George Ferguson (Merged many times)

[chipdawg]

20 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Nobody is doubting that you could do that.  The point is that you can easily flip that around and show pictures of women that have been battered and gang raped by European men.  Photos of white Catholic priests who thought they could abuse children can be shown.  White pop stars and DJs from the 70's can be used as an example of why a bit of fame can make you "untouchable" from prosecution for decades.  Muslim's do not have the monopoly on evil men.

I agree that stats can be used to skew a picture, but they are far more reliable than a random person on the internet quoting anecdotes or saying that they have evidence but that they will not post it as people have to search it out themselves.

Similarly, a google image search would reveal thousands of pictures of men, women and children brutalised by the actions of European nations in  foreign cultures, in which we turned up uninvited- Algeria, Kenya, Malaysia, Palestine all spring to mind from the last 60 years or so (leaving aside more recent wars in Iraq or Afghanistan where the imperialism was perhaps less defined) where European powers have killed native people in their own towns and villages because their culture bestows a level of morality which allows them to. If we're apportioning cultural liability for the actions of individuals, we have a lot of apologising to do

[richwwtk]

I'm amazed that people still take BB seriously following his "Hitler had a point" statements a few weeks back.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

For someone who's supposedly 'sat on the fence' you seem to spend a lot of time and effort attacking Labour, liberals and the more left-thinking posters on here.

Ah the typical liberal response, to sit on the fence I have to attack in equal measures, aww bless.

Here goes poppet, Cameron puts his tinkle into pigs mouths, Osbourne is a pooh pants, Teresa May or may not take it up the wrong un.

PS:- I was actually talking about the subject matter of this particular thread and my point is why the TV stations only seem to be putting a positive spin on the whole situation and even editing videos to that end, why isn't there balanced reporting?.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

11 hours ago, Moloch said:

The 2000 ICVS was published in 2005. It is the most recent UN survey of attitudes towards policing and crime.

I understand that your argument is this: reported rape has increased in Sweden over the last 10 years. Muslim immigration to Sweden has increased over the last 10 years. Therefore, muslims are commiting the additional rapes.

However, correlation does not prove causation. You have demonstrated a logical fallacy, which is formally known as "cum hoc ergo propter hoc". A similar example is the Redskins Rule, in which the result of the last home game by the Washington Redskins prior to the presidential election predicted the outcome of every US presidential election from 1936 to 2000.

Furthermore, in 2005, the definition of rape changed in Sweden and so did the way that the statistics are recorded. This makes a longitudinal comparison difficult. The following is lifted from Bra, which is the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

 

 

The link that EMB provided was to a Wikipedia page, which was the subject of a disputed neutrality tag.

Among the reasons for the disputed neutrality tag are:

• Cherrypicking - this is is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
• Poor quality sources - for example, the subsection of the article about the UK cites a blog called Psych and Society. Blogs are not reliable sources and this one has an obvious political slant. I read another article on the blog which includes the line, "Taken together it is obvious the Islam poses a serious demographic, cultural, and safety threat to the European way of life that many currently enjoy." (I include this as evidence of lack of neutrality)
• Propaganda - the article is written in order to promote a specific point of view.
• Undue weight - minority opinion is given an excessive prominence in the article. Wiki's explanation is as follows - Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view.

If we accept your theory that immigrants cause an increase in crime, then clearly one response is to send them home. However, a 2013 study by Migration Observatory at Oxford University concluded there has been, "a continuous reduction in overall property crimes in England and Wales since 2002 corresponded with a rising foreign-born population, but there is no evidence to suggest that rising migration caused this decline in crime rates."

Crime is falling and immigration is rising. The authors state there is no evidence of a link between the two facts.

of course all of the other data provided on migrants/refugees is spot on of course, undeniable, the whole truth?.

The TV reporting is not balanced and an exasperated France is waking up and seeing that and are now airing a more balanced approach, a lot of French charities including left wing groups are now very selective about whom they target with their charitable offerings and are targeting any families, who are in an overwhelming minority at Calais.

 

[BS2 Red]

27 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

 

So are you going to say "let's stop and roll-back immigration from islamic nations" then?

As for every other rapist, sure, chop their knobs off and lock them away.

 

There are two parts to your argument there.

Firstly you are suggesting that because of the law breaking of a tiny minority of a small minority we should be stopping people from that minority from coming here.  That makes no sense from a logical standpoint.  Collective punishment is a hideous way to deal with a problem, akin to the idea of carpet bombing Northern Ireland to stop the IRA.  We should screen potential immigrants (of any nation, race or religion) to stop known lawbreakers from entering, but we should not enact a ban on a certain type of person just because some people a bit like them did something bad.  Do you think we should stop Dutch people from coming here because a Dutch person murdered Joanna Yeates?  Having a "no Muslim's allowed" law is just ridiculous and so no I am not going to say that. 

Secondly you are suggesting rolling back immigration?  I assume that means you want to deport people that are living here who have not broken the law, just because of their race/religion?  How far back do you want to go?  Just Muslim people that came here from abroad?  Muslim people that were born here to immigrant Muslim parents?  Anybody that has any ancestry from Islamic countries?  I see no reason for a mass deportation of people based solely on their religion or the religion of their parents and so no I am not going to say that either. 

[BCFC Jimmer]

Ah, the return of Big Brother and his stone age views on immigration and society in general.  The man is literally a fossilized dinosaur.

To summarize proceedings for any newbies -

• He post links to biggoted Youtube videos or links to stories of brown people committing crimes.
• When you disagree with him he claims he has proof yet rarely backs anything up.  He also refuses to allow you to apply any kind of perspective of rational thinking to an argument (even if what you are saying is a stone wall fact).  Another favourite tactic of his is to claim you are in denial (which is usually both patronising and incorrect.)
• His buddy EMB and other right wing cronies antagonise, ridicule or keep peddling the same old comments to you until you give up or if you have kept arguing with him long enough you will get a nice story about his life and how he has been an immigrant himself *slaps head*
• He claims he is speaking for 'the people' and that many people agree with him (Yet I have never met anyone in my life with such views).
• Cycle starts again.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

29 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Ah, the return of Big Brother and his stone age views on immigration and society in general.  The man is literally a fossilized dinosaur.

To summarize proceedings for any newbies -

• He post links to biggoted Youtube videos or links to stories of brown people committing crimes.
• When you disagree with him he claims he has proof yet rarely backs anything up.  He also refuses to allow you to apply any kind of perspective of rational thinking to an argument (even if what you are saying is a stone wall fact).  Another favourite tactic of his is to claim you are in denial (which is usually both patronising and incorrect.)
• His buddy EMB and other right wing cronies antagonise, ridicule or keep peddling the same old comments to you until you give up or if you have kept arguing with him long enough you will get a nice story about his life and how he has been an immigrant himself *slaps head*
• He claims he is speaking for 'the people' and that many people agree with him (Yet I have never met anyone in my life with such views).
• Cycle starts again.

 

More lies from our resident liar, which website did you buy your degree from?, you really ought to try reading posts thoroughly and stop peddling your vicious lies, you have been rumbled by many as a nutter, give it a rest.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

 you have been rumbled by many as a nutter, give it a rest.

 

I'm a nutter?! I'm not the one posting bigoted material.

Goodness, I despair....

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

I'm a nutter?! I'm not the one posting bigoted material.

Goodness, I despair....

Once more let's have the proof, show me one bigoted post, either put up or **** off?.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

Just now, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Once more let's have the proof, show me one bigoted post, either put up or **** off?.

 

There's those antagonizing comments I was talking about coming out again...

How about 50% of Big Brothers posts and the thread that was deleted as it was deemed unacceptable by the mods?

 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

12 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

There's those antagonizing comments I was talking about coming out again...

How about 50% of Big Brothers posts and the thread that was deleted as it was deemed unacceptable by the mods?

 

 

i'm not big brother and as far as i'm aware haven't attached one like to any of his posts, in fact I don't actually read them or the links.

Really for the very last time, I am pretty much apolitical in as much as I hate most of them.

I have said on this thread I have nothing against migrants/refugees, as long as the security checks are stringent and they are genuine, I further backed it up with, "I would rather the UK took 20,000 genuine refugees than support 20,000 benefits cheats".

That is not a bigoted stance it is the stance of a normal concerned citizen.

Your defence appears to be trying to align me with big brother and that is total and utter bullshit and a vicious lie, you really are a nasty lying piece of work.

PS:- Antagonising is not bigoted, look it up in the dictionary.

[BCFC Jimmer]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

i'm not big brother and as far as i'm aware haven't attached one like to any of his posts, in fact I don't actually read them or the links.

Really for the very last time, I am pretty much apolitical in as much as I hate most of them.

I have said on this thread I have nothing against migrants/refugees, as long as the security checks are stringent and they are genuine, I further backed it up with, "I would rather the UK took 20,000 genuine refugees than support 20,000 benefits cheats".

That is not a bigoted stance it is the stance of a normal concerned citizen.

Your defence appears to be trying to align me with big brother and that is total and utter bullshit and a vicious lie, you really are a nasty lying piece of work.

