what are the disadvantages of multiculturalism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#81
Report 13 years ago
#81
(Original post by LC01)
Incitment to racial hatred
NEW:Incitment to religious hatred

Both are due to this failed multi-culture Britian.
You think inciting people to hate someone because of the colour of their skin or for what they believe in it's right? wow..
0
Wise One
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#82
Report 13 years ago
#82
(Original post by twokeyalexe)
norway didnt have an empire and has less ethnic minorities than us.then look at japans standard of living couldnt exactly call that multi cultural yet they do better than us.
Norway and Japan were, in fact, both involved in some low-level imperialism. Norway, through it's personal union with Sweden in the 19th C. Japan in Manchuria.
0
LC01
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 13 years ago
#83
(Original post by Alexdel)
You think inciting people to hate someone because of the colour of their skin or for what they believe in it's right? wow..
I never said that, but if multi-culturism was such a great thing then why do we need such represive anti-free speech laws laws?(
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#84
Report 13 years ago
#84
(Original post by LC01)
I never said that, but if multi-culturism was such a great thing then why do we need such represive anti-free speech laws laws?(
Because in every society there are nutcases that think inciting people to hate someone because of the colour of their skin or for what they believe it's the right thing to do....
0
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#85
Report 13 years ago
#85
(Original post by Carl)
How does the government take away your freedom of speech?
Welcome back LC01!

Carl, be honest and intelligent for a minute - pretend that Britain existed before the Windrush docked in the 1950s...

What would have happened to a politician in 1900 say, who said that Pakistanis and Africans should be admitted in their millions to Britain and be considered Englishmen? He'd have been considered insane and dangerous by almost every man in the street as well as most of the 'elite', but wouldn't have been prosecuted.

So what would happen to a politican today who openly expressed the opposite sentiments - that Pakistanis and Africans shouldn't have been admitted and can never become Englishmen? He'd be considered insane and dangerous by the establishment and might well be prosecuted, but millions of pre-Windrush Britons would see his expression as transparently true and vitally important.

If political views are prosecuted (and they are) we don't have freedom of speech.
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#86
Report 13 years ago
#86
Calling someone a*sehole is pretty childish...I see you have edited it now...
0
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#87
Report 13 years ago
#87
(Original post by ArthurOliver)
Welcome back LC01!

Carl, be honest and intelligent for a minute - pretend that Britain existed before the Windrush docked in the 1950s...

What would have happened to a politician in 1900 say, who said that Pakistanis and Africans should be admitted in their millions to Britain and be considered Englishmen? He'd have been considered insane and dangerous by almost every man in the street as well as most of the 'elite', but wouldn't have been prosecuted.

So what would happen to a politican today who openly expressed the opposite sentiments - that Pakistanis and Africans shouldn't have been admitted and can never become Englishmen? He'd be considered insane and dangerous by the establishment and might well be prosecuted, but millions of pre-Windrush Britons would see his expression as transparently true and vitally important.

If political views are prosecuted (and they are) we don't have freedom of speech.
The religious hatred act has not been passed yet (has it?). I agree its a bad idea, but I think the law will be largely ineffectual and is a knee jerk reaction to fears about racial tensions in our country. In short, its a populist rather than repressive move.

BTW the Government is commited to protecting freedom of speech (or at least expression) via the Human Rights Act.
0
Alexdel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#88
Report 13 years ago
#88
(Original post by Carl)
BTW the Government is commited to protecting freedom of speech (or at least expression) via the Human Rights Act.
Dont mention the Human Rights Act they have got it in their head that's another thing the PC brigade came up with....bless em...
0
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#89
Report 13 years ago
#89
(Original post by Carl)
The religious hatred act has not been passed yet (has it?). I agree its a bad idea, but I think the law will be largely ineffectual and is a knee jerk reaction to fears about racial tensions in our country. In short, its a populist rather than repressive move.

BTW the Government is commited to protecting freedom of speech (or at least expression) via the Human Rights Act.
There isn't freedom of speech Carl, people are prosecuted for what they say--it's been in the news a lot lately...

