Re: Join the Fight

#31
around 75% British laws are made by the European Parliament
Not true;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is- ... -brussels/

(it's of note that the 75% claim comes for the rather xenophobic UKIP which, shall we see, would have a strong motive for outright lying about such evilness as the Human Rights Act and Maximum Working Time Directive - although we opted out the last one of those. Yay.)

This page suggests around 15%, based on a House of Commons library report in 2010 (http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what ... om-the-eu/).

Re: Join the Fight

#33
That's because USA ( and Japan ) started this.
Except it never went to a vote in the USA.
ACTA was first proposed by USA and Japan. Or at least it originated from there. So, yeah, thanks...
around 75% British laws are made by the European Parliament
Not true;
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is- ... -brussels/

(it's of note that the 75% claim comes for the rather xenophobic UKIP which, shall we see, would have a strong motive for outright lying about such evilness as the Human Rights Act and Maximum Working Time Directive - although we opted out the last one of those. Yay.)

This page suggests around 15%, based on a House of Commons library report in 2010 (http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what ... om-the-eu/).
Well, that's nice and all. I admit, I could have been wrong on the percentage ( ha, didn't see that coming, did you? ) , but I'll have to disagree with your notion that UKIP is xenophobic. Considering that they want cooperation with European states, and only seek to end the CURRENT form of the European Union, I don't see how they're even remotely xenophobic.

But anyway, that's off topic. It's nice to see how everything else posted there was completely ignored, just because everyone wanted to nitpick on something...
Ancient-Shivan War

Re: Join the Fight

#34
Well, that's nice and all. I admit, I could have been wrong on the percentage ( ha, didn't see that coming, did you? ) , but I'll have to disagree with your notion that UKIP is xenophobic. Considering that they want cooperation with European states, and only seek to end the CURRENT form of the European Union, I don't see how they're even remotely xenophobic.
The UKIP 2010 manifesto was to withdraw entirely from the EU. Technically that's ending the 'current form' of it, but I suspect not in the manner you meant. (Plus, the term cooperation doesn't actually mean much in political terms beyond 'not currently enemies')

UKIP is most definitely xenophobic* in the context of that election manifesto; aside from complete EU withdrawal, calling for a complete freeze of immigration for 5 years and limited to 50,000 thereafter, a requirement for immigrants to 'demonstrate loyalty to the Uk', ending 'government promotion of multiculturalism', 'safeguarding British weights' and imprisoning asylum seekers (or, as they used to be known, refugees)

(actually, arguable UKIP is more EIP, looking at their manifesto in it's rather inane detail; it doesn't even consider how policies will applied to the devolved parts of the UK, probably because they couldn't stretch their little minds outside of the bounds of Middle England)

*suffering from xenophobia; having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign.

Re: Join the Fight

#35
The UKIP 2010 manifesto was to withdraw entirely from the EU. Technically that's ending the 'current form' of it, but I suspect not in the manner you meant. (Plus, the term cooperation doesn't actually mean much in political terms beyond 'not currently enemies')

UKIP is most definitely xenophobic* in the context of that election manifesto; aside from complete EU withdrawal, calling for a complete freeze of immigration for 5 years and limited to 50,000 thereafter, a requirement for immigrants to 'demonstrate loyalty to the Uk', ending 'government promotion of multiculturalism', 'safeguarding British weights' and imprisoning asylum seekers (or, as they used to be known, refugees)

(actually, arguable UKIP is more EIP, looking at their manifesto in it's rather inane detail; it doesn't even consider how policies will applied to the devolved parts of the UK, probably because they couldn't stretch their little minds outside of the bounds of Middle England)

*suffering from xenophobia; having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign.
Seeking to withdraw from the EU and having strict immigration laws is NOT a sign of xenophobia. Wanting to control immigration, or demanding immigrants to demonstrate loyalty to the country they're moving to, doesn't show abnormal fear or hatred for anything.

But, frankly, this is not the time or place for discussing your flawed political views...
Ancient-Shivan War

Re: Join the Fight

#36
Seeking to withdraw from the EU and having strict immigration laws is NOT a sign of xenophobia. Wanting to control immigration, or demanding immigrants to demonstrate loyalty to the country they're moving to, doesn't show abnormal fear or hatred for anything.
I would wager I have a substantial deal more experience with UK Immigration law as it stands (and indeed the reality of it on human beings) than you do. The very desire to control immigration, the implicit assumption that immigrants are 'disloyal' (and, thus, some sort of threat), serves as evidence of fear of the other. That's xenophobia in action; they are to be restricted because they are not us.

Why define without context? It seems that the term 'immigrant' is seem as argument enough for not just restricting, but removing immigration - in a species with such vast variance as humanity, how can that level of nationalistic justification be anything but abnormal?

That a qualified doctor from the USA, a construction worker from Yemen, a biologist from China, an author from Iran, a mechanical engineer from Nigeria, a programmer from Argentina- all can be labelled and regarded as one homogeneous entity, somehow entirely different from the equally diverse group of people born on one nominal patch of ground, built around a concept abstract borders? Same person, different country = unworthy? If that can't be quantified as abnormal, it is certainly irrational.

Plus, how can a party that doesn't even properly recognise the devolved entities within the UK be taken seriously on an international viewpoint?
But, frankly, this is not the time or place for discussing your flawed political views...
It's a discussion forum. If you want to throw out an incendiary statement like 'flawed political views', you can at least have common decency to back it up.

I may or may not be talking Off Topic boll##ks, but at least I'm providing a justification for my views.

Re: Join the Fight

#37
Wall'o'text.
Good, and I respect your views, but disagree with them. And when I said that this is not the time and place to discuss this, is because this thread/topic/whateveryoucallit is of a different topic entirely ( ACTA stuff and such, not politics ), hence why I don't wish to discuss this.
Ancient-Shivan War

Re: Join the Fight

#38
The thread can be easily split, if you can explain / offer reasoning why my political (nee humanitarian) opinion is 'flawed'. Especially with regard to UKIP, whom I'd note you introduced in the first place by bringing in flawed (biased) statistics originating at least in part from them.

In fact, I have a button right here that can do it. I'll even agree to terminate the discussion after two reciprocal posts each, giving you the last word.

Re: Join the Fight

#39
To say someone's political view is flawed can in itself be an opinion. People of opposing parties and/or of different views automatically think anything different than their views is flawed simply because they don't agree.

Re: Join the Fight

#40
The thread can be easily split, if you can explain / offer reasoning why my political (nee humanitarian) opinion is 'flawed'. Especially with regard to UKIP, whom I'd note you introduced in the first place by bringing in flawed (biased) statistics originating at least in part from them.

In fact, I have a button right here that can do it. I'll even agree to terminate the discussion after two reciprocal posts each, giving you the last word.
No, thank you. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who thinks so highly of himself, that they'd be "noble" enough to give themselves a "handicap". Beside that, what you seek is to win an argument ( mostly because you feel your views threatened, or so ), and not to reach a resolution/consensus, making that debate pointless and, potentially, harmful.

And anyway, I already told you that I respect your opinion, but disagree with it. My comment that your political views are 'flawed' may have been out of place, but, hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion and expression of it.

Surely that's enough to end this pointless ( and, again, off-topic ) discussion, no?
To say someone's political view is flawed can in itself be an opinion. People of opposing parties and/or of different views automatically think anything different than their views is flawed simply because they don't agree.
Have you seen any parliament sessions? :p Saying that someone's political view is flawed is a very, VERY mild insult, compared to what's usually exchanged between politicians there.
Ancient-Shivan War

Re: Join the Fight

#42
Surely that's enough to end this pointless ( and, again, off-topic ) discussion, no?
If you will not defend your viewpoints, we might as well toss you out on your ass now, since you're quite literally not contributing.
EDIT: Just realized that I don't really care to respond to this.
Ancient-Shivan War

Re: Join the Fight

#43
No, thank you. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who thinks so highly of himself, that they'd be "noble" enough to give themselves a "handicap". Beside that, what you seek is to win an argument ( mostly because you feel your views threatened, or so ), and not to reach a resolution/consensus, making that debate pointless and, potentially, harmful.
Actually, I was referencing the tendency of internet discussion such as this to go into self-perpetuating infinity until someone gets bored enough to quit; something I'm no stranger to myself. Capping posts seems an ideal solution - but it wouldn't be very fair for me to say I'd have the last one, would it? I'm sorry you decided to twist that into something rather different, but it's not to me to dictate what you read - or choose to read - into.

You would be correct in that I want to win an argument; I'm not sure in exactly what the problem with that is, given that there do exist such things in the world as inherently contradictory opinions. If you can't adequately defend an opinion, why hold it?

It's not, however, a question of feeling threatened - more a personal animosity to those who would espouse opinions such as that of UKIP here, which frequently exhibit very little evident rational consideration or education. I've heard a lot of boll##ks talked about immigration, and immigrants, in my time. It happens to be an issue where I feel obliged to correct people.
To say someone's political view is flawed can in itself be an opinion. People of opposing parties and/or of different views automatically think anything different than their views is flawed simply because they don't agree.
Any statement can be described as an opinion, under the right context. What matters is the validity, or more specifically the depth of reasoning to support it. The stronger the assertion, whether as a general statement or a specific contradiction, the greater the requirement for, if not evidence, rational argument. If you say someone is wrong, you need to justify it in some manner, otherwise it's no different in context than an insult (even if a weak one).

I guess, what I mean, is if you want to walk away from an argument, do it with dignity rather than badly veiled attacks.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron