So no able bodied person gets free money? Only employment assistance?Braddock wrote:
You do realise that those things are all checked as part of the current systems in place here in Europe (or in Ireland at least)? They don't just throw money at you when you set foot in the welfare office.lowing wrote:
Good news!! There is such a machine. It is called medical records, tax records, employment history research.JahManRed wrote:
If there was a machine for screening spongers from genuinely afflicted people it could be used to cut moneys from said spongers.
Until such a device is invented I am not prepared to abandon the people who genuinely need a hand up over the actions of spongers.
Any able bodied person found not to be making enough of an effort to find work gets their benefits cut.lowing wrote:
So no able bodied person gets free money? Only employment assistance?Braddock wrote:
You do realise that those things are all checked as part of the current systems in place here in Europe (or in Ireland at least)? They don't just throw money at you when you set foot in the welfare office.lowing wrote:
Good news!! There is such a machine. It is called medical records, tax records, employment history research.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-30 04:48:16)
then I truely applaud your systemBraddock wrote:
Any able bodied person found not to be making enough of an effort to find work gets their benefits cut.lowing wrote:
So no able bodied person gets free money? Only employment assistance?Braddock wrote:
You do realise that those things are all checked as part of the current systems in place here in Europe (or in Ireland at least)? They don't just throw money at you when you set foot in the welfare office.
Here as well. In order to get unemployment benefits, they need to be registered as "Unemployed Jobseekers", who have to report at the Unemployment office quite frequently. In addition, I believe they are required to take jobs that they are qualified to do, if/when the office finds something for them.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
same here.lowing wrote:
then I truely applaud your systemBraddock wrote:
Any able bodied person found not to be making enough of an effort to find work gets their benefits cut.
I need around tree fiddy.
That is often the case, if you can't come up with a valid reason not to take the job e.g. traveling distance, then they may cut your benefits on the grounds of not being 'willing' to take employment. With every system there are ways to try and get around certain obstacles but in the long run it's often easier to just find work than playing cat and mouse with the welfare system and risking prosecution.DonFck wrote:
Here as well. In order to get unemployment benefits, they need to be registered as "Unemployed Jobseekers", who have to report at the Unemployment office quite frequently. In addition, I believe they are required to take jobs that they are qualified to do, if/when the office finds something for them.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
same here.lowing wrote:
then I truely applaud your system
The loops that those in the welfare group have to jump through are increasing in Aus at the moment also. I know because I do have a few friends who are sadly in that position.
Laziness does not always equate to being able to get work. Especially when you consider the standard of education they receive, which has more to do with the money they are able to invest with, for a start in life. Or even the unemployment rate.
I don't think lazy people can support themselves for long on "working for the dole" scheme anyway, which is essentially a way to help find you work by giving you work. You do have to work to earn your welfare payment. The benefit is that you gain work experience and are productive at the same time.
Our system at the moment is exactly what a lazy person would fail to make it through.
Laziness does not always equate to being able to get work. Especially when you consider the standard of education they receive, which has more to do with the money they are able to invest with, for a start in life. Or even the unemployment rate.
I don't think lazy people can support themselves for long on "working for the dole" scheme anyway, which is essentially a way to help find you work by giving you work. You do have to work to earn your welfare payment. The benefit is that you gain work experience and are productive at the same time.
Our system at the moment is exactly what a lazy person would fail to make it through.
Which is why so many grow drugs for the bikies.I don't think lazy people can support themselves for long on "working for the dole" scheme anyway
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
braddock,Braddock wrote:
I don't know whether it's the fact that English is your second language but your post reads quite offensive to be honest. You speak as though only white people have the right to be in the majority in any given area. You also seem to claim that all the black people you saw in Belgium were "ugly gangsters"...I can understand that they may have been dressed like gangsters (as in gangster rappers) as that is a common style in black culture, whether we like it or not; but ugly? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Were they all actually ugly or were they just ugly because they were black? Also can I ask you, did any of them ACTUALLY attack you? If not then it seems your misguided judgments about them were wrong.venom6 wrote:
I dont have anything against other ethnic groups but when i wisited Bruxelles 2 weeks ago i was shocked!
Its a thing if you see black,arab,chinese people on the streets of Budapest (Hungary, middle europe) as they are a minoritiy. In Bruxelles i was surprised when i saw white people on the streets! They are maybe in minority or i just walked in the wrong place. All sort of asiatic then black or arabic people and it was not a good feeling to be surrinded by ugly gangsters (black people) who may attack you. Maybe its just me but i was total disapointed from the great Belgium. I know London also got major ethnic groups as i visited it in 2005.
So i ask myself what will europe became within the EU as all ethnic groups get mixed and it will become a miltiethnical mass.
I notice you are from Eastern Europe and I know that there seems to be a big racism problem in that part of the world, my friend was in Serbia recently and he was quite shocked by how openly racist many people were there...complete strangers would chat to him about how "too many black people lived in Ireland these days".
Again, I realise English may not be your first language and I may have you pegged wrong.
i think it might be due to the fact that venom6 has primarily lived among people of his own race (presumably white). it's not so shocking that you might feel a bit strange when thrust into a much different environment where you have a more ethnically diverse makeup since you are not used to it. this probably goes both ways. myself, i grew up in a super small town where it was 99.9% white. we heard tons of racist talk growing up. later, when i moved out to university in a big city, i met up with people of all different types and nationalities. after this, i learned quite a bit and it lessened my initial 'fear' and 'stereotypes'. so i chalk this guys' observations up to just not being exposed to ethnic diversity. now then with more and more minorities pouring into europe, i can see how racism has a chance to flourish IF these minorities do not bother to learn the language, customs, and attempt to integrate. i would think it's only natural to feel this way to be honest.
venom6: europe will become more like the US in its ethnic diversity (melting pot). trick is to get these people to integrate into the main society rather than the other way round. we have our own problems with this lately but were successful in the past.
Last edited by CaptainSpaulding71 (2008-07-30 08:06:51)
I can understand that completely. I myself grew up in a place where for years there was only 1 black person in our school. When I went to Amsterdam with one of my mates for the first time we ended up in a quiet cafe one night and a gang of about 10 black guys from England came in and were having a laugh and smoke and being a little bit loud (just a little mind you) and me and my mate both admitted to each other that we felt a little uncomfortable...we left after about half an hour and felt a bit bad afterwards because they were all perfectly nice and polite, having said that we were a little paranoid in general at that particular stage of the evening and that may have had more than a little to do with it! But your point is valid, it's not until you find yourself in a position where you are in the racial minority that you know how comfortable you are with other races.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
braddock,
i think it might be due to the fact that venom6 has primarily lived among people of his own race (presumably white). it's not so shocking that you might feel a bit strange when thrust into a much different environment where you have a more ethnically diverse makeup since you are not used to it. this probably goes both ways. myself, i grew up in a super small town where it was 99.9% white. we heard tons of racist talk growing up. later, when i moved out to university in a big city, i met up with people of all different types and nationalities. after this, i learned quite a bit and it lessened my initial 'fear' and 'stereotypes'. so i chalk this guys' observations up to just not being exposed to ethnic diversity. now then with more and more minorities pouring into europe, i can see how racism has a chance to flourish IF these minorities do not bother to learn the language, customs, and attempt to integrate. i would think it's only natural to feel this way to be honest.
venom6: europe will become more like the US in its ethnic diversity (melting pot). trick is to get these people to integrate into the main society rather than the other way round. we have our own problems with this lately but were successful in the past.
I'm glad to say me and my mate got over our paranoia and enjoyed the rest of the holiday in peace, love and harmony with the rest of Amsterdam!
This guy seems a bit mental. There are 730,000,000 people in Europe. 25,000,000 constitutes only 3% of that. Muslims a majority in 20 years? It's not gonna happen. 1.8 million immigrants a year to the EU - of which fewer than half are Muslim, even combined with a higher birth rate amongst immigrant populations, is not going to get to anything like that figure. Not accounting for increased birth rate, there should be about 48 million Muslims in Europe, which would be about 6% - not exactly a majority. Even if you account for a birth rate equal to the rate of immigration amongst the Muslim population, you would only have 7.5% of Europe being Muslims, which isn't exactly a majority - you'd need at least 4x that to be a majority - and even if my figures are a bit out, they're not that far out.blademaster wrote:
Amr Khaled: "The most important thing is that there are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe. This figure has many implications."
Interviewer: "There are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe."
Amr Khaled: "The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making. This makes other groups very angry, and they consider this to be very dangerous. These are the enemies of Islam, as we know full well."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
What do you guys think for those of you who live in Europe do you think Muslims will be the majority within 20 years?
Which figures are these? 70% of people in Europe don't know who Mohammed is? I find that very hard to believe. Everyone knows that."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
This guy seems to being talking out of his arse.
Here's a link:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001832.html
Pretty graph backed up by some research...although I was unable to trace it thru the links without a lot of effort. I think its citing stuff buried in a CIA report. The posted comments are interesting too.
Here's an interesting article (unrelated maybe) asking the question of whether Europe needs to open up the immigration restrictions to replace negative population growth, or upcoming labor shortage.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/Europe … nArea.aspx
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001832.html
Pretty graph backed up by some research...although I was unable to trace it thru the links without a lot of effort. I think its citing stuff buried in a CIA report. The posted comments are interesting too.
Here's an interesting article (unrelated maybe) asking the question of whether Europe needs to open up the immigration restrictions to replace negative population growth, or upcoming labor shortage.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/Europe … nArea.aspx
I guess he was saying what Muhamed means to them not as they dont know who he is, I think he meant that people of Europe dont know what he has done as a religious figure and some of the other other content related to religion.Bertster7 wrote:
This guy seems a bit mental. There are 730,000,000 people in Europe. 25,000,000 constitutes only 3% of that. Muslims a majority in 20 years? It's not gonna happen. 1.8 million immigrants a year to the EU - of which fewer than half are Muslim, even combined with a higher birth rate amongst immigrant populations, is not going to get to anything like that figure. Not accounting for increased birth rate, there should be about 48 million Muslims in Europe, which would be about 6% - not exactly a majority. Even if you account for a birth rate equal to the rate of immigration amongst the Muslim population, you would only have 7.5% of Europe being Muslims, which isn't exactly a majority - you'd need at least 4x that to be a majority - and even if my figures are a bit out, they're not that far out.blademaster wrote:
Amr Khaled: "The most important thing is that there are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe. This figure has many implications."
Interviewer: "There are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe."
Amr Khaled: "The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making. This makes other groups very angry, and they consider this to be very dangerous. These are the enemies of Islam, as we know full well."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
What do you guys think for those of you who live in Europe do you think Muslims will be the majority within 20 years?Which figures are these? 70% of people in Europe don't know who Mohammed is? I find that very hard to believe. Everyone knows that."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
This guy seems to being talking out of his arse.
That isn't what he said at all though. He said that 70% of Europeans don't know who the Muslim prophet is, which is utter bollocks.blademaster wrote:
I guess he was saying what Muhamed means to them not as they dont know who he is, I think he meant that people of Europe dont know what he has done as a religious figure and some of the other other content related to religion.Bertster7 wrote:
This guy seems a bit mental. There are 730,000,000 people in Europe. 25,000,000 constitutes only 3% of that. Muslims a majority in 20 years? It's not gonna happen. 1.8 million immigrants a year to the EU - of which fewer than half are Muslim, even combined with a higher birth rate amongst immigrant populations, is not going to get to anything like that figure. Not accounting for increased birth rate, there should be about 48 million Muslims in Europe, which would be about 6% - not exactly a majority. Even if you account for a birth rate equal to the rate of immigration amongst the Muslim population, you would only have 7.5% of Europe being Muslims, which isn't exactly a majority - you'd need at least 4x that to be a majority - and even if my figures are a bit out, they're not that far out.blademaster wrote:
Amr Khaled: "The most important thing is that there are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe. This figure has many implications."
Interviewer: "There are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe."
Amr Khaled: "The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making. This makes other groups very angry, and they consider this to be very dangerous. These are the enemies of Islam, as we know full well."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
What do you guys think for those of you who live in Europe do you think Muslims will be the majority within 20 years?Which figures are these? 70% of people in Europe don't know who Mohammed is? I find that very hard to believe. Everyone knows that."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
This guy seems to being talking out of his arse.
Maybe he meant dunno what he looks likeBertster7 wrote:
That isn't what he said at all though. He said that 70% of Europeans don't know who the Muslim prophet is, which is utter bollocks.blademaster wrote:
I guess he was saying what Muhamed means to them not as they dont know who he is, I think he meant that people of Europe dont know what he has done as a religious figure and some of the other other content related to religion.Bertster7 wrote:
This guy seems a bit mental. There are 730,000,000 people in Europe. 25,000,000 constitutes only 3% of that. Muslims a majority in 20 years? It's not gonna happen. 1.8 million immigrants a year to the EU - of which fewer than half are Muslim, even combined with a higher birth rate amongst immigrant populations, is not going to get to anything like that figure. Not accounting for increased birth rate, there should be about 48 million Muslims in Europe, which would be about 6% - not exactly a majority. Even if you account for a birth rate equal to the rate of immigration amongst the Muslim population, you would only have 7.5% of Europe being Muslims, which isn't exactly a majority - you'd need at least 4x that to be a majority - and even if my figures are a bit out, they're not that far out.blademaster wrote:
Amr Khaled: "The most important thing is that there are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe. This figure has many implications."
Interviewer: "There are 25-30 million Muslims in Europe."
Amr Khaled: "The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making. This makes other groups very angry, and they consider this to be very dangerous. These are the enemies of Islam, as we know full well."But the peoples of the West know nothing about the Muslims. Statistics show that 70% do not know who the Prophet of the Muslims is. The fact that Muhammad is the Prophet of the Muslims is not known to many people in the West. That's just one example."
What do you guys think for those of you who live in Europe do you think Muslims will be the majority within 20 years?
Which figures are these? 70% of people in Europe don't know who Mohammed is? I find that very hard to believe. Everyone knows that.
This guy seems to being talking out of his arse.
30 million out of a population of more than 730 million is not approaching a majority.Pug wrote:
Here's a link:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001832.html
Pretty graph backed up by some research...although I was unable to trace it thru the links without a lot of effort. I think its citing stuff buried in a CIA report. The posted comments are interesting too.
Here's an interesting article (unrelated maybe) asking the question of whether Europe needs to open up the immigration restrictions to replace negative population growth, or upcoming labor shortage.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/Europe … nArea.aspx
Their graph shows, much as my figures do, a doubling of the Muslim population over 20 years. It's quite a confusing graph though, because it deals with ratios - but ultimately the doubling of the Muslim population is the same as doubling the ratio.
This still doesn't constitute anything even approaching a majority.
There is no question it's going up rapidly, but not majority in 20 years rapidly.
hehe yea considering how that Danish guy drew himM.O.A.B wrote:
Maybe he meant dunno what he looks likeBertster7 wrote:
That isn't what he said at all though. He said that 70% of Europeans don't know who the Muslim prophet is, which is utter bollocks.blademaster wrote:
I guess he was saying what Muhamed means to them not as they dont know who he is, I think he meant that people of Europe dont know what he has done as a religious figure and some of the other other content related to religion.
Exactly - all that stuff has made him very well known in Europe. The idea 70% of people don't know who he is is simply preposterous.blademaster wrote:
hehe yea considering how that Danish guy drew himM.O.A.B wrote:
Maybe he meant dunno what he looks likeBertster7 wrote:
That isn't what he said at all though. He said that 70% of Europeans don't know who the Muslim prophet is, which is utter bollocks.
http://www.targetofopportunity.com/muhammed_cartoon.jpg
That graph doesn't even make sense. It states the left represents ratio. But against what? 1? If that is what it implies then its data is already way off as it claims there is already 15 Muslim for every European, that is so wrong it blatantly doesn't mean that. In which case I assume the retard that made the graph actually mean percent, in which case he is still wrong as its current level is 3% not 15%.Pug wrote:
Here's a link:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001832.html
Pretty graph backed up by some research...although I was unable to trace it thru the links without a lot of effort. I think its citing stuff buried in a CIA report. The posted comments are interesting too.
Here's an interesting article (unrelated maybe) asking the question of whether Europe needs to open up the immigration restrictions to replace negative population growth, or upcoming labor shortage.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/Europe … nArea.aspx
Either way that has to be the shitest graph I have ever seen.
Nice job boys. If you take another look, you'll notice the blogger is discrediting the report.
Did you read the second link BTW, I thought it was interesting.
Did you read the second link BTW, I thought it was interesting.
lowing wrote:
really? show me pleaseVilham wrote:
Clearly you don't your own previous statements totally contradict what you just claimed.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am being prejudice against ISLAM, I judge people individually. Based on actions, effort, and/or appearance
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p2217185lowing wrote:
...I do not fear Islam, I just hate it.
clearly, that is not judging people individually, is it ?
come on, lowing, there are only two options here: either you judge people individually, regardless of their race, or religion; or you stereotype, and generalize, and make judgements based on other people's race and/or religion. The latter I would call racism. And yes, I know, Islam "technically" isn't a race, but for lack of a better term, I shall use "racist" in this context. Feel free to provide me with a better term.
As far as the OP is concerned, it's always funny to see someone living in Egypt make comments on how the muslim population is supposed to develop in Europe. Especially if the guy is a muslim scholar, and not a sociologist, or anthropologist...
As others have already pointed out, muslim population in Europe is - statistically speaking - insignificant. Second- and third-generation muslims are largely westernized, and often care more about their playstations, cars, and cable TV, than about religion. They are also largely un-political.