If racial tensions are what prompted a knee-jerk reaction, ask what prompted the racial tensions...

Ask what prompts excessive moderation of this forum... :rolleyes:

Control==power.

Freedom versus control Carl, where do you stand?

If I called you an ******** I'm sorry--it's drink makes me do it..!
0
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#90
Report 13 years ago
#90
(Original post by ArthurOliver)
There isn't freedom of speech Carl, people are prosecuted for what they say--it's been in the news a lot lately...
What about those who preach militant Islam? Do you think they should be censored? And people prosecuted for what they say? Example? Libel and slander don't count.

If racial tensions are what prompted a knee-jerk reaction, ask what prompted the racial tensions...
Racial tensions are caused in part by people misusing their freedom of speech. Yet, the religious hatred bill is the wrong approach to take IMO.

Freedom versus control Carl, where do you stand?
I think the existing law is good enough. Religious tyrants can be done for inciting violence.

If I called you an ******** I'm sorry--it's drink makes me do it..!
It was edited before I read it-so you've just blown your own cover :p: Don't worry I learnt the hard way about what not to post today. I don't let stuff bother me. After all it's only a forum.
0
ArthurOliver
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#91
Report 13 years ago
#91
(Original post by Carl)
What about those who preach militant Islam? Do you think they should be censored?
No I don't, I'm absolutely committed to freedom of speech and believe that freedom of conscience (or religious belief) is absolutely non-negotiable.
And people prosecuted for what they say? Example? Libel and slander don't count.
It's illegal to publicly express truths which may be said to 'incite hatred', and the law is explicit--'the truth is no defence'.
Racial tensions are caused in part by people misusing their freedom of speech. Yet, the religious hatred bill is the wrong approach to take IMO.
I agree, people deliberately create tension and increase inter-ethnic/religious/racial suspicion, but I wouldn't make illegal their freedom of expression, good ideas generally win out.
I think the existing law is good enough. Religious tyrants can be done for inciting violence.
Maybe they can, but I don't really want them to be prosecuted for their religious beliefs or expression of them...
It was edited before I read it-so you've just blown your own cover :p: Don't worry I learnt the hard way about what not to post today. I don't let stuff bother me. After all it's only a forum.
Can't even remember writing it! Good on ya!
0
j4mes_bond25
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 13 years ago
#92
(Original post by JonD)
Wow. Progressed onto Beano humour, with added expletives, now, have we? :rolleyes:

Your argument is that Multiculturalism is good because:
- Microsoft has Indians
- Indians did some other worthy stuff
- Indians invented the number 0

I made several refutations, including:
- The US practices melting pot immigration, not multiculturalism.
- Even if it did, the UK doesn't get the same benefits as the US.
- Middle-class migration is different from working-class migration, socially and economically.
- Business high-ups are internationalist, they are without borders. You could pick out a few Scotish managers in India and believably argue the Scotch run the whole country, too, even though it is decieving because it paints way too narrow a picture.
- Other differences between Indian and far eastern ethnic groups and Muslim and African.
- No one man created the Pentium, or provided a leap of genious. As a result, your article looks unreliable.

I don't need to say anything else, you look fatuous plenty enough without my help.
Wow, seems like I'm doing enough to raise your hackles, am I :rolleyes: making you lose a grip on a coherent argument.

Well, arguing about something as ludicrous, as businesses moving their operation abroad, is accepting there's no existence of "common market". It's a world of competition. People take their business & skills whereever they think they'll get the best returns out of it. I think it was you who once proved your lack of intelligence, by suggesting as WHY don't Indians use their skills WITHIN their own country, gives a clear indication of your under-developed brain cells, bearing in mind that you FAILED to reply sensibly with a more coherent argument as why British people possessing the same skill prefer moving to Australia & USA, RATHER THAN using their skill WITHIN their OWN country :rolleyes:

You failed to notice that multiculturism is good, as it provides the RIGHT people to do right job, something the "indegenious" people lacks, I fear. Wonder if there was no existence of "multiculturism" then, would it have been possible for Britain being seen as having the 4th strongest economy in the world :rolleyes: It doesn't matter who OWNS the business, what matters most is who's the RIGHT skill to make the business run smoothly Owners doesn't necessarily have SKILLS, but they are often a source of finance, for the running of business

