Are immigration threads allowed?

CiaranC

The Corinthian wrote:

I'm sorry, you said right-wing - is that simply defined by being anti-immigration now? Or would you like to qualify what you said?

But to keep you happy, while I do not oppose immigration per say I do believe that not all immigrant groups should be treated the same. For example, some ethnic groups have a higher propensity for anti-social behavior than others and so I would favour greater restrictions on them. Happy?

I made the same point four times, each time using the phrase 'right-wing opinions on immgration' each in the context of a discussion on immigration, you picked the one time I didnt use 'on immigration' to quote.

Im not talking about right-wing opinions in general, Im explicitly talking about those who oppose immigration.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Surely you mean mutually exclusive?

How would that make sense? They as not mutually inclusive. One does not include the other. They are separate things.

Are you going to continue to make blanket statements, or can you cite an example? Lets see a thread on the topic that wasnt locked and didnt have anyone who opposed immigration banned.

I'm bored of this allready.

You specifically said

" Boards might as well write 'no right-wing opinions allowed' into the rules and have done with it."

The Corinthian said

"I post right-wing opinions here on a regular basis and have rarely had a problem doing so."

To which you said some thing silly.

anyway point is, you define right wing as racist. The rest of us don't.

Dark Hair

CiaranC wrote:

I made the same point four times, each time using the phrase 'right-wing opinions on immgration' each in the context of a discussion on immigration, you picked the one time I didnt use 'on immigration' to quote.

Im not talking about right-wing opinions in general, Im explicitly talking about those who oppose immigration.

making your point 4 times counts for nothing. Sure poor Gandalf is busy searching... and now desperatly hoping for an opt out

trust me... the paradox/useless moderating has been shown.



All that can be proved is the OP is right. oH nOE sOME oNE hAS A pASSION oN A sUBJECT!

But its a naughty subject..... and not right!!! and so say all of us... well the community at least...

The Corinthian

CiaranC wrote:

I made the same point four times, each time using the phrase 'right-wing opinions on immgration' each in the context of a discussion on immigration, you picked the one time I didnt use 'on immigration' to quote.

I just picked the first one. I didn't read the rest of your posts.

Im not talking about right-wing opinions in general, Im explicitly talking about those who oppose immigration.

Well, I just posted one and I've not been struck down by lightning.

Karl Hungus

gandalf wrote:

Ok lets say those posters kept putting up threads on how they think Ibanez Guitars are ****e all the time and didn't post anything else other than this. Would that make you happy that they are taking part in the community.

Depends on whether or not they're actually engaging in a discussion about the pros/cons rather than actually stating it trollishly. Macmorris seems open to debate, and that's exactly what was happening before the thread in question was prematurely closed.

CiaranC

Well, I just posted one and I've not been struck down by lightning.

It will be interesting to see the moderator response to your post, which strikes me as far more racist (Im sure your arbitrary reason to deny particular ethnic groups access doesnt chime with your personal views on those groups at all) than anything the OP posted.

Distasteful as I find your opinion, I think you should still be allowed to voice it and debate with others.

The Corinthian

Dark Hair wrote:

oH nOE sOME oNE hAS A pASSION oN A sUBJECT!

So what? I was under the impression that what mattered in debate and discussion was that someone employed reason rather than passion.

Boston

CiaranC wrote:

Distasteful as I find your opinion, I think you should still be allowed to voice it and debate with others.

The Corinthian is basically supporting Profiling tbh. Load of Bull tbh but thats another story.

The Corinthian

CiaranC wrote:

It will be interesting to see the moderator response to your post, which strikes me as far more racist (Im sure your arbitrary reason to deny particular ethnic groups access doesnt chime with your personal views on those groups at all) than anything the OP posted.

There’s nothing racist in what I posted, unless you don’t actually know what racist means. I am citing the influence of nurture, not nature.

Dark Hair

the real clever posting detracts from the facts.

You gotta love Gandalfs outs!!

Dirk Gently

I think it was a bit early for lockage. I fully expected it to be locked at some point but was surprised it was so early considering the civil enough tone and fairly structured responses. I think Tristrame was fairly spot on with the stormfront remark as it sprung to my mind immediately from reading the OP but maybe he should have just let it run a little longer until the OP either ran out of steam after a good logical counter by other posters or until such a stage that he got abusive.

Sometimes prevention isn't better than a cure.

I reckon we might have gotten another couple of pages out of it before the OP either gave up or said something worthy of bannage.

Macmorris

The Corinthian wrote:

Personally I disagree with the locking of that thread but largely because it has denied people an opportunity to debunk and, frankly, make fun of your arguments.

I would really love you to make fun of my arguments. That's why I can't wait for the thread to be reopened.

Quite a few years – you’ll find that it’s covered by incitement to hatred and equality legislation.

Being a racist in itself though is not against the law, at least not that I'm aware of. If I said, for example, that I believe races differ in their average levels of intelligence I would be expressing a racist opinion, but I don't think I could be prosecuted for it.

Expressing views that are likely to incite hatred of others on account of their race is, and rightly so in my opinion.

some ethnic groups have a higher propensity for anti-social behavior than others

Really, would you care to name those ethnic groups who have a higher propensity for anti-social violence, while at the same keeping your feet firmly on the higher moral group that you would presume to preach to me about racism?

Dark Hair

clown bag wrote:

I think it was a bit early for lockage. I fully expected it to be locked at some point but was surprised it was so early considering the civil enough tone and fairly structured responses. I think Tristrame was fairly spot on with the stormfront remark as it sprung to my mind immediately from reading the OP but maybe he should have just let it run a little longer until the OP either ran out of steam after a good logical counter by other posters or until such a stage that he got abusive.

Sometimes prevention isn't better than a cure.

I reckon we might have gotten another couple of pages out of it before the OP either gave up or said something worthy of bannage.

the reasons for closing the thread have been clearly stated.

Lets talk about that.

Your and mine opinion have already been decided to be usless.

wheres Waldo/gandalf? Maybe the mike65 thing didn't work out for his argument?

Macmorris

Dark Hair wrote:

the reasons for closing the thread have been clearly stated.

Lets talk about that.

Would you mind recapping on those reasons again, just so we're all clear on what is and is not acceptable on the politics forum.

CiaranC

The Corinthian wrote:

There’s nothing racist in what I posted, unless you don’t actually know what racist means. I am citing the influence of nurture, not nature.

Tell us which ethnic groups you want kept out and show us the according proof that they are more involved in criminality then.

That way we'll be able to see that you didnt just invent a reason to justify your racist agenda.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

Really, would you care to name those ethnic groups who have a higher propensity for anti-social violence, while at the same keeping your feet firmly on the higher moral group that you would presume to preach to me about racism?

Who mentioned violence? And, other than yourself and CiaranC who’s suggesting my point was racist? I would have hoped that with your past association you would have at least learned what the term means.

CiaranC wrote:

Tell us which ethnic groups you want kept out and show us the according proof that they are more involved in criminality then.

I’ve no intention of discussing it further as the point I made was that one can proffer an anti-immigration opinion here, despite your claim to the contrary, not to start a debate on it. Why don’t you comment on how your earlier claim was false instead?

That way we'll be able to see that you didnt just invent a reason to justify your racist agenda.

Are you actively ignoring what I said so that you can call me racist or are you having difficulty comprehending?

Dark Hair

Macmorris wrote:

Would you mind recapping on those reasons again, just so we're all clear on what is and is not acceptable on the politics forum.

I have made my/the points.

if gandalf searches Mike65 his point beomes a threat to his... point.

My point is.. If I post "The Ira shall never have power" no search...kicking in your front door is done.

If it suit Gandalf... your door is kicked in...

Come on Gandalf.. refute all this?

Dark Hair

Seriously people... at this rate Talliesin will quote some one off the first few posts with his real clever thoughts (Bar repeated drivil minus the sexual conictations) and drag this all back to yesterday.

Where is waldo?!?!?!?!?

We need a Waldo!!!!!!!

Macmorris

The Corinthian wrote:

Who mentioned violence?

I misread, looking back I see that you actually said Anti-Social behaviour.

And, other than yourself and CiaranC who’s suggesting my point was racist?

It would help if you would list the ethnic groups that you believe are more likely to be anti-social.

I would have hoped that with your past association you would have at least learned what the term means.

I could have spent a lifetime in the KKK and I don't think I would have any better idea of what the term means. The word racist is probably the most abused and ill-defined word in the English language. Anyone can throw it around without explaining what it means. When people get sick of it they can move on to more intellectual sounding phrases like 'pseudo-racist' or xenophobe. It doesn't make any difference in my opinion, the word racist is a tool that's used to shut people up and prevent reasoned debate.

amp

dUR TEKKIN RRRRR JORBBbbes!!!!

Boston

Macmorris wrote:

It would help if you would list the ethnic groups that you believe are more likely to be anti-social.

Hell would that help? Thats another topic and point alltogether.

I could have spent a lifetime in the KKK and I don't think I would have any better idea of what the term means. The word racist is probably the most abused and ill-defined word in the English language. Anyone can throw it around without explaining what it means. When people get sick of it they can move on to more intellectual sounding phrases like 'pseudo-racist' or xenophobe. It doesn't make any difference in my opinion, the word racist is a tool that's used to shut people up and prevent reasoned debate.

Everything is reasoned, even the holocaust.

Dark Hair

Boston wrote:

Hell would that help? Thats another topic and point alltogether.




Everything is reasoned, even the holocaust.

even bannings... but hey.. you have many "lifes".How many lifes have you had Joe?

Not some thing the rest of us have. Perhaps thats another "factor"

Can I have a few lives please?

Don't let it get to head wreacking.

here... btw.. if the holocaust were a wipe of accounts not suited to boards... (Like the link?)

Where is Waldo!!!


you lot lost before you began....






ohhh you are weak of mind and similar of brain. We await you simple minds and use them as it suits....


(Nice ego'tistic sh1t there)

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

I could have spent a lifetime in the KKK and I don't think I would have any better idea of what the term means. The word racist is probably the most abused and ill-defined word in the English language.

Racism is the belief that traits are genetically inherited upon racial lines. The philosophy of racialism is an attempt to turn this into a science so as to ‘prove’ that one race is ‘superior’ to another and/or should not mix. Of course this does not mean that traits are not genetically inherited upon racial lines; plenty are from immunities to certain diseases through to alcohol tolerance, however it is the expansion to the conclusions of racialism that are deeply questionable.

Suggesting that a culture may be prone to anti-social behaviour is only racist if one suggests that the behaviour is inherited. I’ve made no such suggestion. Quite the opposite.

Anyone can throw it around without explaining what it means. When people get sick of it they can move on to more intellectual sounding phrases like 'pseudo-racist' or xenophobe. It doesn't make any difference in my opinion, the word racist is a tool that's used to shut people up and prevent reasoned debate.

However if you simply state blanket opinions on ‘all’ foreigners with little or nothing to back it up, then we’re not talking about reasoned debate, we’re talking about gut feelings – phobias if you will. In such cases terms such as xenophobe are perfectly valid as that is essentially all it amounts to.

Dark Hair

Dark Hair wrote:

even bannings... but hey.. you have many "lifes".How many lifes have you had Joe?

Not some thing the rest of us have. Perhaps thats another "factor"

Can I have a few lives please?

Don't let it get to head wreacking.

here... btw.. if the holocaust were a wipe of accounts not suited to boards... (Like the link?)

Where is Waldo!!!


you lot lost before you began....






ohhh you are weak of mind and similar of brain. We await you simple minds and use them as it suits....


(Nice ego'tistic sh1t there)

You need a good dig in the head!!!

Dark Hair

Dark Hair wrote:

You need a good dig in the head!!!

Fuk you mother ****er degenerating this thread into pure arse wipe bu;ll sh1t!!!

It means some thing!!!!

Karl Hungus

Ok, I think Dark Hair's cognative function centre is broken.

Dark Hair

The Corinthian wrote:

Racism is the belief that traits are genetically inherited upon racial lines. The philosophy of racialism is an attempt to turn this into a science so as to ‘prove’ that one race is ‘superior’ to another and/or should not mix. Of course this does not mean that traits are not genetically inherited upon racial lines; plenty are from immunities to certain diseases through to alcohol tolerance, however it is the expansion to the conclusions of racialism that are deeply questionable.

Suggesting that a culture may be prone to anti-social behaviour is only racist if one suggests that the behaviour is inherited. I’ve made no such suggestion. Quite the opposite.

However if you simply state blanket opinions on ‘all’ foreigners with little or nothing to back it up, then we’re not talking about reasoned debate, we’re talking about gut feelings – phobias if you will. In such cases terms such as xenophobe are perfectly valid as that is essentially all it amounts to.

Yawn.

That was real good TC.

eh Kill them all and stuff. Or else save them.

Not decided here!!!

Can I vote at 15?

Dark Hair

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ok, I think Dark Hair's cognative function centre is broken.

I Wish.

Just awaiting Dev to let Gandalf off the Hook (no mike65 comparison) (Why should they!!?? ) Slightly bored other wise.


I am sure Gordo will be clever though.

Dark Hair

Waldo... I needs..... you.......

Hold me?

Dirk Gently