Spite
-
Posts
949 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Spite
-
-
Yes? That's what I was referring to.
-
So what is this mythical British civilisation then? Even fifty years ago Christianity would be seen as a core of British culture. Basically your idea of what our national identity in is your own and is nothing to do with mine. When two (presumably) white British guys can't agree over what our "culture" even is, how can we define it as being exclusive or protect it?
You want to basically subjugate a huge section of our society to incredibly invasive and controlling fascist controls. You might as well have them all wear badges to identify them as well to finish it off.
The only thing your absolutely stupid idea would achieve is to radicalised a mostly law abiding community into outright rebellion.
I notice you're not suggesting similar atrocities against the Irish despite Irish terrorists committing a lot more acts of violence against us over the last fifty years. I guess they pass the colour chart test?
-
Cultural homogeneity, peace, and ever expanding (rational) liberalism are all worth it. I want them to be part of the national fraternity and there is nothing horrific about that. Their beliefs not only only stops them being a brother or sister to me but they hold vile incompatible views. Only one culture matters which is our own, all the rest existing in their own country is fine, excellent in fact, but not here.
I only want as I said peace, for us to be brothers and sisters united under one nation, be they from whatever religion, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. If they prefer the "Muslim nation" if you will, Islam, as is it exists today then that is regrettable but they can have it very easily and I wouldn't stop them. I only seek the best for them.
So let's get this straight. As muslims views differ from yours, and you consider them dangerous, you want to:
1. Prevent them having children
2. Seize their homes and property, and relocate them to new "homes" based on a quota system
3. Create a state sponsored interpretation of Islam and force all muslims to attend this and not their own religious practice.
How are you not a fascist again?
First they came for the muslims...
Then they came for all the other people who disagreed with them. Those poisonous lefties who disagree with you will be next. Maybe you'll frame them for setting fire to Parliament or something to help clear opposition to your glorious cleaning of the empire. We must set aside these sub humans who are poisoning our superior culture with their dirty middle eastern ideals. Only a pure homogenous nation under God and the union jack will prevail!
-
Yes and I repeated what you said.
You're going to tell people where to live, what they can believe, where they can work, ban their culture and beliefs... It is horrific.
-
So what do you suggest for the 7.2 million foreign born UK residents and the millions more who are Hindu or muslim but born here? We put them in compulsory re-education camps? Gas them?
So there was a pedo ring with muslims running it. There was one with Jimmy Savile running it, and I bet most of the pedophiles and rapists are white. How many of the Muslim pedophiles were immigrants and how many were born here. How would stopping all immigration affect this?
-
So what countries that aren't white make your list for "good" migration.
Liberals who don't like other Liberals for being liberal about people who don't like Liberals which can hurt Liberals. I'm waiting for the punchline. The argument is literally full of holes.
I mean take Britain. We have 2.7m muslims. In our history, 53 people have been killed by six muslim terrorists.
Firstly you're saying let's condemn 2.7m people because of the actions of six. Which is stupid. But let's go further.
Of those six, none of them were immigrants from muslim countries. So stopping immigration would not have made any difference. Let's go further.
Of those six, three were converts and not even born muslims. They were born Christians and converted at a later time.
Of the three muslims who were born muslim, one of them was a genuine terrorist of the first order, who planned the London bombings. The other two were teenagers he groomed at a weekly community group.
Let's go one step further. People say that radical Conservative islam is the cause. None of these people were raised in radical households. Of the two groomed teenagers mentioned above, one had a girlfriend (who yes, he had sex with) and the other had a drinking problem. They were hardly ultra Conservative. Even the ringleader had a pretty poor understanding of Islam by all accounts.
So basically there is no solid link with immigration, no link with certain countries, no link with Conservative islam.
So all the bullshit we see constantly on these forums about that is just that - bullshit. Stopping immigration won't stop Islamic terrorism, and unless you're willing to put almost 3m people in concentration camps because of the actions of a few scattered radicals, there is no "solution" to the Muslim "problem".
-
Except the gay people weren't exactly dangerous, think of all those gay bombings. To say it is the same is an insult to gay people.
I'm for immigration just not bad immigration.
-
So you're a liberal who hates liberalism.Oh no, I used a metaphor, how abhorrent.
That so? Actually I am for gay equality, support their marriage rights 100%. Support transgenders 100% too. Support polygamists/polyandrists 100% also. Among many other things deemed unacceptable such euthanasia. I am also against the rich's excess/abuse and religion... to call me an ultraconservative is madness, the world is not free enough for me not the other way round.
However the mistake people make is they think they cannot be liberal if they are against this suicide I talked about before, that they would contradict themselves. However adopt a nationalistic mindset and there is no contradiction.
And you hate muslims for attacking Western liberal values, but you hate Western liberal values for being accepting towards muslims.
-
Political correctness gone mad!,!
We'll be letting goats marry next!
-
The soviets did it too. It's a common factor of autocratic dictatorships in general.
-
"these people"
"breeding like rabbits"
Thirty years you'd be protesting against gay equality. It's exactly the same ultraconservative borderline fascistic views that people have always spouted. I honestly can't debate with people who hold such evil views. There's a difference between being against immigration and whatever you are.
-
2
-
-
I love it how the very same people who attack muslims for being illiberal attack the West for being too liberal. Fact is that ultraconservatives just hark back to some fantasy idealist world which never existed. It's not a new thing either they've been doing it for generations.
Before I went to bed last night someone (Clark?) asked me what good things islam has given the West. Now islam is a faith, but if you're asking what muslims have given the West...
Most of our scientific knowledge pre-renaissance
All our records of Greek classical texts
Algebra, chemistry, trigonometry
Most of our early understanding of astronomy
Actual medicine - as opposed to leaches and shit
Our understanding of light and physics
A whole bunch of artistic and musical traditions
The goddamn sextant
Distillation - thanks Arabs!
Water clocks
Maps of the vast majority of the world outside of Europe
Sugar refining
Paper manufacture
Secularism - yes, Google Averroism
Then if we're talking modern contributions, I'm sure everyone appreciates the £31bn muslims add to the UK economy every year. Or the 400k muslim soldiers who fought for the UK in ww1. I could go on all day about the food, and let's face it most people have Indian food at least a couple times a month unless they're 70.
-
2
-
-
What we clearly need is some sort of program to incentivise birth rate. Maybe it can have a medal.
*cough cough*
-
He said about three times he was from Germany
-
My bad, you're right about Persia.
But the Romans fell in part due to multiculturalism.
I don't want to go off topic here, but since the topic is how cultural synthesis is natural and not bad, I'll argue the point.
Romans themselves began as a synthesis of Greek (Magna Graecia - southern italy), Italic (Latin tribe), and Etruscan civilisations. They also claimed some phoenician and troad ancestry, though tbh that's probably bullshit.
After Rome was founded, they realised they were a bunch of barbarian peasants whose only skills were farming and stabbing their neighbours with pointy sticks. So they started to hire Greeks from the south to help them. This led to the first roman military reforms and the use of hoplites. After defeating the Samians in the Samian wars, the Romans stole their ideas for military technology and built the first legions.
Then the Romans started reading about greek culture and ended up borrowing most of their pantheon, their arts, their written language (Greek was used for almost everything until the late republic) and their gaming tradition.
They took horse riding and everything with it from the celts, along with metal work and armour traditions.
The spanish tribes provided them with steel and engineering techniques.
The persians gave them endless cults - mithras being the most famous.
The jews became a huge part of the empire long before Christ.
The North Africans gave them their navy and the Levantine cities gave them their trading fleet.
Egypt gave them a whole bunch of agricultural technology and traditions.
The Romans were very careful to promote local traditions as fitting with Roman ones, and not force people to Romanise. They also happily adopted the best part of other cultures they encountered.This was all before the imperial period and hundreds of years before the decline- which had nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with political instability and tribal migrations. I'd go on in more depth but my dinner will burn.
-
3
-
-
We should be accepting towards other cultures, but demand those that want to live in our countries practice our cultures.
Every single great power in history that was open to other cultures fell due to it.
Remember the Persians? They allowed people to keep their cultures and practice their religions. This went great for centuries until internal conflict tore them apart.
Remember the Romans? They were brutal to those who refused to practice their culture (aside from trade). Eventually, when they had to deal with the Germanic tribes they just gave up. They allowed mass migration of "refugees". The borders weren't enforced. These refugees were the same people who sacked Rome.
Respect other cultures, embrace them! But they must stay where they come from.
This is rubbish. The Romans adopted customs and traditions from all their subject peoples. The mithraic cults and Christianity are just two very obvious examples. And multiculturalism is not what destroyed Persia. It was the increasing need for centralisation as the empire grew too big to effectively manage.
-
Lets be clear here on the difference. Such groups to be hit would require intervention, military intervention at that on groups that we've had nothing to do with (and no some nebulous link through colonialism or missionaries giving them the religion doesn't count). ISIS was created by the governments in the west so putting such mad dogs done would be a start on an apology on the matter.
Additionally we're talking about people at home, either trying to enter or already here. Africans in Africa fighting in Africa to carve out a African state aren't relevant to us.