Don't bother comparing Indians with other ethnic group, as I presume British white wouldn't fancy being compared with French or German, merely cos they share the same skin colour :rolleyes:

Need I say more OR would you rather fancy zipping your lips now
0
JonD
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 13 years ago
#93
(Original post by j4mes_bond25)
Wow, seems like I'm doing enough to raise your hackles, am I :rolleyes: making you lose a grip on a coherent argument.
You're either misreading or lying in order to make it look like you're getting somewhere. Since I've laid out my points in list form, there is little grounds for syntactic confusion. I must therefore assume the latter.

Well, arguing about something as ludicrous, as businesses moving their operation abroad, is accepting there's no existence of "common market".
Huh? I think your own ignorance is showing though, of course where you meant "common market" (a EU trading bloc) I think you meant Free Market. I'm a bit confused here, since I don't remember denying the existance, or benefits of liberalised labour flow. Are you arguing for a totally free market, with a totally free flow of labour? This isn't a part of multiculturalism, by the way.

It's a world of competition. People take their business & skills whereever they think they'll get the best returns out of it.
I think it was you who once proved your lack of intelligence, by suggesting as WHY don't Indians use their skills WITHIN their own country, gives a clear indication of your under-developed brain cells, bearing in mind that you FAILED to reply sensibly with a more coherent argument as why British people possessing the same skill prefer moving to Australia & USA, RATHER THAN using their skill WITHIN their OWN country :rolleyes:
I never questioned "WHY don't Indians use their skills WITHIN their own country". Please provide some substantiation, or I must assume you are lying again. Knock off the weak personal insults, it makes you look like the dunce.

You failed to notice that multiculturism is good, as it provides the RIGHT people to do right job, something the "indegenious" people lacks, I fear.
You seem to not have noticed that I've already pointed out on several occasions that the US DOES NOT practice the NuLab/3rd Way concept of "Multiculturism[sic]", thus invalidating subsequent points. Any of these may be wrong; if you think so, please try and refute them.

Please substantiate your claim that multiculturalism "provides the RIGHT people to do right job[strike]" in Britain. I imagine this would be hard to do, since multiculturalism isn't an immigration policy, but something applied to citizens. Are you suggesting that citizenship is more attractive than visa, and citizenship without assimilation is more attractive? - That makes sense, but what are you basing it on?

Don't bother comparing Indians with other ethnic group, as I presume British white wouldn't fancy being compared with French or German, merely cos they share the same skin colour :rolleyes:
Since when did skin colour come into it? I think you're - once again - having to resort to silly little slurs (implicitly calling me a racist) in order to make it look like you have a leg to stand on. Obvious differences do exist between Sillicon Valley Indians and, say, Ethiopian asylum seekers in Britain, and if those differences are relevant, they should be brought into the discussion. The differences, as I've already pointed out, involve skills, motivation, social class and the economy and country they are operating within.

Need I say more OR would you rather fancy zipping your lips now
Bottom line: If you disagree with my points, please explain, rather than beginning a barrage of vulgarity. If you feel your personal attacks are justified, please explain them, too.
0
j4mes_bond25
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 13 years ago
#94
(Original post by JonD)
Bottom line: If you disagree with my points, please explain, rather than beginning a barrage of vulgarity. If you feel your personal attacks are justified, please explain them, too.
Ohhhhhhhh, so you've broken down each of my point to ensure your argument sound coherent

Firstly, the thread is the discussion on multi-culturism & hence, USA was merely an example I gave there, however, since you sounded little dissatisfied with American example, I tried to cheer you up a bit, with the benefits of having people from ethnic group within UK, as well & over all, they are providing around £2.5 billion worth of benefits JUST within London city. But then again, you rather fancied comparing this £2.5 billion with the whole's nation's economy & I asked you to do the Maths, about the contribution by ethnic group living in different parts of the country, over the past few decades. You seemed quite satisfied with that response, bearing in mind you never bothered taking this particular argument further. Jolly Good !!!

