Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    So you therefore you believe the Kurdish should no longer be recognised as a people (Saddam-esque).
    Dude you're pretty good at making wild flaying statements that detract from the main points at hand and you really must be congratulated on that, but you can't do it in too many situations lest people think you're a silly boy!

    Can you explain yourself please?

    They're based on the studies of Stephen Oppenheimer, one of the country's formost geneticists. I highly doubt your political motive overshadows his findings.
    But the videos themselves identify the West of Europe all sharing this ethnicity, perhaps we should open our borders to the French and Spanish too?

    In fact it's an incredibly irrelevant point/videos, because all humans originate from Africa anyway. Or are you drawing your ancestral line when we turned from a nasty brown into a lovely British white?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Erm, no. Because British DNA is genetically identical to the Asians and Arabs having originated from the African continent. Their seperate identities have only arisen from geographic and cultural developments. So no, you have no point at all. .

    I fixed it for you :yy:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    Dude you're pretty good at making wild flaying statements that detract from the main points at hand and you really must be congratulated on that, but you can't do it in too many situations lest people think you're a silly boy!

    Can you explain yourself please?
    It's not a "wild flaying statement", it's an analogy. If I were to go to Kurdistan I could never be Kurdish because it's an ethnic issue. I'd be a European-Iraqi/European-Iranian/European-whatever (dependent on what nation-state I'm in). To claim that I - or any European living in the Kurdistan region - is Kurdish, essentially makes the Kurds a non-entity (just as Saddam Hussein liked to think).

    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    But the videos themselves identify the West of Europe all sharing this ethnicity, perhaps we should open our borders to the French and Spanish too?
    This isn't an issue of "opening borders". We shouldn't open our borders to the Irish even though they share this identity. And the French are not of Basque origin either, they are Gauls/Celts, and the Spanish (and Basques) of today are of Mediterranean/Arabian breed - not the same peoples of Basque-origin who currently make up the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It's not a "wild flaying statement", it's an analogy. If I were to go to Kurdistan I could never be Kurdish because it's an ethnic issue. I'd be a European-Iraqi/European-Iranian/European-whatever (dependent on what nation-state I'm in). To claim that I - or any European living in the Kurdistan region - is Kurdish, essentially makes the Kurds a non-entity (just as Saddam Hussein liked to think).
    But nobody's Kurdish just as nobody's Iranian or Iraqi or French or British or Scottish or Italian or Chinese or Japanese or Israeli or German or Spanish or Australian or American or Chilean or Mongolian or Russian

    People are just people, it doesn't matter where they are born or what minuscule differences there are in their genealogy, they're bloody human beings and that's the main (and most relevant) description.


    This isn't an issue of "opening borders". We shouldn't open our borders to the Irish even though they share this identity. And the French are not of Basque origin either, they are Gauls/Celts, and the Spanish (and Basques) of today are of Mediterranean/Arabian breed - not the same peoples of Basque-origin who currently make up the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh.
    Basically the same points as above. The differences are miniscule (biologically speaking) so any argument about separating people on their biological ethnicity is hypocritical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quick point, by using talk of ethnicities and genetics in your argument, you cannot deny now that BNP ideas are racist! You are judging people raced on their ethnicity, vis a vis, racism. Minor point, doesn't refute what you're saying, just thought I'd point it out for the people trying to say they aren't a racist party. (Y)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    ...
    The only point you really made is something along the lines of "human beings exist", which isn't disputable anyway. To deny that human beings have ethno-cultural differences is absurd. I'm not trying to give it any sort of credence in any case - you're just denying it exists totally.

    (Original post by rennac)
    Quick point, by using talk of ethnicities and genetics in your argument, you cannot deny now that BNP ideas are racist! You are judging people raced on their ethnicity, vis a vis, racism. Minor point, doesn't refute what you're saying, just thought I'd point it out for the people trying to say they aren't a racist party. (Y)
    That depends entirely on what the definition of "racism" is. It's never been conclusively defined, it's flashed about all the time with no-one really knowing what it means, so I never really take anyone's usage of the term seriously (although I've always thought of it as 'hatred/contempt for those of other races'). I'd call the BNP mildly ethnocentric/culturally relativist.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The only point you really made is something along the lines of "human beings exist", which isn't disputable anyway. To deny that human beings have ethno-cultural differences is absurd. I'm not trying to give it any sort of credence in any case - you're just denying it exists totally.
    I'm denying that the ethnic differences are completely minuscule and that to place any relevance in them is just absurd. You should stick with the "dilution of culture" argument, it's a lot stronger for pointing out differences between peoples than trying to point out any large biological difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Georgecopter)
    I'm denying that the ethnic differences are completely minuscule and that to place any relevance in them is just absurd. You should stick with the "dilution of culture" argument, it's a lot stronger for pointing out differences between peoples than trying to point out any large biological difference.
    Georgecopter I am deeply troubled by your comments - you appear to have this misapprehension that race is a biological construct.

    It is a social construct; these differences count in a social respect and as such these "racial" differences are rooted in real perceived differences. To resort to biology is not only intellectually dishonest but demonstrates a complete failure to understand the debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    They are not inclusive at all, they are direct comparisons of crime stats from each member states with no such changes or variation accounted for.
    I was talking about demographic predictions, not the daily mail article.

    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    According to the BNP we live in an idiotic police state where the innocent are criminals and criminals are innocent, so wouldnt it make sense with all these innocent harmless people being accused of crimes?
    Not really, that isn't the BNP stance on issues such as violent crime.

    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    Please explain this, we all need a little help. what are these telling signs, these omens of doom oh great prophet?
    Statistics such as 40% of the under 20 population in London being non white, without taking into account illegal immigrants.

    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    They will eventually move into the country when they become affluent middle classes, and inbred hicks like you take their places back in the city.

    Or when space and resource simply run out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Statistics such as 40% of the under 20 population in London being non white, without taking into account illegal immigrants.


    Official source please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Official source please.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-white.html

    Before you say it's from the daily mail and is therefore made up, as seems to be the popular thing to do these days, I'll quote this part :
    The figures were disclosed in Whitehall's annual Regional Trends report.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ent-white.html

    Before you say it's from the daily mail and is therefore made up, as seems to be the popular thing to do these days, I'll quote this part :

    Well can you prvide me with the official report. Quoting the Daily Mail is futile, i do not believe a thing it says, considering how bias they are.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well can you prvide me with the official report. Quoting the Daily Mail is futile, i do not believe a thing it says, considering how bias they are.
    You disagreeing with the Daily Mail doesn't make it wrong. And every newspaper is biased, it's simply a result of the free press. I could equally treat at any article from the Daily Star as "biased" and "not believe a thing it says", but I'd simply be deluding myself in doing so. The facts have to be true, or the editor will get the sack. Putting political inclination on the scene is simply an embellishment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    You disagreeing with the Daily Mail doesn't make it wrong.
    Ok then, would you believe everything expressed in a damning Gaurdian report into the BNP, or would you dismiss it as biased?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    You disagreeing with the Daily Mail doesn't make it wrong. And every newspaper is biased, it's simply a result of the free press. I could equally treat at any article from the Daily Star as "biased" and "not believe a thing it says", but I'd simply be deluding myself in doing so. The facts have to be right, or the editor will get the sack.
    But you dismissed that whole BBC investigation into the BNP as biased, are you deluded?

    Also, the facts may be right, but that doesn't mean they will not have been horribly twisted, giving off an aura of falsehood similar to that of made up facts.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ok then, would you believe everything expressed in a damning Gaurdian report into the BNP, or would you dismiss it as biased?
    Any reportage carries an ideological air, but the facts have to be true. It's the reader's job to question whether the opinion of the reporter is valid, not the facts per se.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But you dismissed that whole BBC investigation into the BNP as biased, are you deluded?
    Yes, but this doesn't mean I didn't believe what was being shown in front of my eyes; I just didn't believe the reportage. Mainly due to the fact that the group who carried out the investigation took over a wing of the party and turned it into what they wanted. Of course there are excluded facts, but it's the reader's job to uncover these. But to "not believe anything they say" (especially when 'they' is a highly respected paper) is nothing but childish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Yes, but this doesn't mean I didn't believe what was being shown in front of my eyes; I just didn't believe the reportage. Mainly due to the fact that the group who carried out the investigation took over a wing of the party and turned it into what they wanted. Of course there are excluded facts, but it's the reader's job to uncover these. But to "not believe anything they say" (especially when 'they' is a highly respected paper) is nothing but childish.
    So you believe that the report exposed a large number of the BNP including Griffin expressing racist views. That actually happened, you cannot deny that, because according to you, if it was a lie or if it was reported dishonestly the editor/producer would have been fired? Not believeing what a report by a highly respected institution is nothing but childish?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Any reportage carries an ideological air, but the facts have to be true. It's the reader's job to question whether the opinion of the reporter is valid, not the facts per se.
    So all of the basic facts in this article are true. If i dismiss all the reporters personal feelings. The BNP still comes across as undeniably racist, hypocritical and sinister.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/de...cs.thefarright
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you believe that the report exposed a large number of the BNP including Griffin expressing racist views. That actually happened, you cannot deny that, because according to you, if it was a lie or if it was reported dishonestly the editor/producer would have been fired? Not believeing what a report by a highly respected institution is nothing but childish?
    What? This makes no sense. Firstly, you make it out that I stated "report[ing] dishonestly" entails an editor/producer sacking. I didn't. I said lying and making things up usually results in this. Distortion and ideological judgement is commonplace, and if this was ever punished, then there'd be, well, no free press at all. The report was not carried out by a highly respected institution either. It was aired by the BBC, but the investigation was carried out by Searchlight, probably the least respectable paper since the Socialist Worker.

    P.S. As far as I saw, Griffin offended Islam which is a religion. I've seen Christopher Hitchens say worse things about it. :hat:
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.