Well yes I knew (hoped) you were a bit smarter than that and meant the whole "you think all Muslims are Arabs so when you attack Muslims you're actually attacking Arabs because you're a cowardly racist and are too afraid to say Arab". To that I say first you know I am against open borders in a big way, them being Arab or whatever else is completely irrelevant. Secondly many of these Muslims are actually black so the whole "you reject them because they're Arab" falls apart there.
Homogeneity culturally is the correct path. That isn't to say you can't have other ethnic groups, of course you can. However the number must be lower (not in the millions and counting), their culture has to be thrown away, and ghettos should not be allowed to develop. Such people should of course be treated well of course, however correct culture and nationalism must be enforced. Such homogeneity brings about peace, multiculturalism however brings about conflict.
This isn't how the world works though. All societies through history have been a mix of cultures and ideals and values. From the Sumerians, Assyrians, Persians, ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans and up to the present day, societies that have been open to new ideas and cultures have done better than those who have attempted to suppress them.
In most cases the arrival of a new culture creates a hybrid which is better than the original. Take the supposedly perfect example of Japan. Whilst still having a strong Japanese identity, their culture has changed enormously over the past three hundred years. So to has China, India, and even large tracts of the middle east.
If anything, the world is becoming increasingly Western every day. The very muslims you hate are angry because they feel that their culture is under attack on a global scale. Do you not see the irony that you are yourself an arch traditionalist who believes in cultural homogeneous societies and rooting out all difference - exactly the same as the likes of isis or Saudi Arabia, just the ideology or culture you're fighting for is a different one?
-
1
-
-
Islam isn't a race no but when you talk about "Muslims" you don't mean people who practice islam. It's not like when someone flees a war zone they fill out a form detailing their religious beliefs.
I know so many people who are atheists, or even Christians and Hindus that are referred to as muslims because of their skin colour, heritage or name.
Anyway I'm not going to get into this - I agree that islam is a religion and there's nothing wrong with criticising it. Just be wary that when you start applying criticism to a huge demographic of people (not just theology) you are one step away from bigotry, however you decide to call it.
I see very little difference between the crazy muslim imams and the kind of people who say that Japan is the perfect society because it's ethnically homogeneous.
-
2
-
-
And like any thread that has the word islam or muslim in it, this thread has devolved into:
1. The anti-islam crew arriving and denouncing islam and muslims, stepping carefully around the boundaries of outright racism
2. The islamo-fascist brigade arrives, stepping carefully around praising murderous scum whilst still hinting overall sympathy
-
4
-
-
It's nonsense. Lucifer/Satan is barely mentioned in the Bible, and then as a tempter not some evil God. According to the story, he is just an angel. Evil acts are caused due to the necessity for free will.
Ps. The tree of knowledge was not literally a tree that gave you an education. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The idea is that until that point there was only good in the world. When eve chose to disobey God's one commandment, she committed evil (original sin) and from then on the history of the world was a struggle between the good and evil in everyone.
Of course the story is a bunch of metaphors anyway.
-
Lol? Being organized helps anybody doing anything, regardless of what they're doing. This goes for any multiplayer game that has ever existed. You're clutching at straws.
What are you talking about fool? I was accused of defending the current system, on the grounds that changes would negatively effect me. I explained that due to the way we work, the changes would not negatively affect us and could even benefit us due to our ability to adapt quickly and utilise game mechanics effectively. This means that my points are free from self-interest, and should be considered in their own right.
Besides, you're GPA.
-
Good work Sheepy, ignore the naysayers they are arguing based on their in-game interests and not the interests of the game itself. As they say, if you aren't taking flak you aren't over the target.
As a highly organised, highly militarised alliance, any increase in game complexity will benefit Mensa, as we will adapt and react faster than the blob alliances. That doesn't mean we naturally support that sort of things. I think you have brown on your nose.
-
3
-
-
I think the general mensa consensus is that we don't like the war policies. They come across as being more numerical number tweaking rather than something genuinely new. A little complexity is good, lots of mutually overlapping bonuses just make the game confusing and limit strategy (in favour of tactics).
Nevertheless the trend is for Sheepy to thank anyone who agrees with him, and call anyone who disagrees with him names, so I expect that war policies will become a feature regardless of feedback, and I guess we will plan to counter them.
-
5
-
-
Say hi to Clint for me
attacks in belgium
in General Debate
Posted
I don't get your point? The UK was fighting terrorism for forty years before 9/11. As were many countries.
Is your question "why did America not realise terrorism existed before 9/11"? Because that's what it sounds like.