Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe you actually used the word barbaric.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Yeah your right, I got AAAA so it cant be me.

    AAAA and still a shocking grasp of simple grammar. Most asylum seekers probably have better English than you after a couple of years!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    I can't believe you actually used the word barbaric.
    Why not? Most countries that produce asylum seekers are barbaric places aren't they?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    AAAA and still a shocking grasp of simple grammar. Most asylum seekers probably have better English than you after a couple of years!
    Actually, if you look at the Dutch experience you will find many third generation immigrants who don't speak a word of Dutch so I doubt what you say is true, regardless of Joey's own linguistic shortcomings.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    AAAA and still a shocking grasp of simple grammar. Most asylum seekers probably have better English than you after a couple of years!
    Oh dear, i'm sorry but thats pathetic. Anybody who calls someones grammar, spelling and syntax on the internet is just sad.

    I doubt that very much. I helped an Asylum seeker today infact. He asked me 'Where big clothes, food shop'. He meant ASDA.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    I helped an Asylum seeker today infact. He asked me 'Where big clothes, food shop'. He meant ASDA.
    You're all heart!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    I can't believe you actually used the word barbaric.

    The word barbaric to me obviously means something very different to you. But of course, I know where the word originates from and understand its meaning and you obviously dont. Thats the advantage of learning Greek.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Oh dear, i'm sorry but thats pathetic. Anybody who calls someones grammar, spelling and syntax on the internet is just sad.

    I doubt that very much. I helped an Asylum seeker today infact. He asked me 'Where big clothes, food shop'. He meant ASDA.

    That is not pathetic. Obviously when you're typing on the internet, you might mispell a few things, your syntax might not be as good as usual, but it's really no excuse for something as basic as your and you're.

    How long had he been here? And, if he was shopping at Asda, he was contributing to our economy.
    How do you identify someone as an asylum seeker? (This is an actual question, not rhetorical)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You're all heart!


    I must admit I was also asked by a very scruffy Rasta type person if he could borrow a pound off me because he hadnt eaten for 3 days. The problem is he says that every time I go past him...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    The word barbaric to me obviously means something very different to you. But of course, I know where the word originates from and understand its meaning and you obviously dont. Thats the advantage of learning Greek.

    I think this is completely besides the point. You know full well the modern connotations of "barbaric".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)


    I must admit I was also asked by a very scruffy Rasta type person if he could borrow a pound off me because he hadnt eaten for 3 days. The problem is he says that every time I go past him...
    He must be jolly hungry.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    That is not pathetic. Obviously when you're typing on the internet, you might mispell a few things, your syntax might not be as good as usual, but it's really no excuse for something as basic as your and you're.

    How long had he been here? And, if he was shopping at Asda, he was contributing to our economy.
    How do you identify someone as an asylum seeker? (This is an actual question, not rhetorical)
    lol. I'm sorry but it is pathetic. I cannot see the difference between that and a spelling mistake. Padantic fool.

    I was in St Mary's Southampton, if you know the area you will know that he was almost definatly an asylum seeker, especially since I was walking past where they are all housed.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    I think this is completely besides the point. You know full well the modern connotations of "barbaric".
    Why is it beside the point? I am classically trained after all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Why is it beside the point? I am classically trained after all.
    So with your incredible intelligence you should realise that just because a word is derived from another, it does not necessarily mean the same thing.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    So with your incredible intelligence you should realise that just because a word is derived from another, it does not necessarily mean the same thing.
    Oh ok, every word in the dictionary only has one meaning...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Oh ok, every word in the dictionary only has one meaning...

    My point was, barbaric doesn't really have the meaning "foreign" any more, or at least not without quite negative connotations.
    (Having never studied Greek I'm not sure - I think this is the Greek meaning of barbaric)

    I'm going to stop this now because it has nothing to do with the actual issue we were discussing. Go back to arguing about asylum seekers.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    My point was, barbaric doesn't really have the meaning "foreign" any more, or at least not without quite negative connotations.
    (Having never studied Greek I'm not sure - I think this is the Greek meaning of barbaric)

    I'm going to stop this now because it has nothing to do with the actual issue we were discussing. Go back to arguing about asylum seekers.
    You looked it up. Its actually more to do with the Language they speak and to whom they were born.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    The implication being that some third world countries do have a mass overload of those skills?

    IME, the opposite is true. Third world countries spend a huge amount of their GNP training up nurses etc for their own population, only for them to be poached as cheap labour by understaffed western countries.

    Excellent, very rarely have I seen such a point made. Although of course no such implication exists. It's not implied, it's not even an issue, WE look out for OUR interests, within the confines of our borders, other people are not important; they only acquire importance if they are able to serve our interests. Which of course is why dictators within oil exporting countries are of a higher priority than those in Sub Saharan Africa.

    It's actually quite surprising that people only ever seem to see things from their own angle, absolute disregard for all other parties concerned-or as Joey would maintain, "that's life".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I disagree. The days of colonization are long gone.
    Only if you define colonialism in a very narrow sense. Economic colonialism is perhaps more rampant, and more destructive, than it has ever been.

    Countries left prosperous by the colonists have been well and truly fuc*ed up by the indigenous population since then. We owe these people nothing.

    Afghanistan is a basket case not because the Brits briefly ruled it but for a whole host of more contemporary reasons.
    Not least that it has been the football of geopolitical power games for the best part of half a century.

    British colonization as an argument for today's strife ignors the whole notion of cause and effect and the basic fact that many of the leaders of these countries aren't fit to shine shoes, let alone democraticaly manage an economy.
    Well, if that were true then you could argue that it is just as well they don't! Barely without exception the IMF completely controls the third world's economies, using the threat of US military force, long standing debt and economic ruin to make them do exactly as they are told, and whore their economies to the interests of the West.

    I'm not exactly sure how deep your analysis of the standard of leadership in the third world goes, although I'm sure you'll agree you don't have to look very far in the first world to find similar levels of incompetence right at the top! As in the first world, there are many good governments and many bad governments. I'm not sure how you can justify blaming "the indigenous population" for "fuc*ing up" when in many cases they have had little choice but to be oppressed by dictatorships that unsurprisingly resulted from the sudden withdrawal of longstanding colonial dictatorship. Are you suggesting that, for example, if the same colonial oppression, sudden withdrawal, and anarchy had happened in Britain, everyone would have immediately formed a civilised democratic government?


    And I also think we should tear up any UN treaty that makes demands of Britain that are in not in British interests. The UN contains within it's members the representitives of despotic tin-pot countries from all corners of the world. I don't see why Britain should bow to the treaties of this organization.

    As a matter of fact it's about time the UN was abolished as an institution.
    Well, this is an interesting one. You could certainly argue that if Britain wanted to cut herself off from the world then she should not have to obey the UN.

    However, quite the opposite is happening. Britain is at the forefront of championing economic globalisation. Essentially, this means third world economies are being prised open by a mixture of the threat of military force, outstanding debt, structured entirely to the needs of the west, and then faced with the threat that all business will evaporate to another more "business friendly" country in the case of any non-compliance. A useful analogy here is the workhouse. In the 19th century, a small minority (the rich) of this country oppressed the working class majority (the poor), forcing them to work in factories etc, without democratic representation. This is essentially analogous to the current situation, only now on an international scale. A small minority of the world (the rich west) through various means forces the majority (the poor east) to be one gigantic workhouse, again, without serious democratic representation. This last point perhaps requires clarification. I would class this as "without serious democratic representation" because a) the poor world is hopelessly underrepresented at the UN etc (example: structure of the security council) and b) as with the workhouse example, the world's poor are under the control of hopelessly unbalanced power relations. Just as the industrialists had the power to oppress the working class with the co-operation of the unbalanced complicit government of the time, the western world has the power, again, complicit with the unbalanced UN etc to oppress the poor majority on this planet.

    Thus, I do not see how anyone who believes in democracy can support the UN in its current uneven state, let alone call for its abolition. I can't see your position as any more acceptable than that of the factory owners who not only didn't support representation for the workers, but wanted the rules bent even more in their favour.

    If Britain wants to live a solitary life, then withdrawal from the UN is perhaps defensible. However, if she wants to participate in trade, in international relations, she must submit at the very least to a fully democratic UN.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I am still confused over why there is a fuss over asylum seekers! I mean the fact of the matter is that they contribute more to the economy than they take out over 2 generations so why is it a problem. The fact is that there is no economic reason for not allowing asylum seekers into the country. Get them working and it can be even more beneficial. Many people who come into the country illegally aren't being supported by the state because the state doesn't know about them. Many work on the black market which contributes to the economy. So over all if it is beneficial or the economy please tell me your justification for keeping them out?

    I would just like to say to llama boy that I really agree with you. We studied things like intial advantage in the economics section of our Geography A2 and it is worrying the mess some of the countries are in when it is our fault.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
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.