent one from harbouring racist intentions, i.e. being racist
    3. An intention does have to enforced by the media for it to be a racist one.
    4. An intention does not have be based on a historical event for it to be a racist one.
    5. On the contrary, propaganda have for years shown that white people are lazy, good for nothings, especially on the Daily Mail.

    So there you have it, you deluded little one.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Although you're correct Germany is s bad example. Cough Marshall plan cough- also Germany had already been industrialised etc do the results for say Uganda are bound to be different.
    Singapore and South Korea are two good examples of third to first world transition in a generation.

    Germany was governed extremely well, from the viewpoint of industry. Argentina is a good example of the opposite: it had skilled migrants, huge resources, the area of India and appalling government.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    f(so the daily mail wont contribute a stereotype that whites are scroungers but will contribute toe a stereotype that all muslims are terrorist) lastly there is no historical basis or grounding for your belief. propaganda throughout the years propagated by the powers that be do not show that white people are lazy, good for nothings
    The British media, including the Daily Mail, often say this to justify migration.

    "The real question is why so many employers prefer to hire foreign-born workers over those already here, particularly over the young unemployed. The question, in other words, is how we can reduce the demand for immigration, rather than the supply.

    In fact, both main parties have answers to this question. The Conservative answer is that employers prefer foreign-born workers because the welfare system has made British-born workers dependent, or soft." http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ritish-workers

    Of course this is actually a condemnation of British education, training and welfare policies: it is the government's fault since 1997.

    Racism is only the worst thing for the past 50 years. Before the dominance of postmarxism it was "class" that was the terrible barrier between people. The postmarxists have really scored a hit with racism as a method of dividing society, its pure genius.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The British media, including the Daily Mail, often say this to justify migration.

    "The real question is why so many employers prefer to hire foreign-born workers over those already here, particularly over the young unemployed. The question, in other words, is how we can reduce the demand for immigration, rather than the supply.

    In fact, both main parties have answers to this question. The Conservative answer is that employers prefer foreign-born workers because the welfare system has made British-born workers dependent, or soft." http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ritish-workers

    Of course this is actually a condemnation of British education, training and welfare policies: it is the government's fault since 1997.

    Racism is only the worst thing for the past 50 years. Before the dominance of postmarxism it was "class" that was the terrible barrier between people. The postmarxists have really scored a hit with racism as a method of dividing society, its pure genius.
    Hi, sorry that that was in my post. I copy+pasted that paragraph from OP into my post in order to respond to what she had written, and have since deleted it.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    Conversely Africa was brutally stripped off its progress, of its on way of doing things due to slavery and colonialism and foreign political intrigue. Africa lost its foundation and was made to convert to a western one. huge difference
    Black Africa was incredibly heterogeneous in the seventeenth century, varying from states that had economies similar to Arab countries to tribes that were living a subsistence economy. Much of Africa below the Sahel, apart from an Eastern coastal strip and a western ivory and slave trading zone was subsistence. A subsistence economy is not really a "foundation" for anything but a subsistence economy.

    It is now 200 years since the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Blaming slavery for anything is wearing a bit thin. Did you know that the Russian peasants were wholly enslaved only 150 years ago? I haven't recently heard any Russians say "my problem is that I was part of a slave population".

    yeah sure british people suffered in the industrial revolution but due to the gains made from exploiting other countries the majority of the populace now have a better standard of life.
    This is not true. I think you will find that ordinary British people did better after the end of Empire. There are no big pots of gold in national economics, no honeypots that the population can feed upon for ever. In the 1970s the UK fell back to almost Portuguese levels of national income because of poor economic management but then recovered.

    Are you sure that you are not grist to the postmarxist mill?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    racism is or at least was a natural system to allocate scarce resources. In modern times we need not suffer from scarcity.

    Human beings can act above nature in any case- modern medicine, flight, nuclear weapons, telecommunication oh and marriage which you're keen on isn't confined by the laws of nature.
    Two points:

    1. Scarcity will always exist until energy and food become free.

    2. Do you know what the laws of nature are? Biology, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. are laws of nature. Marriage as a religious ceremony isn't something you see in other animals, but coupling very much happens across the board. Marriage gives a spiritual underlay to this coupling to raise children. It is very much a natural occurrence, as humans typically like to create order out of chaos.

