Turn on thread page Beta

It's finally happened. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Time Tourist got demolished.:yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I feel you are trying to accuse me of cowardice, or that just because i feel no national pride, and am not a slave to nationalistic fervour, i would not fight in the same way that those who died in the great war did, those we are told died for their country. (Which i think many people agree was a complete waste of life, fought for ridiculous, petty and above all, evil nationalistic reasons. A war which you would be correct in assuming that, given the choice, i would not have fought in)
    ...

    I on the other hand do not let such petty things as lines in the mud or pigment in the skin affect my beliefs in such a way, and have infact met and served with those of different 'nationalities' who share my views, and our loyalties are firmly with each other before they are with those who demand our subservience on the basis of birth or the nation state.

    I think this moral and ideological independence and responsibility is far superior to the blind loyalty to borders or skin colour which almost every nationalist demands. Thus i describe myself among other things as a transnationalist and am rightly proud to do so. If yourself and roger scruton wish to interpret this as a simple hate and aversion to certain sects and imagined groups of their fellow human beings, and label them 'oikophobes', so be it.
    You deserve some rep.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    And what? Why is it such a bad thing if whites are a minority...it's just skin colour? :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    And what? Why is it such a bad thing if whites are a minority...it's just skin colour? :dontknow:
    What does it matter if I put a few million whites in Botswana, and encourage them to have such high birthrates that it will displace the native population there? What right do they have to protest? It is only skin colour,after all.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    What does it matter if I put a few million whites in Botswana, and encourage them to have such high birthrates that it will displace the native population there? What right do they have to protest? It is only skin colour,after all.
    Lol, you would just put them there? That's funny, they come here on their own accord.

    As long as they don't harm anyone, I do not see a problem, assuming Botswana will not become overpopulated, if it did, then there is a problem, but the problem is mass immigration, not skin colour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    Lol, you would just put them there? That's funny, they come here on their own accord.

    As long as they don't harm anyone, I do not see a problem, assuming Botswana will not become overpopulated, if it did, then there is a problem, but the problem is mass immigration, not skin colour.
    I daresay the only way you would get a few million whites into that third world slum is by physical force.

    Anyway, at least you are true to your beliefs and do not display double standards between different sets of people as many would .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    What does it matter if I put a few million whites in Botswana, and encourage them to have such high birthrates that it will displace the native population there? What right do they have to protest? It is only skin colour,after all.
    In my eyes this would be absolutely fine. Only the RATE (I'll say that again RATE) of immigration would need some degree of regulation (though it may even self-regulate to an extent - hence why there aren't huge queues of people attempting to migrate to the Darfur).

    If 'white' individuals migrated to Botswana, had high birth rates and for the most part did not engage in violence with the existing population but were able to OUTCOMPETE them, then there is no issue. Skin complexion really is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    If? Unless we switch to the policy of only letting people in who can offer a needed skill to the community they plan to move into and who have a job waiting, then obviously there are people who are straining our resources. Every immigrant who doesn't find work, and every immigrant who finds a job that an existing unemployed citizen could have filled is a net strain. On benefits, on the NHS, on land, on energy, on everything.

    It's our 'right' as much as it is apparently our right to be dicks to animals because we had the good fortune of being born human. This country cannot hold many more people, especially with its teetering economy and lack of land. A better policy needs to be implemented because soon global warming will cause more droughts and floods than ever before and people will be fleeing from the equator on mass. Asylum seekers are supposed to settle in the first safe country they can reach, but they don't, they keep going until they get here, the country where you can have a comfortable life doing **** all if you want.

    IMO we should take our fair share of genuine asylum seekers, in relation to our existing population per unit land. The rest should be taken in by other European countries who have the land and resources to better cope with the influx. And then we should allow economic migrants in in the way that Canada and Australia do.
    If immigrants can get a job over a "native brit" then clearly they are better qualified to do the job. Therefore we as a society will benefit. And if they don't find a job, it's not for want of trying, it's because of the attitudes of people like you.

