I would take 1,000,000 "free loading" immigrants in exchange for every BNP member that was deported to the surface of the sun. 
What the hell is this world coming to!?!?!
If anyone understands legoflamb's metaphor about tigers, can they please explain it for me? I think I got it wrong, but I've still no idea what he's talking about.
I don't want to get into a full-on argument with you (mostly because the sheer amount of exclamation marks in your post make it obvious that you're not one of the world's great thinkers) but bear in mind that no immigrants come to the UK to sponge off the welfare state. They come here either to escape persecution (asylum seekers) or to work (economic migrants).
This is going to happen in any democratic society which is (relatively) economically successful, and the locals only bitch about it when there's high unemployment. The migrants aren't to blame for the high unemployment (they are not "coming over here, nicking our jobs"). On the contrary, the shitty economic situation is entirely the fault of highly-educated, middle-class Westerners.
Get George Osborne's address book and firebomb everyone in it, and you'll be doing us all a favour.
I don't want to get into a full-on argument with you (mostly because the sheer amount of exclamation marks in your post make it obvious that you're not one of the world's great thinkers) but bear in mind that no immigrants come to the UK to sponge off the welfare state. They come here either to escape persecution (asylum seekers) or to work (economic migrants).
This is going to happen in any democratic society which is (relatively) economically successful, and the locals only bitch about it when there's high unemployment. The migrants aren't to blame for the high unemployment (they are not "coming over here, nicking our jobs"). On the contrary, the shitty economic situation is entirely the fault of highly-educated, middle-class Westerners.
Get George Osborne's address book and firebomb everyone in it, and you'll be doing us all a favour.
Comparing people to animals never ends well.
My point: Regardless of how much someone denies having prejudices, they will still have underlying prejudices toward things without having to think about it. It is a survival instinct that all animals have. Those that didn't have it are dead. For example, the Galapagos Islands. Animals there had never seen human beings. When people went there the animals did not avoid them like they do in major populated areas. These animals were easy to hunt, so now most of them are dead.
The bio-hazard sign is a perfect example of prejudice. Firstly, the color yellow is synonymous to caution. People have seen images contained in yellow triangles that refer to relevant dangers like ice on the road or traffic signals. Secondly, the image in the center of the sign. Most people have seen these in movies, if not in real life. In the movie there is usually some sort of carcinogenic material that is shown to be dangerous. Someone can reasonably assume that most yellow signs seen on the road are warnings for dangers that may not be apparent.
These signs are meant to be understood without any though. Without prejudice, those signs could mean anything. May be it's artwork for bored motorists to be entertained in traffic. Or they could be a continuous comic strip that will make sense after you have seen them all. I highly doubt either of those are true.
My previous example is plain to see. In that situation most people would decline entering either room. However, just because something isn't obvious doesn't mean a danger isn't there.
Prejudice goes hand in hand with the saying " It is better to be safe than sorry."
Edit: I was never comparing the tigers with people. It was the "plain to see" prejudice, that is agreed upon by most people, that I was referring to.
The bio-hazard sign is a perfect example of prejudice. Firstly, the color yellow is synonymous to caution. People have seen images contained in yellow triangles that refer to relevant dangers like ice on the road or traffic signals. Secondly, the image in the center of the sign. Most people have seen these in movies, if not in real life. In the movie there is usually some sort of carcinogenic material that is shown to be dangerous. Someone can reasonably assume that most yellow signs seen on the road are warnings for dangers that may not be apparent.
These signs are meant to be understood without any though. Without prejudice, those signs could mean anything. May be it's artwork for bored motorists to be entertained in traffic. Or they could be a continuous comic strip that will make sense after you have seen them all. I highly doubt either of those are true.
My previous example is plain to see. In that situation most people would decline entering either room. However, just because something isn't obvious doesn't mean a danger isn't there.
Prejudice goes hand in hand with the saying " It is better to be safe than sorry."
Edit: I was never comparing the tigers with people. It was the "plain to see" prejudice, that is agreed upon by most people, that I was referring to.
i think he means asian african and european triple mixed race people who have an equal mixture of dark yellowish and white colpur in their skin like tigers do
so in conclusion if you ever meet a stripey mixed race guy run for you life
i suggest you look up what prejudice actually means
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
Look at definition #2.
I have seen the definition. I don't see any problems with the way I have used the word prejudice. There is no problem with 'preconceived' in the definition of prejudice nor does it conflict with the way I have used it.
Well, leg of the sheep, get out of america then. If you're a whitey that is. America belongs to the few thousand REAL americans that have been sent to large prisons called "reservation".
Or does your theory of "survival of the fittest" come into play here, meaning that the "white race" is the most agressive one and has to rule the planet?
Earlier on you spoke about how YOUR country was being ruined by some terrible danger called amnesty. My english sucks but could you explain if amnesty (~act of grace for me) has got something to do with this? Maybe I'm just lost in translation atm.
greetz
der multiculti butz
Or does your theory of "survival of the fittest" come into play here, meaning that the "white race" is the most agressive one and has to rule the planet?
Earlier on you spoke about how YOUR country was being ruined by some terrible danger called amnesty. My english sucks but could you explain if amnesty (~act of grace for me) has got something to do with this? Maybe I'm just lost in translation atm.
greetz
der multiculti butz
My neighbours cat is a racist. Would feeding fried chicken or indian curry to the cat help to cure that illness? Or should i just buy a rottweiler to help defend myself against that furry little nazi? I'd like to go for the rottweiler option, but i'm afraid people will start complaining when i buy him a nice dog house, while the racist cat only has an old ****ed up kitty litter. 
Kill 10 BNP members and welcome 10,000,000 free loading immigrants. Do you think that will make your or their life better?
What? Take the 'jungle' migrant camp that was in Calais.
Since most of the people in it were Afghans, they have clearly travelled over a large part of continental Europe to get to where they were (and ultimately the UK). Last time I checked, the UK is about about as far as you can get in Europe from the Middle East ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't migrants supposed to apply for asylum at the first EU country they get to? If they were really that desperate to escape persecution, they would be grateful being able to get to any safe European country.
You're wrong. The amount of people who are allowed in each european country is clearly defined. If not, then spain, italy, greece and so on would be flooded while the "rich" countries would do nothing but avoid anyone coming in.
greetz
der butz
I think that the first EU country they reach is supposed to deal with their Asylum request, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that they end up staying in that country.
Yes.
So if you did that for all BNP members, you would enjoy living in a country with tens or even hundreds of thousands more freedloaders than taxpayers
Well I'm not saying all immigrants are freeloaders, that's just the way Daily Mail readers view them. But even if a few thousand of them just lived on handouts from the government they would still be less damaging than a racist with political power.
preconceived means you form an oppinion without any prove for it
in all of your (rather stupid i might add) examples theres ample evidence and prove to go along with the reactions you claim to be prejudiced
eg in the tiger example you know one of them is wild which given a probablity of 50% of entering a room with a wild cornered (any room would be small for something as huge as a tiger) carnivore makes not entering in the first place a well informed decision not one based on no evidence whatsoever
for the tiger example to be one of prejudice youd have to have never seen or even heard of a tiger or any other cat for that matter before and not have been infromed on the difference between the two
youd also have to make sure the person doesnt see either the fangs or the claws of the tiger which are a dead giveaway that youre dealing with a carnivore here
to make it simple that even you might understand it... last time i checked africans latinos asians and whoever else didnt have fangs or claws... not on a general basis anyway
given that some of those regions are mostly inhabitated by poor people theres a good chance however that theyll have bad teeth... not unlinke brits
equally you learn from a young age that yellow and red are colours used on warning signs and thus your reaction is entirely based on previous experience with a very common theme in signage
Well said. Furthermore, at the same time though, people tend to forget about the "ordinary citizens" and the considerable high amount of freeloaders there.
Why would anyone want the racist BNP in power? If they got in power im sure they would make laws that would discriminate against certain members of the country http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7474801.stm and then start illegal wars or make critical decisions without putting them to the vote of the public.
Firstly, I am not white. Secondly, My use of the word amnesty was wrong. I did not direct it to the purpose I had intended. However, it seems you had understood the way I have used it, since you are correcting me for using it wrong. Thirdly, nowhere in my statements have I argued where people should belong.
(sarcasm)When I see Africans, Latinos, and Asians I see fangs and claws. Maybe we live on a different planet.(/sarcasm)
Please keep the discussion on track. Using the red herring tactic is evidence of an argument loosing its merit. I rather like this one, I'd like it to continue.
I was never comparing the tigers to people. I addressed this in an earlier post.
Apparently this discussion is about the meanings of words rather than the subject its self.
Opinion:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
An opinion is formed based on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. On the subject of the tigers no prejudice could be formed with out some information, no matter how insufficient that information is. How can someone base an opinion without any knowledge, regardless of how factual, on the subject.
I agree prejudice is learned from previous experiences, or from ill informed culture, family members, peers, and anyone else that my have an influence in a person's life.
Again, I was never comparing the tigers to people. I addressed this in an earlier post.
That translates as "there are two people in two separate rooms and one of them is a homicidal sociopath who daily enjoys cannibalistic delicacies and the other is not, take a pick". If you play it out well you might escape with a missing ear and an Anthony Hopkins autograph which you can forever refer to as an otograph hoping for that extra snicker.
That is not considered a translation. What you have written is your interpretation of my hypothetical situation. To translate and to interpret do not inherently mean same thing.
I have repeated this before(in less words): My example is used to show basic prejudice, toward a situation presented, that is most commonly answered the same because the answer is rather obvious. It is not applicable to a direct reflection on people.
The way you have interpreted it shows your prejudice toward people who think differently to you on this subject. You jump to the conclusion that I refer the tigers to people, and cannot accept a different interpretation other than you own.
Your statement is moot.
Edit:The uses of logical fallacies is more evidence of an argument loosing its merit. Stop using the "red herring" in discussions. Calling me "legofman" is an example. You are deterring from the actual forward progression of the discussion by creating humorous distractions that have no purpose.
This constant misinterpretation is now seeming to be deliberate as I have explained my point in posting my hypothetical situation. This use of the "straw man" fallacy is going nowhere, as it does not refer to the position I am supporting. I have resorted to defending myself from personal attacks and I will continue until someone proposes a true rebuttal.
Legoflamb: We didn't misunderstand you because we're all thick, but because your metaphor was a bag of shit and it didn't mean anything.
I'm wondering now if you deliberately interjected with that half-baked nonsense just to bait people, but surely nobody could be that lonely.
I'm wondering now if you deliberately interjected with that half-baked nonsense just to bait people, but surely nobody could be that lonely.
Immigrant+Dole=£1.8M house?...
(205 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG