This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

"British culture": destroyed by immigrants?

Howard

Not from me you're not.

If you want a definition of British culture why not look up the words British and culture in the dictionary and draw your own conclusions? I'm not in the business of redefining words to suit my arguments. Who do you think I am? Dr Johnson?

I presume that once I do draw my own conclusions you'll return to belittle them?

You never contribute anything of value to this forum, you just attack other posters.

Reply 181

Paul Bedford

Laika

I presume that once I do draw my own conclusions you'll return to belittle them?

To be fair it's hard not to belittle things in this thread now, as it's drifting from the sublime to the ridiculous.
cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
In other words culture relates to the entire totality of everything, ever.
Far to complex to some up in a few words, and yet in this thread it's been boiled down to a curry house, that has opened for some undetermined reason, and a chip shop, that has closed for an undetermined reason, with the conclusion that therefore culture is not harmed by immigration, and therefore immigration is a good thing.
There is not a lot left not to belittle when we reach that stage.

Reply 182

Chumbaniya

17

EastMidlander

Your maths isn't to sharp there.
You are saying if one curry house replaces one chip shop, it means that all British people like to eat curries.
It doesn't follow.

Reading comprehension is appreciated. I said that, if a curry house replaces a chip shop, it means that there are sufficient people in the local area who will eat curries. Enough at least, to keep it in business.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to reply to all the "this doesn't follow" and "it's too simple" lines. The argument logically sound within it's own bounds - you seem unable to comprehend that this is a model rather than an absolute and flawless description of every aspect of society. In addition, the analogy is not "over simplified", especially now that I have expanded upon it and shown why it works.

I think that rather than bandying around terms like "stupid" and "ludicrous" and applying them to me and my posts, you should give reasons as to why you think me stupid and my argument ludicrous. As yet all you are doing is refuting my arguments based with your only reason being that I "ignore other factors". This simply isn't a valid reason - if you wish to use this argument to topple mine, you must have some other general factor in mind which provides a separation between British people and ethnic minorities. To my mind, there is nothing which provides a direct separation except for skin colour, and that is not an economic factor. What this means is that any factor you use to explain why the curry house does better could also be reversed to explain why a chip shop would do better if the circumstances were reversed. If, for example, asians were more affluent than white people in a given area, so the curry house did better, you could argue just the same that there are areas in which white people are more affluent, and so the chip shops does better. That is why my argument is justified. By the way, this says nothing about my ideas of the tastes of whites and asians, but is meant to deal with the idea that I don't consider other factors.

Another thing you don't take into consideration here is that many "native" British people enjoy a curry as much as the people originating from cultures where curry has been popular for a long time. If immigrant culture is so universally bad, why do British people embrace parts of it so readily? Then, if the British public in general do not feel that the changes to our culture are all bad, where does that leave your position? The whole argument of nationalism is based on the majority attitude of citizens of the country, and yet we know full well that elements of culture from immigrants are welcomed probably by a majority, and are deliberately resisted and resented only by a minority.

Reply 183

Paul Bedford

Chumbaniya

Reading comprehension is appreciated. I said that, if a curry house replaces a chip shop, it means that there are sufficient people in the local area who will eat curries. Enough at least, to keep it in business.

And then you went on to conclude " since this curry house is in Britain, that means that it is British people (or possibly illegal immigrants, who are rare) who like to eat curries."
Which I showed to be wrong.
Leaving out half your quote in your reply to me doesn't change that.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to reply to all the "this doesn't follow" and "it's too simple" lines.

I didn't think you would.
As it made it patently clear how ridiculous your analogy was.

The argument logically sound within it's own bounds

The bounds you dictated.
Yes, I pointed that fact out in my post, and how using such rules we can make anything say anything.
I then showed when we took it into the realms of reality it all fell down.

- you seem unable to comprehend that this is a model rather than an absolute and flawless description of every aspect of society.

No, I comprehended that, which is why I acknowleged the point, obviously.
:rolleyes:

However I pointed out how flawed it was.
You do seem rather partial to ignoring facts, don't you?

In addition, the analogy is not "over simplified", especially now that I have expanded upon it and shown why it works.

No, it is over simplified, and you failed to demonstrate it worked.
Why claim differently?
Everyone can read the facts for themselves.
Your model only works if we ignore all facts, and just believe what you say.
That isn't proving anything, except that you didn't think it through to clearly.

I think that rather than bandying around terms like "stupid" and "ludicrous" and applying them to me and my posts, you should give reasons as to why you think me stupid and my argument ludicrous.

I did, and I have done again since.
Try this little quote
To be fair it's hard not to belittle things in this thread now, as it's drifting from the sublime to the ridiculous.
cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
In other words culture relates to the entire totality of everything, ever.
Far to complex to some up in a few words, and yet in this thread it's been boiled down to a curry house, that has opened for some undetermined reason, and a chip shop, that has closed for an undetermined reason, with the conclusion that therefore culture is not harmed by immigration, and therefore immigration is a good thing.
Therefore I think stupid and ludicrous were quite fitting, don't you?

As yet all you are doing is refuting my arguments based with your only reason being that I "ignore other factors".

What more do you want?
I refuted your argument, and gave you a valid reason why it didn't stand up.
Do you actually need anything else?
:confused:

This simply isn't a valid reason

Of course it is.
If I tell you Jonny had 9 apples, therefore that proves there are 14 apples, you will tell me that does not follow, and that we need to know how many apples other people have.
I showed that you were not looking at how many apples other people had, and therefore ignoring valid variables, and therefore your maths was wrong.
Which part of that are you not getting?

- if you wish to use this argument to topple mine

It's already been toppled.
You just haven't worked it out yet.
:rolleyes:

Another thing you don't take into consideration here is that many "native" British people enjoy a curry as much as the people originating from cultures where curry has been popular for a long time.

So?
Read this bit again, because frankly you are not only making a total pratt of yourself you have also become quite boring.
To be fair it's hard not to belittle things in this thread now, as it's drifting from the sublime to the ridiculous.
cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
In other words culture relates to the entire totality of everything, ever.
Far to complex to some up in a few words, and yet in this thread it's been boiled down to a curry house, that has opened for some undetermined reason, and a chip shop, that has closed for an undetermined reason, with the conclusion that therefore culture is not harmed by immigration, and therefore immigration is a good thing.
The whole curry thing is irrelevent, and even when we do make idiots of ourselves, as you seem hell bent on doing, we see the analogy still doesn't stand up.
Culture is not about a flaming curry house.
What part of that don't you understand?
I've even stuck the dictionary definition up for you, surely you must be able to grasp this.
I couldn't give a stuff if your aunt ada eats curries on a friday, bought from a west indian with a punctured lung who wears pink dresses when no one is looking, it's bloody irrelevent!
Please think before your next post.
It's in your own best interests.

Reply 184

Chumbaniya

17

EastMidlander

And then you went on to conclude " since this curry house is in Britain, that means that it is British people (or possibly illegal immigrants, who are rare) who like to eat curries."
Which I showed to be wrong.
Leaving out half your quote in your reply to me doesn't change that.

There's a misunderstanding here - by "British people" I do not mean to generalise the whole of the British public. What I mean is that the local people, who are frequenting the chippy and curry house which are the subject of the example, are British, which, if they are living in Britain, is usually true (in citizenship terms, not racial terms). I can see how you misunderstood it, but believe me; I don't seek to make a generalisation about the British public, I just want to create a small scale model. This misunderstanding probably explains why you were left unsatisfied by my not including other factors, as you took what I was saying to be a generalisation about the whole of Britain when it was really just a specific case, and so justified in being simplified to the level of a model in which all other affecting factors remained the same.

Reply 185

Paul Bedford

Chumbaniya

There's a misunderstanding here - by "British people" I do not mean to generalise the whole of the British public. What I mean is that the local people, who are frequenting the chippy and curry house which are the subject of the example, are British, which, if they are living in Britain, is usually true (in citizenship terms, not racial terms).

Only because you say they are, we don't actually have any proof of that, do we?
See the point I'm driving at?
We can say anything, and make it mean anything, but does it really mean anything?
I can say, in opposition to your model, that everyone who eats at the curry house is non-indigenous British, therefore it has got nothing to do with British people.
I could say they are all martians, seeing as this is hypothetical, or all lesbian dog owners.
What does it tell us?
It tells us if I open up a hypothetical curry house and say it's patronised by lesbian dog owners, and is still open, that lesbian dog owners are big fans of curries, but we don't actually know that to be true, do we?
And even if we actually went out and reasearched the eating habits of lesbian dog owners, to verify if that was true or not, and then moved beyond that point we are still dealing with an irrelevent model anyway, as culture can not be simplified down to one curry house (see the dictionary definition of culture)
Get it this time?
The model doesn't stand up, and even if you could make it stand up it's still over simplified and irrelevent.
Just to muddy it further you do realise that some of the food sold in a "foreign" eateries are not actually imported recepies, but recepies tailored to the tastes of the indigenous people, and using local ingredients, so our model hits another flaw?

Reply 186

Howard

5

Laika

I presume that once I do draw my own conclusions you'll return to belittle them?

You never contribute anything of value to this forum, you just attack other posters.

Well, lots of other people would probably disagree with you. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I do think most D&D people would agree (even those that dislike my debating style and opinions with a passion) that the D&D forum would be a far less interesting place without me. The same cannot really be said of you can it? Who are you again? I don't think I've ever encountered you before.

Reply 187

Johnny

OP

10

Howard

Well, lots of other people would probably disagree with you. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I do think most D&D people would agree (even those that dislike my debating style and opinions with a passion) that the D&D forum would be a far less interesting place without me. The same cannot really be said of you can it? Who are you again? I don't think I've ever encountered you before.

To be honest it sounds more like she's attacking you; ahh the irony...

Reply 188

Laika

1

Howard

Well, lots of other people would probably disagree with you. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I do think most D&D people would agree (even those that dislike my debating style and opinions with a passion) that the D&D forum would be a far less interesting place without me. The same cannot really be said of you can it? Who are you again? I don't think I've ever encountered you before.

To be honest, since I've been here I've never seen you say anything of merit, and all your posts make you come across as an arrogant, smug, moron, including this one. I'd be inclined to agree a large portion of this board probably do value you, because a significant portion of the people here are quite similar to you unfortunately. I'm sorry if my opinion has no value because I haven't been wasting my time here since 2004, but that's just a further comment to cement your position as lord arrogant ******.

Reply 189

Howard

5

Laika

I'm sorry if my opinion has no value because I haven't been wasting my time here since 2004, but that's just a further comment to cement your position as lord arrogant ******.

I don't know if your opinions have any value or not. If you spent more time putting them forward than moaning about my posts I'd be in a better position to judge.

Reply 190

Agent Smith

11

Howard

Well, lots of other people would probably disagree with you. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I do think most D&D people would agree (even those that dislike my debating style and opinions with a passion) that the D&D forum would be a far less interesting place without me. The same cannot really be said of you can it? Who are you again? I don't think I've ever encountered you before.

What you say is true, but it also comes across as thinly-disguised n00b-bashing.

Reply 191

naivesincerity

2

Laika

To be honest, since I've been here I've never seen you say anything of merit, and all your posts make you come across as an arrogant, smug, moron, including this one. I'd be inclined to agree a large portion of this board probably do value you, because a significant portion of the people here are quite similar to you unfortunately. I'm sorry if my opinion has no value because I haven't been wasting my time here since 2004, but that's just a further comment to cement your position as lord arrogant ******.

Howard is not so one-dimensional as you portray. You need to spend longer on the forums to acclimatize

Reply 192

Laika

1

Howard

I don't know if your opinions have any value or not. If you spent more time putting them forward than moaning about my posts I'd be in a better position to judge.

Click Username > Find all posts by me if you're bothered. You're right though this is quite pointless.

So back on topic, British culture eh.

Reply 193

cheesecakebobby

9

Yes. So far we have ascertained that 'British culture' is a culture that is British, and apaprently that means we need to stop immigrants from destroying it with their presence.

Reply 194

cottonmouth

10

Howard

Well, lots of other people would probably disagree with you. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet but I do think most D&D people would agree (even those that dislike my debating style and opinions with a passion) that the D&D forum would be a far less interesting place without me. The same cannot really be said of you can it? Who are you again? I don't think I've ever encountered you before.

Howard, whats happened to you? You forgot to mention all the "best debator" awards that were bestowed upon you- you usually dig that uo when boasting about how many people on here like you- or o be more specific, your forum persona. I ALWAYS find your self-loving hilarious, and ever more pathetic considering your age. I know we've had this before, you saying blah blah there are other old people on here blah blah i'm still learning now, blah blah- but please. Just grow up.

Laika actually talks more sense on this forum than anyone i've EVER come across.

Reply 195

cottonmouth

10

Everyone is shying away from the challenge of defining British culture in theri own words. Its the same old trick- go and find a dictionary, or people are giving the dictionary definitions, or sayinf things about "fuzzy feelings"

Until someone can construct a post that gives us a bit more info on what British culture is, then we have no choice but to assume other things are meant when they talk about not wanting immigration.

Reply 196

Lawz-

14

cottonmouth

Howard, whats happened to you? You forgot to mention all the "best debator" awards that were bestowed upon you- you usually dig that uo when boasting about how many people on here like you- or o be more specific, your forum persona.

If the issue at hand is whether or not he contributes value to this forum - then it would seem the vast majority here would agree he does.

cottonmouth

I ALWAYS find your self-loving hilarious, and ever more pathetic considering your age.

I think, as I have said before, someone is perfectly entitled to defend themselves. Howard was told that he never contributes anything, his rep, awards, and the number on here who would trade in 20 Lakias for one Howard would tend to contradict that opinion - or at least render it very much a minority one.

I dont really see why someone over the age of 25 suddenly loses his right to defend himself against baseless assertions.

cottonmouth

Laika actually talks more sense on this forum than anyone i've EVER come across.

*Translation* - Lakia and I have the same opinions.

Reply 197

poltroon

cottonmouth

Everyone is shying away from the challenge of defining British culture in theri own words. Its the same old trick- go and find a dictionary, or people are giving the dictionary definitions, or sayinf things about "fuzzy feelings"

Until someone can construct a post that gives us a bit more info on what British culture is, then we have no choice but to assume other things are meant when they talk about not wanting immigration.

As a starting point, how about this:

http://www.answers.com/british%20culture

Reply 198

Laika

1

Lawz-

Lakia

It's Laika dammit. As in the Russian dog sent to space. Or the Arcade Fire song which is where I took it from. :wink:

If it will spare a 10 page argument, I take back my comments against Howard, lets just get back to defining British culture. Anyone got any offerings?

Reply 199

Laika

1

poltroon

As a starting point, how about this:

http://www.answers.com/british%20culture

Considerable contributions to British culture have been made over the last half-century by immigrants from the Indian Subcontinent and the West Indies.

How dare they! My fuzzy feeling does not compute with foreign influence!

"British culture": destroyed by immigrants?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you