    I think we would be able to handle immigration a lot better if lazy idiots born and bred in the UK who sponge off the state, have kids far too young, and then don't even attempt to fend for themselves, were forced to try half as hard as the immigrants who are trying their hardest to overcome the difficulties they are faced with. Then maybe we could afford to support the people who actually need and deserve it.

    It's definitely not out right to be dicks to animals. It's our responsibility to use the conscience we have to make a good and fair decision, and treat animals with respect. The same goes for people born in much less fortunate situations. They should be given a chance just like us, whether it's in our country, or elsewhere.

    I agree that asylum seekers should be spread out over developed countries in order to enable us to give them the best opportunies possible while not compromising the lives of a country's citizens who are already there. But with immigration policies like the USA's, how is that ever going to happen? They are an underpopulated country and they still won't let people in. Unless we collaberate more internationally and less nationally, nothing is going to improve. That goes for improving the economies and political structures of developing countries in the long run, too.

    And it's en masse, not "on mass".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rubyjane)
    If immigrants can get a job over a "native brit" then clearly they are better qualified to do the job. Therefore we as a society will benefit. And if they don't find a job, it's not for want of trying, it's because of the attitudes of people like you.

    I think we would be able to handle immigration a lot better if lazy idiots born and bred in the UK who sponge off the state, have kids far too young, and then don't even attempt to fend for themselves, were forced to try half as hard as the immigrants who are trying their hardest to overcome the difficulties they are faced with. Then maybe we could afford to support the people who actually need and deserve it.

    It's definitely not out right to be dicks to animals. It's our responsibility to use the conscience we have to make a good and fair decision, and treat animals with respect. The same goes for people born in much less fortunate situations. They should be given a chance just like us, whether it's in our country, or elsewhere.

    I agree that asylum seekers should be spread out over developed countries in order to enable us to give them the best opportunies possible while not compromising the lives of a country's citizens who are already there. But with immigration policies like the USA's, how is that ever going to happen? They are an underpopulated country and they still won't let people in. Unless we collaberate more internationally and less nationally, nothing is going to improve. That goes for improving the economies and political structures of developing countries in the long run, too.

    And it's en masse, not "on mass".
    1. That was pretty much my point. It is too easy to survive in this country without work. But it is obviously better for the country to get existing citizens working before rather than allowing immigrants to come in and fill those jobs. If you force an existing citizen to take a job, then no benefits are payed to that citizen and taxes are gained from him. If instead you allow an immigrant in to take that job, the country still pays benefits to the original citizen, taxes are taken from the immigrant but the country also has to pay for one more person's healthcare, roads, police, etc. Option 1 is obviously better for the country.

    2. Again, my point. It's not our right to be dicks to animals, but everyone is. Whether you eat animals, or you eat products from them, or you simply don't offer them the warmth of your home to protect them from the cold outside, you are taking advantage of your pure luck of being born human. Similarly do you allow homeless people to sleep in your house, do you split your money with them? If not then you are taking advantage of the fact that you were lucky enough to be born into better circumstances. Do you have any 'right', some word from God, that says it's OK to deny them the help you could offer them, just because you were lucky in your birth? No. Do you do it anyway, because you aren't willing to ruin your lifestyle in order to give them a slightly better one? I bet you do.

    3. If they don't find a job, it may be for want of trying, it probably won't be to do with 'people like me', it will most likely be because there are already more people than jobs. We are the last western country out of recession, and we have no manufacturing sector. Our economy is held above water by financial services. Pretty much everyone has a degree or A-Levels. The only unskilled work there is in this country is services; working in shops and cafes. As people have had less money to play with over the last few years these jobs have declined, fast. And as for every migrant there will be 5 existing citizens who have experience working in such places, the immigrant is unlikely to land a job. This country is not a good country for unskilled migrants to come to, other than the fact that they will be kept by a government more insanely generous than any other.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.