Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Rioting in Birmingham
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject:

to refresh your memory, you said:

Quote:

The serbs granted refugee muslims abode in Kosovo a couple centuries ago. Soon they had multiplied hugely and rapidly, started a war of partition and now have ethnically cleansed that ancient province of serbia of its original occupants.

Now where oh WHERE is there any evidence you are correct?

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:52 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

to refresh your memory, you said:

Quote:

Now where oh WHERE is there any evidence you are correct?

Do you support/ sympathise with Islam?

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_sharia.htm

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:27 am Post subject:

dude, give me a break. can't even admit a minor mistake. pathetic.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:30 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

dude, give me a break.

can't even admit a minor mistake. pathetic.

Well? yes or No?

Do you support Islam?

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:24 am Post subject:

do i support it? that's rather vague. I'll put it this way: I'm not against it.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject:

Typical of Rapier- lying and obfuscation to rpove a morally bankrupt point. Some things never change.

hypnotist

Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject:

Work and real life got in the way of Dave's (although I won't be part of the immigration stats when I return, unlike most of you guys, I will be off soon). But this was an interesting conversation I was having with bigverne.

bigverne wrote:

I'm not sure about most. In fact, many seem to be becoming more strident in their desire for more conservative attire. But, for me, the hijab is a manifestation of sexist muslim culture, which the British state should play no part in propagating.

Surveys show that young muslims are more strident than their parents - and that suggests in many cases muslim girls are choosing to wear the hijab against the wishes of (or at least without direct encouragement from) their parents. I agree the British state should not propagate - I would be the first to oppose wide-scale pro-hijab television adverts, or Government-sponsored "wear a hijab to work" days. Allowing young people to wear an article of religious clothing which does not interfere with school uniform or the pupil's well-being is not encouraging propagation. I'm happy with skullcaps, turbans and crosses on chains too.

Quote:

Well, I consider the future well being of my country to be of far more importance than the feelings of certain immigrant groups who fail to integrate.

But why the hell would they want to integrate into a closed-minded society like the one seemingly favoured by you? I consider the future well-being of my country to be far more important than protecting your feelings of superiority. The stance you take discourages integration. Even if we stopped taking new immigrants tomorrow, integration of the existing community would continue to be a challenge.

Quote:

A similar bill was introduced in Australia and it led to exactly what I have described. A Christian pastor was taken to court for claiming that Islam supported violence. He used Koranic texts to back up his assertion.

He went somewhat further than that (despite what Melanie Phillips chose to tell you):

AAP wrote:

Judge Higgins said Mr Scot had, throughout the seminar, made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct. "It was done, not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs," he said. "It was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people ..."

Judge Higgins said that during the seminar Mr Scot had claimed the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.

Mr Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.

The president of the Islamic Council, Yasser Soliman, said it had been important to make a stand. "We also had the support of the Catholic Church, the interfaith community and the Uniting Church and the Jewish community," Mr Soliman said. "It was very important that we all stood together against vilification and understand that vilification is a tool used by extremists, and we must always condemn extremism and vilification."

Quote:

The Bill is fundamentally wrong, not just in its poor wording, but the fact that it may criminalise legitimate criticism of religion, which is simply a philosophy, like any other, and people should be free to say what they like about any ideology or philosophy.

The bill seeks to criminalise religious hatred, not criticism of beliefs. In particular, "hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds" - the "against persons" part is important. As I've already said, a lot depends on exactly how this is interpreted by the courts, and so I am not willing to say I'm 100% happy with it. Nevertheless, whilst I agree with you that people should be free to say whatever they like about a philosophy, I don't agree that the same should apply to what one can say about people holding that philosophy. The distinction is an important one.

Quote:

Well, I've been to Wales and Scotland many times, and have many Welsh and Scottish friends, and the differences in culture are minimal. We all speak the same language, and for the last few hundred years have been part of the same country.

We all speak the same languages like Welsh and Gaelic, you mean?! And "the differences in culture are minimal" is exactly what I'd expect an Englishman ignorant of the culture north of the border to say. The cultures are identical in the way that English culture is identical to American, or Australian, or upper middle-class Indian, perhaps. There are some obvious, and some not-so-obvious differences.

Quote:

They attract some immigrants surely. However, others, notably muslims, do not come for the gender equality or free speech, but for the economic benefits, the free housing, free education and free healthcare. It is naive to think otherwise.

Better access to it rather than free, I'd argue - as I've said before, the majority want to work (and pay for it through their taxes). Encouraging an underclass of illegal immigrants to ensure our essential services are undertaken (as already happens in California, for example) is not in our interests or those of immigrants.

Quote:

The Scottish parliament perhaps, the Scottish electorate who knows. But my point stands, and perhaps immigration was a bad example, that Scottish MPs can vote on English matters, while the reverse is not the case.

But that is simply not true, at all!

English MPs can, and do vote on Scottish matters - even exclusively Scottish matters. See the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, etc. etc...

Quote:

In terms of the share of the vote it was much larger.

The share of the vote in the South East at the last election was Con 45% vs. Lab 24.4% - but attributing this to immigration is just daft. The figures from 1997 - the Labour landslide, and when immigration wasn't a hot issue - were Con 41.9% vs. Lab 29.1%.

Quote:

But isn't a rather large chunk of North Sea oil actually in English territorial waters? Anyway, you can have your oil, and we'll have our tax money back. I think that's fair.

No, and you seem to be missing the point - a lot of "your" tax money came from the North Sea in the first place.

Quote:

No, Enoch Powell was talking about immigration in general leading to bloody racial conflict, and as demonstrated by July 7th, he was right.

He was specifically talking about immigration from Commonwealth countries. And come on. One set of bombings is not bloody racial conflict. Were you against Irish immigration to the UK during the Troubles?

Quote:

I repeat what he says again:-

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population

He was spot on there.

He was off on the 1/10th, but his numbers weren't bad. And yet what he predicted has singularly failed to happen. The Thames hardly looked like the Tiber.

Quote:

Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

Correct again.

I'll give him that, but so what? It has always been thus, to some extent. Jews in Finchley, Irish in the East End / Liverpool / Glasgow, etc. The scale has changed, yes.

Quote:

I know it pains many liberals to admit it, but Enoch was quite right on a number of points he made. Perhaps, if he had not made quite such a hysterical speech, the debate on immigration would not have been such a touchy subject for decades. Whether he is referring to Commonwealth immigrants or not, large sections of our cities are becoming increasingly foreign, non-white areas.

In saying that he was completely wrong, it was the tone and sentiment we're referring to - not every single line. Even agreeing with some of his predictions I can continue to disagree with the things he infers from those predictions.

(Please be careful with phrases like "foreign, non-white". Do you actually believe that there can be no black Englishmen, or was this just clumsy? And why are foreign, non-white areas worse than foreign, white areas?)

Quote:

This trend will only increase, as whites move out to the suburbs and more immigrants move in. The divided society that so many on the left seem to be desperate to prevent is continuing apace, in large part due to the continuation of large scale immigration from the tird world.

This trend is certainly true in London, but how about in other cities? I've not seen any evidence either way, to be honest. But in any case, it tends to be affluent people who move to the suburbs - that doesn't exclude non-white people.

Quote:

The elite continues to laud the benefits of multiculturalism, but as the movements of people on the ground show, most people prefer their own kind. I see nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does somewhat undermine this idea of a 'multicultural' society.

I see this as a class issue, not a race issue. Then again, I am a socialist Wink

Quote:

Just because Powell was wrong about Sikhs, does not mean that similar concerns about the muslim community are not well founded. There are certain issues specific to the muslim community, such as violent extremism, the status of women, and the nature of Islam itself which pose problems not found in other communities.

But all those accusations have, in the past, been levelled at other groups! Islam is indeed the problem du jour, but one does get a strong feeling of deja vu.

There are valid concerns about the muslim community, but I don't believe the nature of Islam is one of them.

Quote:

I'm sure this is exactly the same with many immigrants from Somalia and Pakistan. Many come here with high hopes, remain poor, and end up being a burden on the state. It makes far more sense to simply encourage immigrants who have relevant skills and who will integrate. When you import people from rural Pakistan and places like Somalia, you are merely importing poverty.