PS:- Antagonising is not bigoted, look it up in the dictionary.

Don't be so sensitive.  You accused me of being a 'nutter' so I made a reference to Big brothers posts to put that into context.  Your last post and a couple of other posts have come across as antagonizing.

If you don't believe in politics you are going to have a hard time.  Whatever people say, I believe we still have great democracy in this country compared to others. I believe people can make a change if they want to.

[Red-Robbo]

4 hours ago, chipdawg said:

Similarly, a google image search would reveal thousands of pictures of men, women and children brutalised by the actions of European nations in  foreign cultures, in which we turned up uninvited- Algeria, Kenya, Malaysia, Palestine all spring to mind from the last 60 years or so (leaving aside more recent wars in Iraq or Afghanistan where the imperialism was perhaps less defined) where European powers have killed native people in their own towns and villages because their culture bestows a level of morality which allows them to. If we're apportioning cultural liability for the actions of individuals, we have a lot of apologising to do

PEDANT MODE:/ON

Palestine was colonised by the Ottoman Turks, Chip. We only had a peace-keeping mandate there as a post WWI temporary measure. It was never part of the British Empire.

PEDANT MODE:/EX 

[chipdawg]

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

I meant to respond to a post you made a while back and wrote the post but forgot to post it.  It was about stats (and well done for trying to get a rough idea of the numbers) but also about colonialism as I remember so I'll post this as a response.

http://youtu.be/F91Uj5rmSeI?t=3m30s

 

 

Well I'd be interested to see your response if you can ever recall it

I think you (and if he ever read it and responded as he does in his video, Douglas Murray) are misconstruing my point. I don't feel a personal responsibility for the acts of colonialism- I didn't participate in it (my family are on one side Irish immigrants to Canada and on the other Welsh/English working class) so the White male privilege I undoubtedly enjoy is merely by a quirk of genetics than any acts or deeds that put me where I am today. We should be aware of what was done in our name in the past and we should acknowledge that we benefit from it every day, but I don't think we should carry any guilt around on a personal level

But, if we are to make all Muslim immigrants responsible for the horrible acts of a few- which is in essence what a 'send them all home' (and forgive me for generalising, which I acknowledge I'm doing) doctrine does- then surely we also have to apply the same standards to the acts of our fellow Europeans in foreign lands in relation to us? That is not to ignore the plain fact that undoubtedly immigrants to Europe and the U.K. commit crimes, which they undoubtedly do and should be punished for. It's just that if we want to see part of that punishment applied collectively, on the basis of a shared religion, then we surely also have to look elsewhere I recent history

[chipdawg]

12 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

PEDANT MODE:/ON

Palestine was colonised by the Ottoman Turks, Chip. We only had a peace-keeping mandate there as a post WWI temporary measure. It was never part of the British Empire.

PEDANT MODE:/EX 

I think your pedant mode may be malfunctioning there Robbo. I agree that Palestine was not a colony, but I said "...the actions of European nations in  foreign cultures, in which we turned up uninvited..." and we wrote our own invitation to Palestine in the name of the League Of Nations British Mandate in Palestine. This summarises it reasonably well;

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-middle-east-1917-to-1973/palestine-1918-to-1948/

[Red-Robbo]

45 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

I think your pedant mode may be malfunctioning there Robbo. I agree that Palestine was not a colony, but I said "...the actions of European nations in  foreign cultures, in which we turned up uninvited..." and we wrote our own invitation to Palestine in the name of the League Of Nations British Mandate in Palestine. This summarises it reasonably well;

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-middle-east-1917-to-1973/palestine-1918-to-1948/

Uninvited?  Ever seen Lawrence of Arabia?  They staged an Arab revolt against 400 years of Turkish colonial rule and invited the EEF in to help them!

After the war you were were faced with various former Ottoman vilayets thst had no central authority,  no administration and a volatile,  racially mixed population. The League of Nations appointed Britain as mandate in Palestine. We didn't want it. No natural resources and a hotbed of inter-faith violence. FE Smith said it was like adopting a nest of cobras.

I guess whoever wrote that link equates a mandate by whiteys to prepare a country for self-rule as colonialism whereas hundreds of years of repression and exploitation by dusky Turks and Egyptians is fair enough???

[chipdawg]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Uninvited?  Ever seen Lawrence of Arabia?  They staged an Arab revolt against 400 years of Turkish colonial rule and invited the EEF in to help them!

After the war you were were faced with various former Ottoman vilayets thst had no central authority,  no administration and a volatile,  racially mixed population. The League of Nations appointed Britain as mandate in Palestine. We didn't want it. No natural resources and a hotbed of inter-faith violence. FE Smith said it was like adopting a nest of cobras.

I guess whoever wrote that link equates a mandate by whiteys to prepare a country for self-rule as colonialism whereas hundreds of years of repression and exploitation by dusky Turks and Egyptians is fair enough???

Agree to disagree. My point still stands (and actually it was never really my point in the first place! Read my subsequent post) that British people went over there and killed natives of the land. And I'd even be prepared to withdraw it as my other references stand as far as I'm concerned

[BCFC Jimmer]

7 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

 

You are wrong. That thread was removed due to complaints from forum users and the level of personal abuse that was being dished-out. How do I know this? I asked, and one of them told me.  We're all guests here so I toned down the pics and have tried very hard not to get personal, which, on balance, actually feels better.  

I have to say though that when I was realised that grown men had taken the trouble to complain about my posts rather than ignore them I had a real 'WTF?' moment.  It appears TS Eliot was write when he wrote "Human kind cannot bear very much reality" (Burnt Norton).

As for my posts / comments being antagonistic to you Collis ... sorry if my point of view hurts your feelings dear.  

 

Strictly speaking it was still unacceptable to the mods. I assume they have their own brains and read the complaints then took appropriate action.

To be fair the 'antagonising' comment wasn't specifically aimed at you.  Although, your posts often spark a reaction from me because I find them on the whole very offensive and sometimes lacking any substance.

And just as I start to think your OK, you do it again.

 

 

[chipdawg]

33 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Step 1 - Stop mass immigration from Islamic nations. 

Step 2 - Hunt down and evict all illegals, economic migrants and criminals, wherever they come from.

Step 3 - Cut-off all public funding for Islam, stop the building of mosques indefinitely and close all Islamic schools.

That's all I ask.  Note I didn't say Hindu or Sikh. There is a reason for that.

PS The concept of 'white male privilege' is designed to make you feel bad about yourself.  

 

 

 

So as I surmised, punish the many for the acts of the few? As always, your opinion is very much one you're entitled to, but I certainly disagree with it

As for your last point, I think you're right to an extent and I don't feel 'guilty' as I said before: feeling guilty about genetics of which you had no say is pointless. But that's not to say it doesn't exist and we shouldn't be conscious of it

[BCFC Jimmer]

30 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

So as I surmised, punish the many for the acts of the few? As always, your opinion is very much one you're entitled to, but I certainly disagree with it

I think its borderline to be entitled to that opinion when he is so blatantly generalizing against a specific religion.

Its appalling and offensive.  A lot of British people have encroached their values on strict Muslims countries, its not a one way thing.

Im out of this debate for good.  You're not going to win with this guy.  One track mind.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Don't be so sensitive.  You accused me of being a 'nutter' so I made a reference to Big brothers posts to put that into context.  Your last post and a couple of other posts have come across as antagonizing.

If you don't believe in politics you are going to have a hard time.  Whatever people say, I believe we still have great democracy in this country compared to others. I believe people can make a change if they want to.

There you go again, you really can't help yourself can you?, you accused me of being a bigot twice before I countered, please a starting point with you should be to stop making shit up, that might be helpful and if my last couple of posts came over as antagonising that is exactly the mood I was aiming for, I will not allow you or anybody to call me a bigot or a racist and falsely accuse me of being aligned with big brother or anybody else because I am my own person, I don't support one side of the political spectrum like some people do with their football team.

Why would I have a hard time?, I don't expect much and that way i'm not disappointed and if you truly believed in democracy you would agree with me that any reporting should be balanced and I don't believe that it is for whatever reason.

For the record i'm not sensitive i've seen far too many horrific things in my life to be sensitive, I am honest and if you don't like my answers don't ask the questions.

[Kid in the Riot]

7 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Step 1 - Stop mass immigration from Islamic nations. 

Step 2 - Hunt down and evict all illegals, economic migrants and criminals, wherever they come from.

Step 3 - Cut-off all public funding for Islam, stop the building of mosques indefinitely and close all Islamic schools.

That's all I ask.  Note I didn't say Hindu or Sikh. There is a reason for that.

PS The concept of 'white male privilege' is designed to make you feel bad about yourself.  

Edit: If the government implemented Step 3. we would very quickly find-out how 'peaceful' a large section of the islamic community really is.

What's that then? Hindu/Sikhs don't rape people? I seem to recall last year that was a gang rape crisis in India, a country in the main inhabited by Hindus I believe.

[Red-Robbo]

8 hours ago, chipdawg said:

Agree to disagree. My point still stands (and actually it was never really my point in the first place! Read my subsequent post) that British people went over there and killed natives of the land. And I'd even be prepared to withdraw it as my other references stand as far as I'm concerned

Fair enough. Palestine was a peace-keeping mandate. British troops were very reluctantly put between Arab nationalists and Zionists. Bloodshed ensued. It might have been much worse had they not been there.

I have my own theories on colonialism. We routinely beat ourselves up/ allow ourselves to be denigrated by others over it. Rare, if not unique, is the country which has not expanded in an unwelcome way into a less-advanced and weaker neighbour. Indeed virtually no nation, including England, Ireland and Wales would exist had this process not happened. While we might agree it's a troubling fact, it seems historically inevitable. Today, due to the technological horror of warfare, expansion tends (not always) to be in the form of economic servitude rather than direct invasion. And while we consider colonialism,  let's not forget the "what have  the Romans ever done for us?" question. 

All of which is only tangentially related to what you were saying Chip, so I'll zip it. :-)

[Barrs Court Red]

7 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

What's that then? Hindu/Sikhs don't rape people? I seem to recall last year that was a gang rape crisis in India, a country in the main inhabited by Hindus I believe.

Was? Only last month a toddler was raped.

 

[Moloch]

On 06/11/2015 08:24:49, Big Brother said:

Your post offers nothing I'm afraid and no offense but if playing games with statistics and typing-out long definitions of debating tactics helps you sleep at night then keep taking the happy pill my friend.

However for every stat you publish I could post a pic of a battered European woman that has been violently gang raped by Somalian immigrants or show you a police report of an English under-aged girl that has been systematically sexually abused by groups of muslim immigrants who believe their religion permits such an abomination.

Stats or the lives of real people? I know which is more important to me.

"It feels grand when you're living in LaLa land"

All Star United - 'La La Land'.

I took the time to write that out because I thought you were interested in intelligent argument.

Condell's video is based on a mis-interpretation of the statistics. I think he does it deliberately to promote a specific agenda which I disagree with.

If you want to have a debate please feel free to respond. If you only want to talk to people who agree with you then there are better places to do that.

[Moloch]

On 06/11/2015 11:34:45, Esmond Million's Bung said:

of course all of the other data provided on migrants/refugees is spot on of course, undeniable, the whole truth?.

The TV reporting is not balanced and an exasperated France is waking up and seeing that and are now airing a more balanced approach, a lot of French charities including left wing groups are now very selective about whom they target with their charitable offerings and are targeting any families, who are in an overwhelming minority at Calais.

 

You were happy to use the stats in the Wiki page you quoted. Good statistics are important, and good data is the basis for that.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Moloch said:

You were happy to use the stats in the Wiki page you quoted. Good statistics are important, and good data is the basis for that.

 

My god the misrepresentation that some people will stoop to push their view FFS, I never held it as anything other than interesting, my point is you and others stand by your sources but rubbish everybody else's, they can't all be right and they can't all be wrong, as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle, just like the TV reporting, but of course because that doesn't suit you I don't expect you to agree.

[Moloch]

46 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

My god the misrepresentation that some people will stoop to push their view FFS, I never held it as anything other than interesting, my point is you and others stand by your sources but rubbish everybody else's, they can't all be right and they can't all be wrong, as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle, just like the TV reporting, but of course because that doesn't suit you I don't expect you to agree.

I rubbished the sources in the wiki page because they are rubbish. I'm sorry that you felt it was a personal attack - it certainly wasn't meant that way.

Why was the page interesting? You didn't say. Was it for the reader to draw their own conclusions? I've drawn mine and posted what I thought, which was that it was biased and unhelpful piece, which used unreliable sources.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

19 minutes ago, Moloch said:

I rubbished the sources in the wiki page because they are rubbish. I'm sorry that you felt it was a personal attack - it certainly wasn't meant that way.

Why was the page interesting? You didn't say. Was it for the reader to draw their own conclusions? I've drawn mine and posted what I thought, which was that it was biased and unhelpful piece, which used unreliable sources.

OK i'm convinced.

 

[chipdawg]

On 6 November 2015 at 16:01:09, Big Brother said:

Here's how far apart we are: when I read 'punish the many' I think 'Europeans' and when I read 'acts of the few' I think 'immigrants'.

'genetics' ... let's stay away from that topic!

 

Otib has been playing up all day, plus the distraction of a match day

Fair enough, the human eye often sees what it wants. However, you knew what I meant so I do feel you're dodging the issue here BB

I'm not really sure why we need to stay away from 'genetics'- you make it sound awfully sinister. No ones trying to cross a pig with an elephant here are they?