|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On September 16 2013 19:34 BrTarolg wrote:
What i hate about uk politics is that any point of view that isn't your own is OBVIOUSLY racist and aligned with the BNP and thus should not be considered for rational debate or argument
Nope, we can't have any of that in our politics.
haha what?
There are some legitimate arguments against immigration but you can spot the xenophobes when they rant against immigration on the grounds that they are scroungers.
Immigrants have a net positive impact on the economy and culturally. The legitimate arguments in my eyes are that despite this being true England is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet and most immigrants aren't high skilled which puts an extra strain on services like the NHS which may negate the positive economic impact of the current levels of immigration. This isn't the same as arguments for and against multiculturalism though, which I see people confuse on a regular basis which isn't about the number of immigrants but rather how we should encourage their integration.
You never hear this from the anti-immigration lobby though, they are all mindless idiots who just want to express their fear and distrust of people who 'look different who took our jerbs'.
The problem with UK politics and every other modern democracy is that people who don't even have the slightest clue on the subtleties of policy, history and the economy are given a platform to spout their ill informed nonsense.
Democracy now is a farce, too many people with mostly idiotic of malformed opinion vote on the country and our political class pander to them despite knowing better but we live in a society where everyone's allowed their precious opinions and the idea of a technocracy or political elite is 'dangerous thinking' and so any move in that direction will probably lead to social collapse so we'll just continue to blunder along this path like always.
|
On September 14 2013 04:51 olias wrote:
You are right, I was brought up in the middle class, I also studied labour economics for three years, but of course the experience of living in the lower classes in one small part of the country trumps all analysis all the time right? I mean you have actual stories! A lot of condescension there, but it ignores the point that everything I wrote was analysis and I've been outarguing you since the very start of this exchange.
In particular, you made an assertion about immigration having no effect on native employment. It turned out that you were lying through your teeth and you had no data to bring to the table to back up that extraordinary and counter-intuitive "fact".
You're high on bluster, low on data and substantive arguments even though you're espousing the most extreme and radical position (open borders) and making assertions which defy logic (such as that low-paid immigrants have no effect on native employment in the short-term).
P.S. -- So you studied labour economics. I studied theoretical physics. It's a good idea not to assume your analytical skills are superior to somebody else's for no other reason than that he's from the "lower classes" and has stories. (Unbelievably douchebaggy of you, BTW, to actually use the term "lower classes". Who the hell do you think you are?").
|
On September 15 2013 04:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:
I realize that many students of economics seem to have trouble with any concept that's more elaborate than "leave everything to the markets". But I'll spell this out very slowly. I did not say or imply that there is a correlation between poverty and population density. The simple reason, which would occur to anybody with a modicum of analytical ability, is that societies of higher economic potential can SUPPORT higher population densities.
The point rather was that much poverty in the world is a result of regions living beyond their optimal population density. Indeed, there would be no starvation or malnourishment in the world if the population density were sufficiently low. Conversely, there's a hell of a lot of starvation and malnourishment in Nigeria and there will be more unless their population becomes more stable sometime soon.
As for China being a "perfect" counter-example. China also has severe pollution, water shortages, and a one-child policy because the authorities are terrified about the prospect of an unstable population.
Going back to the UK: we already have 7.7% unemployment and a government that's cutting social services. Another wave of hundreds of thousands of immigrants would lead to tremendous additional pressure on jobs and social services at a time when we need it least.
As for Thomas Malthus: I think you'll find it's not something that can be refuted, but more a consequence of physics than economics. You can't have infinite people living in a finite area. No sane person can ignore the risk of overpopulation, especially when we're faced with rising energy costs as well as global warming. From an ecological point of view it might be true, but from a human point of view it is not. We are, at the moment, producing enough product, food, "water" (yeah I know we do not really produce that), for everyone in the planet. The problem is not a problem of production, but a problem of distribution and inequalities (between countries, and in each countries). The proponents of immigration here are not Marxists. For the most part they're the exact opposite: laissez-faire libertarians who embrace waste and unequal distribution of resources.
It MIGHT be just about coherent to support or express apathy about a rising population in a third world country IF you assume that production is centrally planned, nothing is wasted, and all food is distributed evenly. Nobody here is suggesting that and it isn't even remotely realistic in any case. And even with maximum efficiency and equality, there would still be an effective population limit (maybe about 10 times higher than what we have at present).
|
On September 16 2013 20:38 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:51 olias wrote:
You are right, I was brought up in the middle class, I also studied labour economics for three years, but of course the experience of living in the lower classes in one small part of the country trumps all analysis all the time right? I mean you have actual stories! A lot of condescension there, but it ignores the point that everything I wrote was analysis and I've been outarguing you since the very start of this exchange. In particular, you made an assertion about immigration having no effect on native employment. It turned out that you were lying through your teeth and you had no data to bring to the table to back up that extraordinary and counter-intuitive "fact". You're high on bluster, low on data and substantive arguments even though you're espousing the most extreme and radical position (open borders) and making assertions which defy logic (such as that low-paid immigrants have no effect on native employment in the short-term). P.S. -- So you studied labour economics. I studied theoretical physics. It's a good idea not to assume your analytical skills are superior to somebody else's for no other reason than that he's from the "lower classes" and has stories. (Unbelievably douchebaggy of you, BTW, to actually use the term "lower classes". Who the hell do you think you are?").
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 16 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 19:34 BrTarolg wrote:
What i hate about uk politics is that any point of view that isn't your own is OBVIOUSLY racist and aligned with the BNP and thus should not be considered for rational debate or argument
Nope, we can't have any of that in our politics. I don't follow. We have three main parties that between them make up the entire house of commons (except that one green MP) and none of them are the BNP. Therefore the vast majority of people holding views contrary to yours will be supporters of one of the other main parties and not of the BNP. Lib Dem voters don't accuse Labour voters of being racist and aligned with the BNP, Tories don't accuse Lib Dems of it, Labour don't accuse Tories of it, this really is not a thing. Pretty much the only people accused of being the BNP are the BNP who are probably guilty of it.
Well and UKIP getting accused of being a middle class, more socially acceptable version of the BNP, Again probably guilty of it though.
|
United States44321 Posts
UKIP spend most of their time angry about the EU which is a place full of Christian white people. It's more about British sovereignty and values than racism imo. A constitutional and social stance rather than a racial one.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
libertarians dislike immigration restrictions (if they are consistent and honest at all) because restrictions on land movement across borders is one of the bad aspects of a property regime. it does make everything out to be a more complex and veiled version of baffoons defending their hill. so a just political system that is based on the idea of each individudal having core rights would be hard to find a place for the restriction of free movement across borders. \
say immigration to a libertarian and the thought is, a cartel!
|
On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy.
If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years.
In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber?
As for open borders being the default policy: presumably you're referring to the Norman conquest and the Viking invasions. Or the warring kingdoms of the Heptarchy. Or the constantly warring tribes before Roman occupation.
|
Not speaking for Zaros, but many readers of this thread are going to have trouble running into commonplace UK media enough to know whether or not what you say is true. Why not provide some links instead of belittling those who have not run into the same material you have?
|
On September 17 2013 01:37 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote:
god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here. That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy. If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years. In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber?
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws.
|
On September 16 2013 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 05:50 Zystra wrote:
I HATE the Labour party. They ruin this country every time they get into power. They promise the world to everyone and once they get into power they totally screw the country up. Backed by the Unions, the marxist labour party go against everything that made this country great. They reward the dregs of society with cash prizes at the cost of the ordinary hard working folk. They opened the door to mass immigration from the poorest areas of the world as they knew that the children of these immigrants would vote labour (I think this is high treason by the way).
This is what should be done;
> Lower tax on all businesses to encourage a proper, business driven economic recovery.
> Cut welfare spending in half and give financial help only to people who were born in this country. Everyone who is on benefits must do 20 hours community service to recieve their benefits payment.
> All immigrants only recieve child benefit for their first and second child. They do not recieve benefits for any children after the second child. (There was a story about a pakistani polygamist scumbag who married 5 wives, had 5 children with each of them and now lives in a mansion on benefits).
> A massive increase in the use of Nuclear Power. Our neighbours France get 80% of the power from nuclear power stations whilst our government build DERPwind turbines all over the country which are all but useless and very expensive.
> A massive cut in foreign aid. Get our own house in order before we help others.
> A deliberate weakening of the British Pound so that foreign countries are more likely to buy british whilst british companies are more likely to make their products in british factories and provide jobs.
> Only skilled immigrants are welcome plus a 100,000 per year cap on the amount of immigrants coming to this country to stay. No un-skilled migrants and assylum seakers allowed.
> Build more jails and beef up our police force, toughen up our laws and put scumbags behind bars. Even bring back the death penalty in extreme cases such as child rapists and mass murderers.
> Deport all foreign criminals aswell as religious extremeists.
So vote UKIP...?
I vote conservative, but im voting UKIP in the euro elections to piss off communist brussels.
|
On September 16 2013 06:25 KwarK wrote:
UKIP are nowhere near that extreme. BNP is closer.
Where in any part of my post am I racist??? I merely express that I think that everyone should be responsible for their own lives and everybody should be given an equal start. People who then go on to work hard, innovate, develop skills should be rewarded for them. People who are lazy, piss about at school, fail to develop skills and are a drain on society should not be given handouts from the people who do work hard. Socialism breeds lazyness. Capitalism, though it has its faults, breeds hard work, innovation and economic success.
Lefties seem to think that any school of thought that doesnt benefit the lazy and penalise the hard workers is so wrong that they have to use their buzzwork... RACIST. I honestly cant believe you think im racist. I believe that everyone of all skin colours deserve an equal start. But only that. It is what people do with this privilige that should determine their quality of life.
People like you water down the word racism to the point that it no longer means anything.
|
United States44321 Posts
For starters you want to punish the children of a guy by denying them benefits because they were born, in Britain, of Pakistani descent and you're worried they might be breeding too much. Don't get me wrong, it was all fucking nuts, but that one there was pretty special. No shit he lives in a bigger house than most 4 person families, he has a family of 27.
|
On September 17 2013 02:14 KwarK wrote:
For starters you want to punish the children of a guy by denying them benefits because they were born, in Britain, of Pakistani descent and you're worried they might be breeding too much. Don't get me wrong, it was all fucking nuts, but that one there was pretty special. No shit he lives in a bigger house than most 4 person families, he has a family of 27.
Wouldn' this merely encourage people to think before they breed instead of having 2000 kids and then making the tax payer pay for it... If you can't afford children... dont have them. Seems logical enough.
As for the guy who live in the mansion. He deliberately had 25 kids so that he could live like a king on benefits. Surely you can acknowledge that this is wrong. Or do you support polygamy??
And for a matter of fact, people should be worried that immigrants are breeding too fast because it causes all kinds of problems. Lots of stuff in the news about lack of school places, lack of housing, enormous pressure on welfare state because these immigrants cannot support their own family. What would you do, encourage them to breed by giving them cash payouts, increase taxes so that you can build more schools, increase welfare and before you know it, no-one wants to innovate, no-one wants to be rich because their money gets took straight back away them and you have a stagnant, communist society.
|
United States44321 Posts
On September 17 2013 02:17 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:14 KwarK wrote:
For starters you want to punish the children of a guy by denying them benefits because they were born, in Britain, of Pakistani descent and you're worried they might be breeding too much. Don't get me wrong, it was all fucking nuts, but that one there was pretty special. No shit he lives in a bigger house than most 4 person families, he has a family of 27. Wouldn' this merely encourage people to think before they breed instead of having 2000 kids and then making the tax payer pay for it... If you can't afford children... dont have them. Seems logical enough.
Finances haven't discouraged poorly educated people from having kids at any time in any place before ever so I'm not sure why you think it's about to now. Finances only work if they're sufficiently educated to actually have their shit together which is why you clothe them and educate them in order to try and end the cycle. Having them starving on the street isn't going to help, you're just going to get yet more shitty adults having more shitty children. Also a solution that uses starving children as a population control for the ethnic minorities is a little extreme. Wouldn't gas chambers be more humane?
I mean really, clarify this for me. Is your plan really to deny benefits to this 23 of this guy's 25 children in the hope that he can't afford to look after them and they starve and other people learn from that lesson and don't have kids?
|
United States44321 Posts
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after.
|
On September 17 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after.
Polygamy would be fine if the wife could then marry another man but it is only the man who can marry more wives to fulfill his dirty sexual fantasies with many different woman. Imagine if one of his wives married another man. Honour killing anyone???
|
On September 17 2013 02:31 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after. Polygamy would be fine if the wife could then marry another man but it is only the man who can marry more wives to fulfill his dirty sexual fantasies with many different woman. Imagine if one of his wives married another man. Honour killing anyone???
pretty sure polygamy allows anyone to marry any number not just men, and if it doesn't most places if it was allowed here it would be for everyone.
|
United States44321 Posts
On September 17 2013 02:31 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with polygamy, I have literally no idea why marriage, a contractual relationship between adults, is limited by the Christian model of a man and a wife. We've finally acknowledged that that model doesn't fit some people, like the gays, but we're still stuck on the number.
I sincerely doubt anyone looking after 25 kids is living like a king. Kids are little shits. My family do fostering for kids taken away from neglectful parents and we have 5 which takes my mother looking after them full time and my father part time to look after. Polygamy would be fine if the wife could then marry another man but it is only the man who can marry more wives to fulfill his dirty sexual fantasies with many different woman. Imagine if one of his wives married another man. Honour killing anyone???
You actually post like the Daily Express. Foreigners have dirty perversions unlike those good honest fetishes good solid Englishmen have.
|
On September 17 2013 01:50 farvacola wrote:
Not speaking for Zaros, but many readers of this thread are going to have trouble running into commonplace UK media enough to know whether or not what you say is true. Why not provide some links instead of belittling those who have not run into the same material you have? Well, several posters made belittling statements about me and you didn't leap to my defence. But you just have to Google this. (To check those stats out, see the recent ONS study and the prior publications.)
That hundreds of thousands of immigrants were given social housing in the last decade can be obtained from the national census.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
