skinz Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Only if they were stupid. Couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Unfortunately, I feel the opposite will happen first, with race relations getting much worse... It probably won't happen for centuries. Look at the USA, where a huge deal has been made of electing their first ever President who wasn't 100% caucasian - how long is it going to be, before nobody even thinks to mention what racial origin a Presidential candidate might happen to be? But it will come. Nobody nowadays discriminates against redheads because they're Viking and not true pure-blooded Normans.. in fact, most people probably don't even know the origins of the different hair colourings, and even they did our culture has been such a mishmash for a thousand years that you couldn't rely on hair colour as any indicafion of ethnic origin anyway! Ultimately, the same will be true of skin colouring, but I certainly don't expect to live to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Why do you think SF (general) has a fixation with race? Personally I find it very tedious when a different aspect is put forward on different threads (sometimes not even related) and get the almost identical reply as if the person making the statement is filing our lives with some beautiful philosophical point, where in reality their only repeating what they've already said in another thread or all the threads they answer to..with slight modifications. I'm wondering if those that contribute(i use the word loosely) to SF (general) are those that watch Eastenders, then the repeat, then the repeat of the repeat, then the omnibus edition, and have no social life whatsoever. And, because of that their bitterness or inability to see beyond 4 walls shows through. It's almost as if hate, bitterness, fear are a comfort, with the daily Mail as a guide to how the world really is, where in reality it's how their world is. I know this is a race related thread and I apologise..It won't happen again. Is it just race though? If you have a viewpoint and someone else mocks that claiming theirs is superior, then it requires debate. Say if someone goes on about Americans being fascists, religion, terrorism, money, and especially football (or other sports). Is it unhealthy? Debate and expanding your perspective, i'd say not. At the end of the day, we all got to get along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I worry about the population increasing That's a legitimate concern; I've never heard any government say what they consider an optimum population level for this country to be. But immigration and race are not the same thing; 10,000 white Europeans are just as many extra people to deal with as 10,000 Indians, or 10,000 Nigerians - or, for that matter, 10,000 descendants of Englishmen who emigrated in the 1960s but wanted to come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Some people are affected more by racism, or the perception of it, than others. Any minority is going to feel it more, on a day to day basis, than the majority. I guess that’s why some people would be ‘obsessed’. The interesting aside is parts of the majority noticing it more when those in power try to legislate thought, opinion etc or when pulled up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 You are again being dishonest. I did not claim "the police" supported the BNP. Please quote me as saying this. Once again, as you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I claimed the leaked members list, listed police officers as members, which it did. And you did so in response to my claim that bnp supporters are often uneducated. You tried to disprove the claim that bnp members are very often uneducated by claiming police officers were members. Since the officers deny ever supporting the party it's clear the police officers appearing on the list means precisely nothing. You tried to lend credibility to the bnp by making false claims that the police are members and support the party. That isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 And you did so in response to my claim that bnp supporters are often uneducated. You tried to disprove the claim that bnp members are very often uneducated by claiming police officers were members. Not true; he only said that the member list that was leaked, included police officers on it. That is a verifiable fact;he has neither lied, nor misled, nor implied anything which was false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Not true; he only said that the member list that was leaked, included police officers on it. That is a verifiable fact;he has neither lied, nor misled, nor implied anything which was false. Yes he has. I claimed the bnp are supported by uneducated people. He responded that the police officers were on the membership list and made it clear that this was to counter the view that bnp supporters are uneducated. Since the officers referred to deny supporting the party and claim it was a mistake, his point is invalid. Why do you think he claimed police officers were on the list unless, in his own words, it was to point out that: I'm simply pointing out the lazy naive thinking that BNP members must be folk that can't hold down a job. That's just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 And you did so in response to my claim that bnp supporters are often uneducated. You tried to disprove the claim that bnp members are very often uneducated by claiming police officers were members. Since the officers deny ever supporting the party it's clear the police officers appearing on the list means precisely nothing. You tried to lend credibility to the bnp by making false claims that the police are members and support the party. That isn't true. The BNP didn't publicly make false claims of having police officers as members, it became public as a result of having their membership list leaked. Difficult for you to grasp, I know. The BNP members list, when it was leaked, listed police officers as members. If you are trying to refute this, please post links backing it up. Here are some links which back up what I posted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/19/bnp-names-web-police-security http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/15154705 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7736794.stm I look forward to your links refuting that any serving police officers were on the leaked BNP members list. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The BNP didn't publicly make false claims of having police officers as members. I know. You did. Why? You said police officers were members, so bnp supporters cannot be unemployable (something I never claimed). Why did you say that? Since we know the officers don't support the party your post was misleading and dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.