    I can understand why you would be so against marriage, but you are trying to take jabs at me for claiming there is any such thing as "natural" anything, without offering any real argument against it. If you want to talk about social constructs, you'd be silly not to conclude that our biology informs our constructs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    Dont character attack. Refute the argument or shut the **** up
    I refuted your argument then you stopped responding. Is this an open dialogue or am I talking to a brick wall?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The reasons:
    1. An intention does have to be held by the majority of society for it to be a racist one.
    2. The fact that there are race laws preventing racist views from being carried out does not prevent one from harbouring racist intentions, i.e. being racist
    3. An intention does have to enforced by the media for it to be a racist one.
    4. An intention does not have be based on a historical event for it to be a racist one.
    5. On the contrary, propaganda have for years shown that white people are lazy, good for nothings, especially on the Daily Mail.

    So there you have it, you deluded little one.
    1. Not necessarily. society has been built partly on systems that benefited from racism. thus people do not have to have ill will or even hatred towards POCs to be racist. they can enable racism subconsciously or even unknowingly because of the fact that we live in a societal system that favours whites
    2.ok
    3.ok
    4. Racism generally comes from biases and prejudices created from history. , Racism and history go hand in hand
    5. well no. Propaganda may show that white people are lazy good for nothings, but it will also show the grandeur of the queen, or the triumphs of some disease by a white scientist or something else. there are positive images of white people everywhere to the point that a negative stereotype cannot subsist. however, the same cannot be said for BME and this is compunded by historical negative media portraying BME

    why is it so hard for you to accept that whites in this country cannot be the victim of racism from black people. black people have no power so what can they do to effect their so called" racism".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    Black Africa was incredibly heterogeneous in the seventeenth century, varying from states that had economies similar to Arab countries to tribes that were living a subsistence economy. Much of Africa below the Sahel, apart from an Eastern coastal strip and a western ivory and slave trading zone was subsistence. A subsistence economy is not really a "foundation" for anything but a subsistence economy.

    It is now 200 years since the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. Blaming slavery for anything is wearing a bit thin. Did you know that the Russian peasants were wholly enslaved only 150 years ago? I haven't recently heard any Russians say "my problem is that I was part of a slave population".



    This is not true. I think you will find that ordinary British people did better after the end of Empire. There are no big pots of gold in national economics, no honeypots that the population can feed upon for ever. In the 1970s the UK fell back to almost Portuguese levels of national income because of poor economic management but then recovered.

    Are you sure that you are not grist to the postmarxist mill?
    Im not talking about economics strictly though. im talking about culture, philosophies, practices wiped out by European imperialism.

    Russian slavery or any other slavery was not as detrimental as Transatlantic slavery. African slavery is the worst human suffering or human tragedy ever because of its everlasting effects.

    The brits and europe benefit from the weak economic position of african countries. simple as. Even now you have the Portuguese moving to angola to exploit the wealth there. the wealthy position of the the west could not have been achieved without slavery and other colonial conquest
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    Two points:

    1. Scarcity will always exist until energy and food become free.


    2. Do you know what the laws of nature are? Biology, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. are laws of nature. Marriage as a religious ceremony isn't something you see in other animals, but coupling very much happens across the board. Marriage gives a spiritual underlay to this coupling to raise children. It is very much a natural occurrence, as humans typically like to create order out of chaos.

    I can understand why you would be so against marriage, but you are trying to take jabs at me for claiming there is any such thing as "natural" anything, without offering any real argument against it. If you want to talk about social constructs, you'd be silly not to conclude that our biology informs our constructs.
    1: No such thing as free when you have a monetary system - whilst I support a non capitalist system on the future for now it's useful. Would your views change in such an event? (Yes it won't be in our life times)

    2:
    Whilst obviously genetics plays a huge part in shaping outcomes I would say that this is less of an impact than environmental factors. Let's look at marriage.

    Whilst in hunter gather societies women were probably seen as resources and therefore under the control of elites (so then the biggest and strongest) this could be seen as a natural and desirable outcome in a Darwinian sense. Marriage can then be seen as socially damaging as it goes against nature.

    I agree that humans tend to support order out of chaos- hence the gradual decline of racial and national boundaries in an anarchical international society!

    Of course I wouldn't deny that there are no natural things- for instance, breast feeding is natural and socially beneficial.

    My argument is simple: if we are willing to overlook the realities of nature for higher ideals such as marriage or statehood why can we not aim higher especially with the rise of technological progress and globalisation- in which globally we watch the same films, listen to the same music and go on the same websites.

    I think society is naturally improving- there are of course teething problems as there will be in the creation of any new society- most are the result of the twin problems of overpopulation and religion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    My argument is simple: if we are willing to overlook the realities of nature for higher ideals such as marriage or statehood why can we not aim higher especially with the rise of technological progress and globalisation- in which globally we watch the same films, listen to the same music and go on the same websites.

    I think society is naturally improving- there are of course teething problems as there will be in the creation of any new society- most are the result of the twin problems of overpopulation and religion.
    I'm at work at the moment so only have time to respond to this part for now. Overlooking reality and nature is what gets us in to doomsday-tier messes. The belief that all humans are the same is naive, especially when you suggest that the ideal is that every human being on the planet becomes a carbon copy of their neighbour ad infinitum. An ant colony of obedient workers who never dissent and love to consume entertainment. It sounds bleak to me. Why do you want this so much? Do you hate other cultures? I would rather allow different peoples to live their lives the way they like.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    I'm at work at the moment so only have time to respond to this part for now. Overlooking reality and nature is what gets us in to doomsday-tier messes.

    The belief that all humans are the same is naive, especially when you suggest that the ideal is that every human being on the planet becomes a carbon copy of their neighbour ad infinitum. An ant colony of obedient workers who never dissent and love to consume entertainment. It sounds bleak to me. Why do you want this so much? Do you hate other cultures? I would rather allow different peoples to live their lives the way they like.
    Overlooking reality- the way I see the reality is that globalisation, political institutions and international law are all gradually binding societies together and that the only free sovereign state is North Korea as a theocratic nightmare with nukes. Although there is friction global violence is actually decreasing world wide.

    Not sure what you mean by carbon copies- as I've acknowledged genetics make true equality impossible if such a goal was my aim. It isn't. I think human beings can dissent and always will do but that they can do so peacefully- if everyone has adequate needs addressed I do not see why there would be violence except in rare circumstances. I don't think human beings will ever be carbon copies and we will always preserve some unique elements

    The last point you make is important- I believe in universal truths not cultural relativism. If we can point something using evidence and show that it is bad for society e.g torture then it is universally true not dependent on differing cultures.

    You don't think that other people in your society should be free to live their lives the way they want (ie, you're not socially liberal) so why do you support a multicultural world system ?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Overlooking reality- the way I see the reality is that globalisation, political institutions and international law are all gradually binding societies together and that the only free sovereign state is North Korea as a theocratic nightmare with nukes. Although there is friction global violence is actually decreasing world wide.
    You do realise that that every maniac from Alexander the Great to Adolf Hitler wanted to unite the world?

    The future must be sovereign states that cooperate under international law, not global government. Global government might be OK until, like any government, it becomes corrupted. Having got your global "utopia" there will be no outside power to oppose it and nowhere for dissidents to hide. Your dream will inevitably become a tyranny that will oppress mankind for millennia.

    The last point you make is important- I believe in universal truths not cultural relativism. If we can point something using evidence and show that it is bad for society e.g torture then it is universally true not dependent on differing cultures.
    If you could prove your "truth" in the same way as you can prove Newton's first law of motion then you would be right. These moral and ethical questions are not that straightforward. Human Rights lists are no way to handle the moral side of law. English Common Law is far more sensible because it draws on wide precedents. We only gave Europe and the UN a Human Rights list because most countries in the world do not have Common Law.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    You do realise that that every maniac from Alexander the Great to Adolf Hitler wanted to unite the world?[
    Glad 9its not me invoking godwins law for a change . In any case, I'm interested why you think Alexander was a maniac. As for Hitler, he didnt want to unite the world that is false- He wanted a thousand year European Reich. Also both wanted to conquer their territory, not for it gradually and mutually become less autonomous.

    The future must be sovereign states that cooperate under international law, not global government.
    How can states be sovereign if they are bound by international law?- for example, we are prohibited from the death penalty under international law so an elected party that wants to bring back hanging will be constrained.

    Additionally, what if states choose to 'pool' their sovereignty- for instance NATO

    Global government might be OK until, like any government, it becomes corrupted. Having got your global "utopia" there will be no outside power to oppose it and nowhere for dissidents to hide. Your dream will inevitably become a tyranny that will oppress mankind for millennia.
    Point one:

    As you say, all countries could become corrupted. However, what would be the difference between a corrupt influence corrupting 196 nation states or a single world government, when it could achieve the same result?

    Point two:

    This is existing within a future neither of us will be present in. Five hundred years ago, we could not easily communicate with somebody on the other side of the planet by going on skype, or any other number of unique phenomena. If we are able to solve much of the problems of want, which is entirely conceivable I believe in the next 500 years,


    If you could prove your "truth" in the same way as you can prove Newton's first law of motion then you would be right. These moral and ethical questions are not that straightforward. Human Rights lists are no way to handle the moral side of law. English Common Law is far more sensible because it draws on wide precedents. We only gave Europe and the UN a Human Rights list because most countries in the world do not have Common Law.
    I could have a very long chat with you about why any notion of morality is far more utopian than any ideas of a benevolent world government but i'll refrain and keep to the argument of jurisprudence.

    I believe in evidence-based truth, and that this is actually relatively straight forward legal positivism.

    for instance-

    1: Rape is wrong because it is evil (Moral law)

    2: Rape is wrong because it has severe negative affects on the victim and the perpetrator and these our confirmed by reams of scientific evidence and data.

    Point 2 is a better means of enforcing the law as it is based on fact rather than custom. This fact would be true throughout history unlike custom when, for instance rape was seen as not much of a problem for most of the last thousand years.

    I'm largely ambivalent about Human Rights- just like morality it is something that is preached more than practiced.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Glad 9its not me invoking godwins law for a change . In any case, I'm interested why you think Alexander was a maniac.
    He imagined he was destined by Zeus to conquer the world but his men pointed out that it was much bigger than they had thought and seemed to go on forever. He would have continued but his army refused to go any further.

    As for Hitler, he didnt want to unite the world that is false- He wanted a thousand year European Reich. Also both wanted to conquer their territory, not for it gradually and mutually become less autonomous.
    The Nazis had a thoroughly modern plan for Europe called the "European Economic Community" (I joke not!) See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/lee.riley/Notices/EWG.pdf The plan was globally extensible.

    How can states be sovereign if they are bound by international law?- for example, we are prohibited from the death penalty under international law so an elected party that wants to bring back hanging will be constrained.
    I believe that States can manage their own internal affairs. In fact they should manage their own internal affairs, if they cannot survive without external inputs they are not sustainable and might consider re-arranging their economic relations to achieve sustainability.

    As you say, all countries could become corrupted. However, what would be the difference between a corrupt influence corrupting 196 nation states or a single world government, when it could achieve the same result?
    It is a lot harder to corrupt 196 governments than it is to corrupt one government. In world history there have always been a few places that were not too bad, even in the worst of times. Corrupt a single World Government and we are all stuffed.


    This is existing within a future neither of us will be present in. Five hundred years ago, we could not easily communicate with somebody on the other side of the planet by going on skype, or any other number of unique phenomena. If we are able to solve much of the problems of want, which is entirely conceivable I believe in the next 500 years,
    Want is largely due to corruption. Have you travelled from US to Mexico or Singapore to Malaysia? You can literally see the effect of severe corruption.

    I believe in evidence-based truth, and that this is actually relatively straight forward legal positivism.

    for instance-

    1: Rape is wrong because it is evil (Moral law)

    2: Rape is wrong because it has severe negative affects on the victim and the perpetrator and these our confirmed by reams of scientific evidence and data.
    You need Common Law to properly decide cases. Nothing is black and white, if a rape has been committed then it is wrong but there is often mitigation and the sentence might also be made more severe because of the circumstances. Menu based laws and punishments are a fallacy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I believe in evidence-based truth, and that this is actually relatively straight forward legal positivism.

    for instance-

    1: Rape is wrong because it is evil (Moral law)

    2: Rape is wrong because it has severe negative affects on the victim and the perpetrator and these our confirmed by reams of scientific evidence and data.

    Point 2 is a better means of enforcing the law as it is based on fact rather than custom. This fact would be true throughout history unlike custom when, for instance rape was seen as not much of a problem for most of the last thousand years.

    I'm largely ambivalent about Human Rights- just like morality it is something that is preached more than practiced.
    The problem you seem to be having is misunderstanding the evolutionary biology of religion and morality. "rape is wrong because it is evil" did not spawn out of nowhere, you must understand. Through our evolution we have developed an intolerance to rape and a revulsion to the harming of our women. Women are our most valuable resource, since they are the child bearers (cue feminists NOT ALL WOMEN BEAR CHILDREN) and so they must be protected from all possible threats. Your understanding of morality is very limited.

    Morality has nothing to do with empirical evidence. Justice does, however, and I would agree that an "innocent until proven guilty with empirical evidence" system is right.

    As I said before, Davij, knowing that you claimed to have been a stormfronter and have "put that dark past behind you", I can't help but think it's still at the forefront of your logic to this very day. You cannot wait to seize power from the individual and give it all to the state power in the sky.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)

    Not sure what you mean by carbon copies- as I've acknowledged genetics make true equality impossible if such a goal was my aim. It isn't. I think human beings can dissent and always will do but that they can do so peacefully- if everyone has adequate needs addressed I do not see why there would be violence except in rare circumstances. I don't think human beings will ever be carbon copies and we will always preserve some unique elements

    The last point you make is important- I believe in universal truths not cultural relativism. If we can point something using evidence and show that it is bad for society e.g torture then it is universally true not dependent on differing cultures.

    You don't think that other people in your society should be free to live their lives the way they want (ie, you're not socially liberal) so why do you support a multicultural world system ?

    Let me explain what I mean by "carbon copies", first of all. What you want to do is to enforce every single community on Earth to behave like the British or Americans. You wish to create obedient workers who spend their money and don't feel obliged to care for their children. These people will be sold the concept of "individualism" whilst conforming to a global standard of ideas which was coercively thrust upon them. There is a reason why Japan and China had very similar customs until the Communist revolution took place there, in comparison to Britain. Because culture is informed by our biology. Once the British become a minority and Muslim ethnicities become a majority, the British way of life will cease to be. I don't want this.

    Now, multiculturalism within one nation is bad because it ruins social capital within the nation: the people are forced to become tolerant of others plundering their resources, their land, their wealth, and their women. The working classes are conscious that they are being invaded by foreigners (working age men make up the majority of immigrants) and a civil war between those who want to dissolve the British people and their State and the conservative British will take place if this persists. I'd recommend you read The Perils of Diversity, because he explains this with absolute clarity. Most people believe in keeping all nations sovereign until they overstep their mark or invade our interests. For example: we should guard our shores, not Israel's borders. Disrupting the Middle East on their behalf is pointless as we are not a global power since we lost India. We all become freer and stronger when each nation is able to build itself up as well as it can without being guilted back to the ground. The European Union does this lowest-common-denominator thing whereby we must give more and more money the more successful we are. They drag us down in order to "level the playing field". Why do we bother with this?

    The cultures of Europe are different, let alone the globe's. I want all cultures the ability to flourish. That is how we achieve true diversity. Racial diversity within every single nation gives you a bland beigeness in every single country.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wave of Wisdom)
    The problem you seem to be having is misunderstanding the evolutionary biology of religion and morality. "rape is wrong because it is evil" did not spawn out of nowhere, you must understand. Through our evolution we have developed an intolerance to rape and a revulsion to the harming of our women. Women are our most valuable resource, since they are the child bearers (cue feminists NOT ALL WOMEN BEAR CHILDREN) and so they must be protected from all possible threats. Your understanding of morality is very limited.

    Morality has nothing to do with empirical evidence. Justice does, however, and I would agree that an "innocent until proven guilty with empirical evidence" system is right.

    As I said before, Davij, knowing that you claimed to have been a stormfronter and have "put that dark past behind you", I can't help but think it's still at the forefront of your logic to this very day. You cannot wait to seize power from the individual and give it all to the state power in the sky.
    I'll talk about the individualist point first- yes I do want to take away some individual agency because I think that the majority of people are conditioned into thinking they are freely choosing things which are not beneficial to them or society for instance gambling or fast food - I'm sure you're not as libertarian as you pretend and would advocate banning a whole range of stuff too (although for different motives obviously!)

    As for morality and religion yes I think it has evolved- to the extent that it's no longer relevant. We've declined from many gods to one and finally none- because as you've said it is not based on empirical reality- a right system would be 'no god until proven!'

    As for the role of women. Yes obviously there are very clear biological differences and I would strongly agree that any parents first responsibility should be to their children however I would allocate the blame of our selfish society to the corrupting influence of capitalism rather than the increased autonomy of women- human nature is ultimately shaped by our environment after all.

    So in short rape is wrong because of the empirical affects they have on women as ends in themselves rather than on their potential to be mothers.

    Reducing women to the extent of being walking wombs and not as autonomous beings is, I would say as dangerous as any 'feminist' liberalisation to the family unit.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.