In those regards, they are really not that much different from their fellow citizens of other ethnic or religious backgrounds, btw.
In germany, for example, there isn't even a muslim political party. So even if a majority of muslims were politically active, they would only be able to vote for the democratic, non-muslim parties that we have anyway, which kind of defies the supposed "threat" they pose to our democratic society.
I agree completely with you on this one.B.Schuss wrote:
come on, lowing, there are only two options here: either you judge people individually, regardless of their race, or religion; or you stereotype, and generalize, and make judgements based on other people's race and/or religion. The latter I would call racism. And yes, I know, Islam "technically" isn't a race, but for lack of a better term, I shall use "racist" in this context. Feel free to provide me with a better term.
I called lowing out on it, but he hates Islam simply because in his mind, it doesn't "mesh" with western society.
He not only think that it's Islamic intolerance that's the problem, not both ways, but even when "those Muslims do fit into Western society they aren't practicing true Islamic beleif."TheAussieReaper wrote:
Hate the radical extremists, not Islam. That's what I'd like to see from you. And I know it's very unlikely, but the world isn't simply black & white.lowing wrote:
Oh and as said before a phobia is a fear. I do not fear Islam, I just hate it.lowing wrote:
Ummmmm ask Cam, Islam is not a race pal. Therefore anything Isay against it can not be RACIST. Sorry I hate Islam because terrorism that it breeds not withstanding, it also is a relgion a culture and a society that does not mesh with FREE societies. Its intoleance puts a society in a tail slide, it does not move it forward. Those Muslims that fit into western society are not practicing Islam. Ask their Islamic brothern.
Sorry, I disagree, I am prejudiced against a religion and its teachings, I judge individuals based on appearance, actions and effort. There is a distinct difference.B.Schuss wrote:
lowing wrote:
really? show me pleaseVilham wrote:
Clearly you don't your own previous statements totally contradict what you just claimed.http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p2217185lowing wrote:
...I do not fear Islam, I just hate it.
clearly, that is not judging people individually, is it ?
come on, lowing, there are only two options here: either you judge people individually, regardless of their race, or religion; or you stereotype, and generalize, and make judgements based on other people's race and/or religion. The latter I would call racism. And yes, I know, Islam "technically" isn't a race, but for lack of a better term, I shall use "racist" in this context. Feel free to provide me with a better term.
As far as the OP is concerned, it's always funny to see someone living in Egypt make comments on how the muslim population is supposed to develop in Europe. Especially if the guy is a muslim scholar, and not a sociologist, or anthropologist...
As others have already pointed out, muslim population in Europe is - statistically speaking - insignificant. Second- and third-generation muslims are largely westernized, and often care more about their playstations, cars, and cable TV, than about religion. They are also largely un-political.
In those regards, they are really not that much different from their fellow citizens of other ethnic or religious backgrounds, btw.
In germany, for example, there isn't even a muslim political party. So even if a majority of muslims were politically active, they would only be able to vote for the democratic, non-muslim parties that we have anyway, which kind of defies the supposed "threat" they pose to our democratic society.
where did my post go?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Yeah and?TheAussieReaper wrote:
I agree completely with you on this one.B.Schuss wrote:
come on, lowing, there are only two options here: either you judge people individually, regardless of their race, or religion; or you stereotype, and generalize, and make judgements based on other people's race and/or religion. The latter I would call racism. And yes, I know, Islam "technically" isn't a race, but for lack of a better term, I shall use "racist" in this context. Feel free to provide me with a better term.
I called lowing out on it, but he hates Islam simply because in his mind, it doesn't "mesh" with western society.He not only think that it's Islamic intolerance that's the problem, not both ways, but even when "those Muslims do fit into Western society they aren't practicing true Islamic beleif."TheAussieReaper wrote:
Hate the radical extremists, not Islam. That's what I'd like to see from you. And I know it's very unlikely, but the world isn't simply black & white.lowing wrote:
Oh and as said before a phobia is a fear. I do not fear Islam, I just hate it.lowing wrote:
Ummmmm ask Cam, Islam is not a race pal. Therefore anything Isay against it can not be RACIST. Sorry I hate Islam because terrorism that it breeds not withstanding, it also is a relgion a culture and a society that does not mesh with FREE societies. Its intoleance puts a society in a tail slide, it does not move it forward. Those Muslims that fit into western society are not practicing Islam. Ask their Islamic brothern.