|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 29, 2014 13:20:04 GMT
If I say that we are flooded with immigrants and someone does not understand what I mean... It's perfectly clear what you mean, cleefy. Understanding what you mean is not the problem; the problem is that by the introduction of your 'flooding' metaphor you are attempting to state as objective fact what is not fact at all. If someone understands what is meant by a metaphor then 'objective' facts are irreevant unless the person that understands what is meant actually wants objective facts to support their understanding - they simply have to ask If you state that a certain number of immigrants have come into the country, or into a certain area; if you tell us that a certain percentage do not speak English; better still if you tell us actual numbers - all this is verifiable. Indeed it is, just as the concept of 'flooding' is verifiable; indeed if you purport to undertsand what is meant by 'flooding' in this context then you must have aan idea of how that concept can be verified - if you do not then you do not 'understand what is meant' by the concept of 'flooding' in this context But if you speak of flooding, with its connotations of death, destruction, drowning, you have left the realms of objective fact and are dealing in emotions. Nonsense -as explained above the concept of 'flooding ' is as verifiable as any other in tis context Then why not stick to the non-emotive language in the first place? @emotional' language is not necessarily divorced from the actuality - in many cases it simply lends emphasis to what is being discussed I wonder how many people who've started to think in the sort of terms you use have no real experience of immigration at all, but have picked up the fear-inducing language from the Daily Mail, and people like you and Nick. In the days before UKIP, when the chief source of anti-immigration rhetoric was the BNP, it was noticable that the council wards in Liverpool where the BNP polled most votes were the ones where there was almost no immigration at all. All of this is emotive tosh in support of your barren ideology Successive pols have shown that those that experience mass immigration are more likely to hold the view that mass immigration is harmful to their society - your blessed 'working class' in particular that you have such theoretical admiration for but in reality such contempt
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 29, 2014 14:23:21 GMT
If someone understands what is meant by a metaphor then 'objective' facts are irrelevant... I'll leave you to think about that for a bit, cleefy.
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 29, 2014 15:05:36 GMT
swamping, flooding and gushing were terms Thatcher is associated with (or didn't properly understand), denoting things she disapproved of and assumed others would be frit of. Those are the ones that come to mind, but there are others, probably to be found in E Powell's speeches. Politicos have a responsibility to reflect their constituents' views, but in a balanced way that doesn't incite hatred and discrimination. In my experience, Thatcher's use of 'swamping' and 'gushing' (about different things, of course) convinced me she was as prejudiced as my mother - but she shouldn't have been, having been educated. (Oh, Oxford: that explains it.) Aqua you are becoming extremely boring and irrelevant in your uncritical ideological support for mass immigration Never once have you put forward a cogent argument that in support of mass immigration (perhaps because no such cogent argument can be made) yet you continually carp and criticise those that argue against mass immigration - in this case you find their 'language' objectionable as if the language of debate is more important than the subject I’ve never made any argument in support of mass immigration. I neither approve nor disapprove of it. What I do approve of is the way most ‘indigenous’ Brits have adapted reasonably tolerantly to more diversity in society over the last 60+ years. I think this has been a healthy development, with many win-win bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 29, 2014 15:35:15 GMT
I’ve never made any argument in support of mass immigration. True , but your continual sniping at those who crticise Mass immigration would suggest (forcefully) that you do support it I neither approve nor disapprove of it. Well a disinterested observer might be somewhat misled by reading your postings on the subject What I do approve of is the way most ‘indigenous’ Brits have adapted reasonably tolerantly to more diversity in society over the last 60+ years. I think this has been a healthy development, with many win-win bonuses. We agree then. Where we disagree (apparently) is with the severe imposition upon the idigenous population that continued mass immigration imposes
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 29, 2014 16:41:35 GMT
Cleefarquhar, you put it to me that I showed uncritical ideological support for mass immigration. (My emphasis.)
I’m not sure precisely what ideology necessarily involves support for mass immigration, or how you define ‘mass’. I suppose my stance (rather than ideology) is that I believe large shifts of population in an increasingly populous and unequal world are inevitable; that I’m not prepared to condemn the extent and nature of the immigration that has occurred here since the 1960s, or the aspirations of those who came here, or, indeed, the changes in society that have occurred over that period. I suppose it’s the changes that you and others object to.
Great changes occurred post-45 into the 50s, and other changes from the mid-60s to around 1970, most of which the Tebbit-types still haven’t come to terms with. But I don’t think you can blame any of them on immigration.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 29, 2014 17:01:15 GMT
...the idigenous population ... A shifting concept, evidently: Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white British...(This does not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools -indeed many non-white British parents abhor the multicultural melting pots that many of our state schools embody and do their utmost to prevent their children attending such places)... To quote this is not simply frivolous; it shows that cleefy himself is aware of the rate of change in society since the 50s and 60s, and how quickly the problem immigrants become indigenous themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 29, 2014 17:56:44 GMT
Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white British ...(This does not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools -indeed many non-white British parents abhor the multicultural melting pots that many of our state schools embody and do their utmost to prevent their children attending such places)... To quote this is not simply frivolous; it shows that cleefy himself is aware of the rate of change in society since the 50s and 60s, and how quickly the problem immigrants become indigenous themselves. Your intellectual stupidity or dishonesty (take your pick folks)is sometimes incredible Your conjoining of two separate sentences from two separate paragraphs to make it appear as if I include non-white British parents as indigenous to Britain is laughable. (What this ... This does not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools... refers to, is of course, not that they are indigenous (they are not generally speaking)but their concern at their children attending multicultural State schooling)
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 29, 2014 18:09:05 GMT
Yes, that's right, cleefy - I put three dots in between the two sections of your post that I quoted. That's the convention for indicating that something's been omitted, rather than three large black squares. The bit I omitted appears to be an aside directed at me, and doesn't relate to the sentences on either side of it as far as I can see. Here's the whole, muddled post exactly as you wrote it: Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white British Why you have to ask the question defeats me Do you have the same problem with indigenous Kenyans I wonder?t (This dos not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools -indeed many non-white British parents abhor the multicultural melting pots that many of our state schools embody and do their utmost to prevent their children attending such places) But then (you might argue) many Asians (that is really the people I am speaking of mainly) are notoriously the most racist people in the world, aren't they? One must just take a cursory glance at India to arrive at that rational conclusion(and ignore the bleatings of Alibahia Brown) It's that generally not to mention this does not exclude that cause the difficulty, and then there's the the absence of full stops, and the problem of deciding where one paragraph ends and another begins.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 29, 2014 18:21:54 GMT
Yes, that's right, cleefy - I put three dots in between the two sections of your post that I quoted. That's the convention for indicating that something's been omitted, rather than three large black squares. The bit I omitted appears to be an aside directed at me, and doesn't relate to the sentences on either side of it as far as I can see. Here's the whole, muddled post exactly as you wrote it: Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white British Why you have to ask the question defeats me Do you have the same problem with indigenous Kenyans I wonder?t (This dos not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools -indeed many non-white British parents abhor the multicultural melting pots that many of our state schools embody and do their utmost to prevent their children attending such places) But then (you might argue) many Asians (that is really the people I am speaking of mainly) are notoriously the most racist people in the world, aren't they? One must just take a cursory glance at India to arrive at that rational conclusion(and ignore the bleatings of Alibahia Brown) It's that generally not to mention this does not exclude that cause the difficulty, and then there's the the absence of full stops, and the problem of deciding where one paragraph ends and another begins. Yes I should really make my English simpler so that it is clear to even the most stupid of readers
|
|
DelingpoleAndLawson
Guest
|
Post by DelingpoleAndLawson on Oct 29, 2014 19:54:08 GMT
Yes, that's right, cleefy - I put three dots in between the two sections of your post that I quoted. That's the convention for indicating that something's been omitted, rather than three large black squares. The bit I omitted appears to be an aside directed at me, and doesn't relate to the sentences on either side of it as far as I can see. Here's the whole, muddled post exactly as you wrote it: Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white British Why you have to ask the question defeats me Do you have the same problem with indigenous Kenyans I wonder?t (This dos not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools -indeed many non-white British parents abhor the multicultural melting pots that many of our state schools embody and do their utmost to prevent their children attending such places) But then (you might argue) many Asians (that is really the people I am speaking of mainly) are notoriously the most racist people in the world, aren't they? One must just take a cursory glance at India to arrive at that rational conclusion(and ignore the bleatings of Alibahia Brown) It's that generally not to mention this does not exclude that cause the difficulty, and then there's the the absence of full stops, and the problem of deciding where one paragraph ends and another begins. When I first read it I assumed he'd had a few but now I notice it was posted at 1 in the afternoon. Anyone can have an off day, eh?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 29, 2014 22:46:08 GMT