At the same time, I'm NOT suggesting either as multi-culturalism does NOT have its disadvantage. The main disadvantage I can see is the fact that, millions within UK, regardless of being here for half a century, STILL prefer living a life of "foreigner", by being a part of their own ghetto, struggling (oops, sorry, I meant, UNWILLING) to mingle with British people, showing respect to British culture, as many morons I've witnessed has their own definition of British culture as merely football, beer & women :rolleyes: It's their ignorance about British customs & traditions & utter disrespect to British way of life, has made "multi-culturalism", an object of laughing stock Biting the hands that feeds them, comes to my mind, for these people
0
SlyPie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#95
Report 13 years ago
#95
(Original post by j4mes_bond25)
At the same time, I'm NOT suggesting either as multi-culturalism does NOT have its disadvantage. The main disadvantage I can see is the fact that, millions within UK, regardless of being here for half a century, STILL prefer living a life of "foreigner", by being a part of their own ghetto, struggling (oops, sorry, I meant, UNWILLING) to mingle with British people, showing respect to British culture, as many morons I've witnessed has their own definition of British culture as merely football, beer & women :rolleyes: It's their ignorance about British customs & traditions & utter disrespect to British way of life, has made "multi-culturalism", an object of laughing stock Biting the hands that feeds them, comes to my mind, for these people
I see your point, but it's your fault for colonizing them. Most of your immigrants are from your old colonies.

As for British culture consisting of "football, beer & women"--hey there's more to it than that. There's "lager, football, cricket, beer, spirits, wine, women, rubbing alcohol, living in council housing"..it's all good.
0
j4mes_bond25
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 13 years ago
#96
(Original post by SlyPie)
I see your point, but it's your fault for colonizing them. Most of your immigrants are from your old colonies.

As for British culture consisting of "football, beer & women"--hey there's more to it than that. There's "lager, football, cricket, beer, spirits, wine, women, rubbing alcohol, living in council housing"..it's all good.
I can't see any sense in beating the same drum about having "British Empire".

Surely hundreds of empire existed once:

Austro-Hungarian Empire
Aztec Empire
Chinese Empire
Japanese Empire
Egyptian Empire
Danish colonial empire
Dutch colonial empire
French colonial empire
German colonial empire
Italian Colonial Empire
Spanish Empire
Swedish Empire
Holy Roman Empire
Ottoman Empire
Persian Empire
Mongol Empire

How many of these empire countries do you think has given the same rights, as British has, by offering the privilege of letting these people come to their country like UK allowing people, from the country, where they once had an empire, to come to Britain ??? :rolleyes:

Regardless of being ruthless, British Empire has PERHAPS, given their colonial countries something back & certainly NOT treated them as ruthlesslessly as Americans had treated their slaves :rolleyes: (no offence to you in particular, though)
0
saintjude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 13 years ago
#97
The Holy Roman Empire? Come on, that's blatant list-padding as far as your point goes.
France has a substantial North African population, which I believe is not totally unrelated to the history of French colonial possessions.
Think of it as partly making amends and partly that immigrants from the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent were invited for wholly selfish economic reasons.
0
Snake
Badges:
#98
Report 13 years ago
#98
(Original post by twokeyalexe)
we hear enough on our media about how we should treasure our lovely multicultural and multi racial country. but in the words of john tyndall all multi racialism brought us was voodoo and aids,in the words of phil edwards all it brought it was currie houses and few extra footballers. what are the disadvantages of a multicultural/multi ethnic society?and how do the so called advantages of multiculturalism really make up for the trouble it causes
wasn't john tyndall in the national front?

and didn't freddie mercury have AIDs. are you saying he got it from an immigrant/immigration?
j4mes_bond25
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 13 years ago
#99
(Original post by saintjude)
The Holy Roman Empire? Come on, that's blatant list-padding as far as your point goes.
Holy Roman Empire was a political mass of lands in Central Europe in the Middle Ages
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1618)
79.12%
Leave (427)
20.88%

Watched Threads

View All