But if you import the top of society from them, you're imposing poverty on them. That's my point. If we need skilled workers from abroad - which we do - we should be training them ourselves. Not actively seeking to take the few people best placed to make a difference at home.

We're asking very different questions here, reflecting our different viewpoints. We both agree that poor immigrant families living off state handouts aren't good for either side. I do honestly believe that the failure is where they end up, not that they arrive in the first place.

Quote:

There are plenty of jobs available in London I can tell you. I was disgusted yesterday to see an able bodied man begging in the street next to a cafe that was advertising for work. Obviously, pouring coffee was beneath him.

Why "obviously"? Perhaps employing someone who has begged was below the cafe?

The old no job - no home - no job cycle is still very real.

A huge majority of the homeless are mentally ill, too.

Quote:

The fact is that the welfare state has created a minority of people who think the state owes them something, and are not prepared to work or better themselves. From your list, it looks like it is difficult to get dole, yet there must be something wrong with the system, because all of the service jobs in London are now done by foreigners.

That's capitalism - the foreigners are prepared to sleep three to a room, they typically don't have families in London to support, and they don't care too much what kind of work they do. And that's just the Aussies! Working in London is bloody expensive. The cost of housing, the cost of transport and other hidden costs mean it's basically impossible to work in London with any kind of sustainability in a low-end service job wage - unless there's a better earner in the household.

There are a few people who do believe the state owes them something, and I'm happy to see people put to work to earn their keep (though I'd rather there was rather more carrot than stick). It seems that incapacity benefit is the big problem.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. Immigrants who come here should have skills and should be able to support themselves. The idea that my tax should go towards educating and funding poor, unskilled immigrants when such funding could have been avoided merely by importing skilled workers is absurd.

It's not absurd, and moreover it's sustainable. Invest in them now and have them contributing to the tax system in a few years - why does that make no sense?

Taking the most skilled workers from abroad is not sustainable (and if we make it hard for them to bring over their families, they aren't going to come anyway).

Quote:

No, they came here because of our toothless immigration system, our useless legal system, the ease of working cash in hand, and the many benefits we offer in terms of healthcare and education. Many may not come to England with the intention of living on the dole, but many end up doing just that.

I'll agree with your last statement, and the fact that the black economy is strong - but that's one byproduct of making it so difficult for these people to work legally.

Most immigrants probably don't have the faintest clue about our immigration system or education system (though perhaps the traffickers do). They do know about the UK and have some idea of what life is like - and the fact it's English-speaking probably helps a lot, too.

Quote:

That is a gross generalisation, which puts the single American software developer and the young Indian scientist with the Eritrean family of six living in Peckham. Some immigrants contribute a great deal, while others are a drain on the state. If we need immigrants, we need skilled immigrants, not people from the most backward countries on earth.

How will these backward countries ever move forward if we take all their educated people?

It's true that it's a gross generalisation, but nevertheless it's true.

(Do you know any good Eritrean restaurants in Peckham? I've eaten at the Ethiopian on Caledonian Road but I don't like living in North London and it's a pain to get to.)

Quote:

No, we could do even better if we stopped allowing in unskilled migrants. England is a very small country, with a very large population. If we need immigrants we should make sure they have relevant skills, and that they will not be a drain on the economy. We need to tighten up the rules on family reunion, and start deporting those thousands of people that are here illegally.

The population density of the UK isn't that high, as I've said before. High, yes, but hardly in the top league. I agree that we should avoid immigrants being a drain on the economy, but I don't agree with your methods of ensuring that. And aren't a very large number of illegals actually people from places like Australia overstaying their visas?

Quote:

If they are here illegally, if they have been involved in crime, and if they are a drain on the state then it is. Nobody has an inherent right to come and settle in the UK. We have more than enough unemployed people here, so why don't we concentrate on training them, and getting them back into work?

I'd agree in the second case, if the crime were serious. Unemployment is at a historical low, but I take your point - that said, why should it be either/or? And once again - if they are a drain on the state, why not educate them so they aren't? In truth it would probably be cheaper than expelling them.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

I'm not against it.

So...you are not against the stoning to death of women who have sex outside of marriage.
You are not against the public flogging of drinkers and gamblers. (had a beer lately?)