Or a very long lunch.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 30, 2014 8:21:06 GMT
There, there my dear! You evidently have difficulty following an argument if it extends beyond one posting To make things simpler for you (I am quite used to doing this being somewhat of an expert in reducing complexities to simple components to aid learning)I have highlighted in red the continuing argument over three postings You will then see (one hopes , perhaps beyond hope) that the discussion started by me concerned indigenous parents' concern at the flooding of their children's schools with non-English speaking children. You in your typical dumb fashion, asked in that context what 'indigenous British' means. I answered you then went on to discuss how the concerns at floods of non-English speaking children into English schools was not limited to the indigenous British parents' Your attribution of your confusion to my imbibing habits is what one might expect from the intellectually challenged. Your leaning for support of Spesh's shoulder is also expected Are you really quite stupid or deliberately obtuse? Because some immigrants do well in education does not mean, and cannot possibly mean, (because it is a totally unrelated fact), that the indigenous children are not disadvantaged when masses of non-English speaking pupils arrive in their schools I know of no indigenous parent that would welcome having their child in a class with a large proportion of non-English speaking children,Try realism instead of your usual rose-tinted leftist idealoguery I know of no indigenous parent that would welcome having their child in a class with a large proportion of non-English speaking children... What do you mean by indigenous parent, cleefy? [/quote What do you mean by indigenous parent, cleefy? I think Nick would like to know: Generally indigenous parents in the UK are white BritishWhy you have to ask the question defeats me Do you have the same problem with indigenous Kenyans I wonder?t (This dos not exclude of course non-white British parents that have great concerns about seeing masses of non-English speaking pupils attending their childrens' schools
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 30, 2014 14:30:34 GMT
I have no difficulty at all in following an argument beyond one posting, thanks, cleefy.
I remembered very well that you were trying to use the word indigenous when what you really meant was English-speaking.
English-speaking people may have been born here, or not.
Your difficulties are compounded by your complete inabilty to understand that it is perfectly possible to speak, read, write and fully understand English even if it is not your mother tongue.
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 30, 2014 16:48:55 GMT
I have no difficulty at all in following an argument beyond one posting, thanks, cleefy. I remembered very well that you were trying to use the word indigenous when what you really meant was English-speaking. Hahaha! As if I would not know the difference between English-speaking and indigenous! Hahahaha! Your difficulties are compounded by your complete inabilty to understand that it is perfectly possible to speak, read, write and fully understand English even if it is not your mother tongue.You move from absurdity to absurdity in your uncomfortable wriggling! Hahaha! It is like having a discussion with a child
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Oct 31, 2014 6:18:01 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2814333/Curbing-immigration-disaster-Britain-says-Tony-Blair-warning-Labour-not-chase-Ukip-votes.htmlTony Blair saying immigration is good for the country. I don't know whether immigration is good for the country, however my observation is that debate has been stifled, by either stopping it completely by classing anybody who objects as racist/bigot/ignorant or by making it a discussion on the language used. If I choose to believe Tony Blair and Vince Cable that immigration is good for the country as a whole, that doesn't stop me believing that for some parts of the country/population immigration hasn't brought benefits only over crowded schools, long doctor's waiting lists and pressure on housing - for me these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Instead of just spouting "immigration is good" and that anybody who thinks otherwise is stupid, there should be an acknowledgement that for some groups it isn't good and measures taken to ensure that everybody benefits from immigration. At the moment I choose to sit on the fence on this matter, because there is not a clear picture as to the current state of the population, does anybody really know how many people have traveled here from the EU? From the rest of the World? Here illegally? How can you make decisions when you don't know the facts. As an aside I couldn't get a place for my son at any of the local schools - not because of immigration, but because the council couldn't plan for the children they knew about. How can this country plan the infrastructure - housing/schools/hospitals when it doesn't know how many it is planning for?
|
|