|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 8, 2011 10:48:10 GMT 1
So the British aren't a race?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 8, 2011 10:51:42 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 8, 2011 10:53:40 GMT 1
Ha haaaa! Brilliant
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 8, 2011 10:56:42 GMT 1
Glad you like it, rjsmith7.
Which of my links appeals to you most?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 8, 2011 11:29:05 GMT 1
Neither as they both represent extremist views. I'm descended from Scandanavians and I only consider myself as a human being. Nationalism is a childish fantasy. I do however consider myself as a citizen of the UK and support our military since they have the balls to protect us from our enemies. The (snip) to which this thread relates should be deported ....he has declared holy war on us and would happily kill us if he had the bottle. Why do you accept his behaviour?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 8, 2011 11:52:52 GMT 1
I'm descended from Scandanavians and I only consider myself as a human being. Nationalism is a childish fantasy. I do however consider myself as a citizen of the UK... I'm glad to hear it. Of course, many people from other 'races' are citizens of the UK, too. So I take it that your answer to your own question So the British aren't a race? is 'No'?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 8, 2011 12:51:45 GMT 1
I'd almost agree with you due to the [snip] of the British "race" by enforced multi-culturalism but not quite. The British are a race in so much as a group of people can be that's linked by tradition, language and culture - that is obvious. Anyone living in this country should accept our traditions, language and culture while maintaining their own identity. That's fine. It's when we have Chowdrey chanting anti British, offensive vitriol that things become unacceptable....to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 17:11:30 GMT 1
Oh, you mean the personal freedom to exploit others for profit and power? Grow up. Oh I think I'm grown enough up to see how the capitalists are exploiting ordinary people and robbing them. Grown up enough to see how foreign wars are started in the name of democracy only to end up leaving other countries in a worse state than ever while the industrial-military complex reaps the rewards of carnage and misery. Grown up enough to see a biased press here and in other so-called free countries manipulate the news in the interest of their owners. Shall I go on boy?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 17:25:25 GMT 1
Whose traditions? Whose language (let's not upset the welsh!), and WHOSE culture?
Because I (despite being born and bred here) actually would reject many of the things that SOME people would consider an inseperable part of british culture for them.
That's the things -- EASY to make this statements, sounds all nice, except what it usually means is somebody has some idea of what is NOT included (sharia law, funny food, funny clothes), whilst ignoring loads of example where funny foods, funny clothes, and even funny ideas have been happily accepeted and become part of OUR culture.
Except the very free speech that we claim to support means that we can't just attack everyone who wishes to criticise our current way of life. Hence the offensive bit -- the poppy-burning action was designed to cause distress.
But if we are going to really stand by freedom of speech, we (and someone else) SHOULD be able to criticise the british armed forces, or at least british foreign policy, else our supposed freedoms mean nothing. Don't forget bloody sunday.....................
Because you become just as bad as them if you respond by saying -- he should be (snip) for what he is saying. You have unfortunately then created a level playing field between yourself and him. Which is of course what he wants as well.
People on here seem to think that freedom only means the freedom to say what you want as long as it doesn't offend anyone that much.
So, yes, I find his views abhorrent, but I find I have to say that I support his right to have those views. What he then does (or what he then tries to encourage others to do) based on those views is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 8, 2011 17:32:28 GMT 1
As nay himself said, in his OP: We should all be concerned at this current prosecution of these Islamists For if peaceful protest against the curent orthodoxies can lead to criminal prosecution, just what are our freedoms worth? Sod all, that's what Freedom is nothing if those we do not like are not allowed to express their views peacefully
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 8, 2011 17:37:40 GMT 1
I'd almost agree with you due to the degredation of the British "race" by enforced multi-culturalism but not quite. The British are a race in so much as a group of people can be that's linked by tradition, language and culture - that is obvious. It's not obvious at all - what you give here is a definition of a culture, not a race. And the British have never been as culturally homogeneous as you'd like to think.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 8, 2011 18:04:59 GMT 1
Whose traditions? Whose language (let's not upset the welsh!), and WHOSE culture? Because I (despite being born and bred here) actually would reject many of the things that SOME people would consider an inseperable part of british culture for them. That's the things -- EASY to make this statements, sounds all nice, except what it usually means is somebody has some idea of what is NOT included (sharia law, funny food, funny clothes), whilst ignoring loads of example where funny foods, funny clothes, and even funny ideas have been happily accepeted and become part of OUR culture. Except the very free speech that we claim to support means that we can't just attack everyone who wishes to criticise our current way of life. Hence the offensive bit -- the poppy-burning action was designed to cause distress. But if we are going to really stand by freedom of speech, we (and someone else) SHOULD be able to criticise the british armed forces, or at least british foreign policy, else our supposed freedoms mean nothing. Don't forget bloody sunday..................... Because you become just as bad as them if you respond by saying -- he should be SHOT for what he is saying. You have unfortunately then created a level playing field between yourself and him. Which is of course what he wants as well. People on here seem to think that freedom only means the freedom to say what you want as long as it doesn't offend anyone that much. So, yes, I find his views abhorrent, but I find I have to say that I support his right to have those views. What he then does (or what he then tries to encourage others to do) based on those views is another matter. Oooo, your prejudice is blinding! And yet again your sense of proportionality is utterly askew. I accept any behaviour, race, apparrel or haircut as long as it's not overtly offensive and intended to be so. I had a green mohican at one point and enjoy extremely loud music by motorhead and the pistols and their ilk. The colour of someones skin or who they choose to "upend" is of supreme indifference to me. Yet, chowdrey was so offensive he deserves no quarter. You see, it is a question of degree. Your blanket view that everything is ok or nothing is patently crap. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Freedom is the goal of all right minded people. That's why I detest socialists.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 8, 2011 18:10:30 GMT 1
The British are a race in so much as a group of people can be that's linked by tradition, language and culture - that is obvious. It's not obvious at all - what you give here is a definition of a culture, not a race. And the British have never been as culturally homogeneous as you'd like to think. Just one example of that: I had a green mohican at one point and enjoy extremely loud music by motorhead and the pistols and their ilk.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 18:14:42 GMT 1
I quite clearly drew a distinction between people having offensive views, and people going out and deliberately expressing those views in such a way as to cause upset and distress to others. THAT is the crime, not having the views per se.
'Deserves no quarter' -- the usual stupid, knee-jerk, sloppy language -- would beheading him in public be okay, or didn't you really mean no quarter........................
Seem you just detest people you ASSUME are socialists because they have the presumption to hold a view different to your own..............
Yet you do seem to be rather obsessed with it..............methinks he doth protest too much.............
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Mar 8, 2011 19:12:12 GMT 1
I quite clearly drew a distinction between people having offensive views, and people going out and deliberately expressing those views in such a way as to cause upset and distress to others. THAT is the crime, not having the views per se. 'Deserves no quarter' -- the usual stupid, knee-jerk, sloppy language -- would beheading him in public be okay, or didn't you really mean no quarter........................ Seem you just detest people you ASSUME are socialists because they have the presumption to hold a view different to your own.............. Yet you do seem to be rather obsessed with it..............methinks he doth protest too much............. Again your inflexibility of thought is apparent. "He deserves no quarter" - I stand by. Only in the mind of an idiot would this include beheading in public. Your last statement is childish and silly. I am absolutely comfortable with my sexuality and that of others. Your obsession with yours is illuminating. I don't think I've ever mentioned my preferences apart from my enjoyment of lesbians - proper ones that appear on the internet in stockings mind.
|
|