You are not against husbands being allowed to hit their wives.

You are not against state-sanctioned torture: thieves having their hands or feet cut off.

As you are not against it...you condone the killing of anyone having sex outside marriage. You thinks its ok that all homosexuals must be executed.

You are not against the killing of anyone who disagrees with islam or criticizes Islam. You are not against the public murder of anyone who chooses to leave Islam, or change their faith. The killing of apostates, as ordered by the Quran and hadith passages. As are all of the above, either exemplified by muhammad himself, ordered in the quran, or hadiths.

WAY TO GO BUCHEON BUM!

Hey everyone! Bucheon bum supports the brutal oppression, torture and killing of anyone who disagrees with Islam!
Nice to know where you stand.

jaganath69

Joined: 17 Jul 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject:

That's not the Islam that I have seen/experienced in many different parts of the world. If you can get away with labeling all Muslims thus, I would be justified in calling you a bigot, or worse. Its a good thing I know that you are just one of the mixed nuts in the peanut gallery that is this forum.

jaganath69

Joined: 17 Jul 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Again Bigverne sails close to the wind with his courting of the forces of British Fascism. Given your hasty backdown concerning the BNP, it's surprising to see you at it again, giving tacit support to Powell. Your moral equivalence between those you label 'legitimate politicians' and Islamic terrorists would further call to attention your inate ability to understand the meaning of chutzpah or hypocrisy.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject:

rapier wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

I'm not against it.

Way to generalize there.

thanks for proving how pathetic you are. You are not a man, you are a disgusting speciman who cannot admit when he is wrong. You are a disgrace to the human race. Does it really hurt that much to know that someone is more intelligent than you? Apparently so.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject:

jaganath69 wrote:

If you can get away with labeling all Muslims thus

,

I am not labelling all muslims thus, don't go putting words into my mouth (a favorite trick of yours?)

What I am saying is that Islam orders all of the above as a way of life.. (err, death).
I'm not saying every muslim agrees with it. Probably most don't but they have no choice in the matter.
What counts is that such evil is ordered by Muhammad and the hadiths themsleves.
It may not always occurr in every muslim country. But it has the propensity and justification from the Quran. It is prescribed in the Quran. Thus..no muslim, not even muslim govts will argue with it, should more extreme muslims insist that it take place.

Quote:

I would be justified in calling you a bigot, or worse.

Am I bigot against an evil system of repression creeping over the earth? Of course!

Just because you didn't personally see the above happen on your holidays, doesn't mean it doesn't.
If you like I'll support it all with graphic evidence and photographs, cite individual cases, quote the Quran and relevant hadiths.

People like you are condoning evil by wayof trying to appear well travelled and educated.

So Jaganath. Do you support Islam?

If so, you support all that it proscribes. All the half-baked and mind-numbing violence and brutality that has typified it since its inception. The enslavement of people.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Way to generalize there.

So..you support Islam, but disagree with vaste swathes of its philosophy, laws and reality? Why not fill us in BB: you like the hand cutting off part, but you disagree with the beheadings...

Quote:

thanks for proving how pathetic you are. You are not a man, you are a disgusting speciman who cannot admit when he is wrong. You are a disgrace to the human race. Does it really hurt that much to know that someone is more intelligent than you? Apparently so.

Oh, personal insults now? The last desperate last resort already?
Your argument based on an overblown sense of your own smug "intelligence" shatters, so you go for the personal attack option to cause a diversion.
I agree my remark about muslims flooding Kosovo 200 years back was incorrect. But they were allowed in en masse under Tito. Which allowed them the confidence tospark a war.You sieze on one irrelevant point to distract from the entire basis of the debate.

Read up on the reality of life under Islam before you continue parading your pompous stupidity any further, and supporting evil and repression.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject:

rapier wrote:

Oh, personal insults now? The last desperate last resort already?

i'll end this with one word: hypocrite.

Leslie Cheswyck

Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:12 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

rapier wrote:

Oh, personal insults now? The last desperate last resort already?

i'll end this with one word: hypocrite.

Well, Buch, who or what are we going to believe? The words of the prophet Mohammed himself as written in the Koran and the hadiths, or the words of some kid who backpacked his way through the Middle East?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe