Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe what I am hearing. The question was, why can't we all get along?

    That fact is obvious in the previous posts. I can hear cries now of "send 'em back where they belong!" "Bring back capital punishment" "Burn them at the stake"
    Are people really that ignorant? This is the reason why we all can't get along. People just don't understand or want to understand one another.

    As for "the people who did this must really hate this country" rubbish.

    Its not about hate, its about belief and if someone has that much of a belief in something they will do anything.

    Don't get me wrong I am not condoning what they have done now or will do in the future, but pointing the finger at innocent people is not the way to resolve things.

    Just a last note, as read in the paper today
    "The London bombings were almost certainly masterminded by British - born terrorists, says former Scotland Yard police chief Lord Stevens."
    So keeping immigrants out isn't going to help is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    The people who believe we can all get along are racial supremacists, not consciously
    We can all get along without all being the same class, culture, and religion, I'm sure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChelseaBabe)
    Its not about hate, its about belief and if someone has that much of a belief in something they will do anything.
    It's about a belief that motivates one to hate, is it not? They really couldn't kill without hatred. What I said was it's not so much that they hate us because we're free or anything to do with envy of our way of life (I'm sure they like their way of life as much as we like ours) but perhaps because they don't like what we're doing...they hate our actions. Who knows.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richl)
    It's about a belief that motivates one to hate, is it not? They really couldn't kill without hatred. What I said was it's not so much that they hate us because we're free or anything to do with envy of our way of life (I'm sure they like their way of life as much as we like ours) but perhaps because they don't like what we're doing...they hate our actions. Who knows.
    Now you see I disagree there. Belief is a feeling, a passion in something. Hate I feel doesn't come near. It's a war of beliefs.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The population issue should also be considered with the peak-oil problem. We do have to plan ahead and think of food (pesticides, fertilisers, and imports) and drugs (oil-based chemicals), and a sustainable population after oil. We should be thinking about this now.

    Garrett Hardin
    Optimum Population Trust
    Population and Immigration
    Peak-Oil

    People who say there's no population problem have to explain how we could sustain a population of 60 million without oil.

    (Original post by Richl)
    We can all get along without all being the same class, culture, and religion, I'm sure.
    You have the formula for world peace? Or just a blind faith in what the 'blenders' tell you? Think for yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richl)
    We can all get along without all being the same class, culture, and religion, I'm sure.
    One day maybe, when we all have our emotions surpressed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    You have the formula for world peace? Or just a blind faith in what the 'blenders' tell you? Think for yourself.
    Now now, just because you've misunderstood me does not mean you have to be rude. You said:

    they will ditch their traditions, religion, tribal affiliation, and distinct ethnic heritage, and happily become Western.
    For me, such a complete "ditching" of everything that makes us individual and human is not a pre-requisite to getting along. You seemed to be saying that all that assimilation into one indistinguishable blob was necessary for living together in peace. I'm saying bring immigrants here, they can maintain (as far as possible) their culture and contribute to the richness of our own, without resorting to racial tension.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richl)
    Now now, just because you've misunderstood me does not mean you have to be rude. You said:

    For me, such a complete "ditching" of everything that makes us individual and human is not a pre-requisite to getting along. You seemed to be saying that all that assimilation into one indistinguishable blob was necessary for living together in peace. I'm saying bring immigrants here, they can maintain (as far as possible) their culture and contribute to the richness of our own, without resorting to racial tension.
    Sorry if I was rude. The ditching of cultures, traditions, tribal affiliations, beliefs and ethnicity would actually be a ditching of what makes us groups, not individuals. My first post in this thread said the important point Eddie had made is that religious, national, racial and ethnic groups don't get along (yes plenty of individuals do, but the groups don't).

    Assimilation isn't going to happen so we can expect, at best, continued inter-group conflict and tension, occassional murders, bombings and riots - that's as good as it gets in multi-ethnic states as large and diverse as ours.

    As I said before, better that we all live in our own homelands and without threatening other peoples maintained our own folkways and cultures. If we gradually evolve toward a one-world community, fine, but at the moment we impose our cultures on each other, conflict and tension the result.

    Why the eternal and universal inter-group conflict?
    Standard evolutionary theory
    Social identity theory
    Genetic similarity theory

    Why the denial of human history and blind faith in the 'blenders' programme? That's a better question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Okay i'll be stereotypical...

    Going by your profile pic, you look like a typical member of the BNP, and thus your comments don't suprise me.

    It's wrong to judge somebody by their appearance. You can't tell what somebody is like just by looking at a picture :stupid:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In response to my own starting thread, I think that people can all get along. Not necessarily like each other, but at least put up with each other. I know people have posted loads and loads of actual reasons why they can't but I'd like to think that people can get along. Britain is an example of that, how many different cultures and faiths do we have in this country, especially the cities.

    But is "getting along" a western idea which simply doesn't translate as a global one?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eddie K)
    In response to my own starting thread, I think that people can all get along. Not necessarily like each other, but at least put up with each other. I know people have posted loads and loads of actual reasons why they can't but I'd like to think that people can get along. Britain is an example of that, how many different cultures and faiths do we have in this country, especially the cities.

    But is "getting along" a western idea which simply doesn't translate as a global one?
    Where do people get along? Name the country with a mix of nations, races, ethnicities and religions that doesn't have conflict, not to mention civil war.

    As I say we have it pretty good here, low level aggravation everyday for families and schoolkids, occassional murders, bombs and riots, that's as good as it will ever be. Have you any reason to expect it will get better?

    And yes, preparedness to mix (blend out) is a peculiarly White pathology.

    Why isn't it better to divide the violent malcontents who feed on difference?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LC01)
    We are also the most overcrowded devolped country in the world.
    I thought Japan would be pretty overcrowded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I thought Japan would be pretty overcrowded.
    I thought that as well, since Tokyo is one of the most expensive places to live due to the limited space. Britian is not overcrowded by a long shot, there is still plenty of room.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juueru_chou)
    I thought that as well, since Tokyo is one of the most expensive places to live due to the limited space. Britian is not overcrowded by a long shot, there is still plenty of room.
    Overall Britain does have some more room but in certain places there isn't such as London. I see all these houses being built and roads etc why can't we build small skyscrapers to save space? If people don't want to live in a flat then hard cheese.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Sorry if I was rude. The ditching of cultures, traditions, tribal affiliations, beliefs and ethnicity would actually be a ditching of what makes us groups, not individuals. My first post in this thread said the important point Eddie had made is that religious, national, racial and ethnic groups don't get along (yes plenty of individuals do, but the groups don't).

    Assimilation isn't going to happen so we can expect, at best, continued inter-group conflict and tension, occassional murders, bombings and riots - that's as good as it gets in multi-ethnic states as large and diverse as ours.

    As I said before, better that we all live in our own homelands and without threatening other peoples maintained our own folkways and cultures. If we gradually evolve toward a one-world community, fine, but at the moment we impose our cultures on each other, conflict and tension the result.

    Why the eternal and universal inter-group conflict?
    Standard evolutionary theory
    Social identity theory
    Genetic similarity theory

    Why the denial of human history and blind faith in the 'blenders' programme? That's a better question.

    Well, we're all individuals within groups. What group am I in? I agree with some of the people here on certain issues, and with some of my friends on others, and we all have a lot in common, but you can't break everyone down as groups or "races" and stop there. No, that's too simple and superficial. What makes us individual is all of those criteria you and I mentioned (and a bit more)

    Your view is at best pessimistic, and at worst insular and impractical. Humans will not live in separate homelands, you can't split up places into "groups" because, as I said above, it's never as clear cut as you want it to be, and never so exclusively one bunch or the other. All those nasty things happen partly as a result of daft government policies or sheer ignorance and scare-mongering media. There's more to it, but I would never murder or bomb: these are worst-case situations that are not the norm and are not inevitable
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=ArthurOliver] Have you any reason to expect it will get better?
    QUOTE]

    I like to be an optimist.

    Maybe you're right. Multiculturalism isn't necessarily a good thing. Maybe we should all accept that we're better off with our own kind?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richl)
    All those nasty things happen...
    Agreed, and they always have and always will. That's what we must deal with. The low-level conflicts of interest between ethnic groups usually become ethnic conflicts, I think we're crossing that point now. If there's a better, more peaceful and practical answer than homelands for every people I'd be interested in hearing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Agreed, and they always have and always will. That's what we must deal with. The low-level conflicts of interest between ethnic groups usually become ethnic conflicts, I think we're crossing that point now. If there's a better, more peaceful and practical answer than homelands for every people I'd be interested in hearing it.
    That's rather cheap to just quote me out of context, don't you think...I know you disagree but you've ignored most of what I said.

    What you suggest is impossible for the reasons I've said (and you've ignored). Ethic groups are not homogeneous bunches of people where everyone's happy, and I guarantee you that given time they too will split, and what do we do then? It's impossible to smash nations apart and start with new homelands as it severely pisses people off to be told to move away from their neighbours of a different group with whom they get along fine, to go to a country miles away where everyone looks the same. That isn't diversity, it's very artificial and it just ain't gonna happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Agreed, and they always have and always will. That's what we must deal with. The low-level conflicts of interest between ethnic groups usually become ethnic conflicts, I think we're crossing that point now. If there's a better, more peaceful and practical answer than homelands for every people I'd be interested in hearing it.
    There is one flaw in your ideal which i have yet to see you address. If somehow we did manage to give everyone a homeland, why are you so sure conflict will collapse? If anything jealousy and the quest of religious conversion may inspire more cowardly acts of terrorism
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    There is one flaw in your ideal which i have yet to see you address. If somehow we did manage to give everyone a homeland, why are you so sure conflict will collapse? If anything jealousy and the quest of religious conversion may inspire more cowardly acts of terrorism
    It would be a flaw if Nationalism was offered as a method for bringing world-peace. It's only offered as a means of allowing peoples to live how they would wish in a secure state. For the purpose of this discussion, we can think of White Western non-Muslim states no longer having to endure a violent and antagonistic minority with a programme of destroying Western Civ.

    We can remove intra-state inter-ethnic/racial conflict but I'm not saying there won't still be plenty of belligerent *******s within states and probably causing problems for other states, but one form of conflict is sorted.

    Every people should have a homeland even White ones Kiz, don't you agree? If not will you start agitating for all other peoples to accept mass, culture transforming immigration and multiculturalism?
 
 
 

983

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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.