There was no point to miss. How about trying to express your ideas clearly.lowing wrote:
another missed point oh wellAries_37 wrote:
Exactly. All because a subgroup of people enjoy being somewhere doesn't make it exclusive. Noone is being excluded. You are free to go and do whatever you want. What do you want? For everyone everywhere to love and welcome you?AussieReaper wrote:
Mini nations?
Do they have border searches when crossing from one street to the next?
I was being sarcastic to prove a point, and you know it.AussieReaper wrote:
I don't think I do.lowing wrote:
Well the US is a nation seemingly without borders, does this mean we are not a nation? Ya know the point I am makingAussieReaper wrote:
Mini nations?
Do they have border searches when crossing from one street to the next?
How can you equate a predominantly black neighbourhood for example, to that of a minination? There is nothing stopping you from moving there, making friends, socially interacting like anyone else living there.
I spelled out my opinion clearly on page one. and you can stop being naive as to whast is really happening with your bullshit about how a "subgroup of people enjoy being somewhere"..............Aries_37 wrote:
There was no point to miss. How about trying to express your ideas clearly.lowing wrote:
another missed point oh wellAries_37 wrote:
Exactly. All because a subgroup of people enjoy being somewhere doesn't make it exclusive. Noone is being excluded. You are free to go and do whatever you want. What do you want? For everyone everywhere to love and welcome you?
I suppose a southern georgia white small town, flying Confederate flags everywhere would not be considered a racist town, even though blacks are "free to move there if you want to"
here is your wake up call
Last edited by lowing (2009-05-26 08:32:43)
Yeah well, from page one:
isn't exactly conductive of diversity to begin with.lowing wrote:
I am feed up with everyones oneway street version of diversity.
Never said it was....I hope I spoke clearly enoughAussieReaper wrote:
Yeah well, from page one:isn't exactly conductive of diversity to begin with.lowing wrote:
I am feed up with everyones oneway street version of diversity.
Loud and clear. You don't like cultural diversity because it apparently offers nothing. But at the same time you don't like "mini-nations" where there is little diversity.lowing wrote:
Never said it was....I hope I spoke clearly enoughAussieReaper wrote:
Yeah well, from page one:isn't exactly conductive of diversity to begin with.lowing wrote:
I am feed up with everyones oneway street version of diversity.
Does that about sum up your view so far?
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.AussieReaper wrote:
Loud and clear. You don't like cultural diversity because it apparently offers nothing. But at the same time you don't like "mini-nations" where there is little diversity.lowing wrote:
Never said it was....I hope I spoke clearly enoughAussieReaper wrote:
Yeah well, from page one:
isn't exactly conductive of diversity to begin with.
Does that about sum up your view so far?
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
An example please... cause I have no idea what you're talking about.lowing wrote:
Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else.
What special interest and special rights are forced on people?lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.
Yeah yeah, reverse racism. It's what racists cry when they feel a minority is acting in a similar way that they do but aren't called out on it. Want to know why? Because they are a minority ffs. How can a minority act anything like the majority when it comes to racism? The cultural power is obviously outweighed to begin with.lowing wrote:
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
gay rightsDrunkFace wrote:
An example please... cause I have no idea what you're talking about.lowing wrote:
Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else.
hate crime legislation
CAIR agenda
NAACP agenda
Tell me how gay rights are detrimental to "you"?lowing wrote:
gay rightsDrunkFace wrote:
An example please... cause I have no idea what you're talking about.lowing wrote:
Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else.
hate crime legislation
CAIR agenda
NAACP agenda
1. see aboveAussieReaper wrote:
What special interest and special rights are forced on people?lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.Yeah yeah, reverse racism. It's what racists cry when they feel a minority is acting in a similar way that they do but aren't called out on it. Want to know why? Because they are a minority ffs. How can a minority act anything like the majority when it comes to racism? The cultural power is obviously outweighed to begin with.lowing wrote:
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
2. classic so you think only white people can be racists, now you know the problem, Aussie congrats we have come full circle
Because no one group should be singled out for any rights not given to the citizens as a whole. No special considerations based on discriminatory substance.AussieReaper wrote:
Tell me how gay rights are detrimental to "you"?lowing wrote:
gay rightsDrunkFace wrote:
An example please... cause I have no idea what you're talking about.
hate crime legislation
CAIR agenda
NAACP agenda
you wanted equality right? Well that goes both ways.
No, I am not saying only whites can be racist. The racism pressures as I said, are outweighed when it comes to majority racism, vs minority racism.lowing wrote:
1. see aboveAussieReaper wrote:
What special interest and special rights are forced on people?lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.Yeah yeah, reverse racism. It's what racists cry when they feel a minority is acting in a similar way that they do but aren't called out on it. Want to know why? Because they are a minority ffs. How can a minority act anything like the majority when it comes to racism? The cultural power is obviously outweighed to begin with.lowing wrote:
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
2. classic so you think only white people can be racists, now you know the problem, Aussie congrats we have come full circle
I have made no mention of black, white or any other race when stating the fact it comes down to numbers.
For instance, an asian community can feel racism from the surrounding white neighbourhoods, pressure from the local government, racism from all levels of society.
What racism power do they have over the majority? Picking on the white guy that walks through the neighbourhood? It is still racist, but do you think that perhaps a minority has less power to influence race relations?
Well then you don't understand what the equally gay rights campaigners are fighting for...lowing wrote:
Because no one group should be singled out for any rights not given to the citizens as a whole. No special considerations based on discriminatory substance.AussieReaper wrote:
Tell me how gay rights are detrimental to "you"?lowing wrote:
gay rights
hate crime legislation
CAIR agenda
NAACP agenda
you wanted equality right? Well that goes both ways.
Like, equal legal representation in the courts when seen as a "gay couple" compared to a straight couple. The contention of wills leaving money to "partners" is not equal.
What they are fighting for does not single them out for any rights not given to the citizens as a whole, it is simply excluding them, unfairly.
How can you not understand that?
How is a gay couple having equal rights to that of a straight couple, discriminatory to a straight couple? You are making ZERO sense.
How are gay rights detrimental to "you"? Because gays don't deserve the same rights you have? Your insane.
That definition is your alone. Diversity has nothing to do with forcing anything on anyone. If everyone were 'forced' to accept one thing then that would be the opposite of diversity.lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.AussieReaper wrote:
Loud and clear. You don't like cultural diversity because it apparently offers nothing. But at the same time you don't like "mini-nations" where there is little diversity.lowing wrote:
Never said it was....I hope I spoke clearly enough
Does that about sum up your view so far?
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
You cannot say that there is no diveresity by picking on such geographically restricted examples as Chinatown. Over here Chinatown is a couple of streets tops. Moreover you need to learn to distinguish wanting to enjoy your own culture with wanting to shield yourself from other cultures. A localised concentration of one culture arises due to practical reasons. They aren't scared or wanting to avoid diversity, if that were the case they would have stayed in their home country.
Actually I am for "gay marriage" in this example gays are not seeking SPECIAL treatment, they are seeking equal treatment I think they should have it.AussieReaper wrote:
Well then you don't understand what the equally gay rights campaigners are fighting for...lowing wrote:
Because no one group should be singled out for any rights not given to the citizens as a whole. No special considerations based on discriminatory substance.AussieReaper wrote:
Tell me how gay rights are detrimental to "you"?
you wanted equality right? Well that goes both ways.
Like, equal legal representation in the courts when seen as a "gay couple" compared to a straight couple. The contention of wills leaving money to "partners" is not equal.
What they are fighting for does not single them out for any rights not given to the citizens as a whole, it is simply excluding them, unfairly.
How can you not understand that?
How is a gay couple having equal rights to that of a straight couple, discriminatory to a straight couple? You are making ZERO sense.
How are gay rights detrimental to "you"? Because gays don't deserve the same rights you have? Your insane.
however when you want special legislation to protect you from violent crime above anyone else I have a problem. When you seek to force feed homosexuality into the schools as equally normal behavior I have a problem. When you think being gay is supposed to protect you from or encourge law suits I have a problem.
ya might wanna tell it to the NAACP and CAIr for example. You also might wanna tell it to the blacks in Harlem, the Italians in Little Italy. the greeks in Greektown or the Koreans in Korea town. Lets also not forget the Cubans in Little Havana. they might buy your bullshit but I am not.Aries_37 wrote:
That definition is your alone. Diversity has nothing to do with forcing anything on anyone. If everyone were 'forced' to accept one thing then that would be the opposite of diversity.lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.AussieReaper wrote:
Loud and clear. You don't like cultural diversity because it apparently offers nothing. But at the same time you don't like "mini-nations" where there is little diversity.
Does that about sum up your view so far?
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
You cannot say that there is no diveresity by picking on such geographically restricted examples as Chinatown. Over here Chinatown is a couple of streets tops. Moreover you need to learn to distinguish wanting to enjoy your own culture with wanting to shield yourself from other cultures. A localised concentration of one culture arises due to practical reasons. They aren't scared or wanting to avoid diversity, if that were the case they would have stayed in their home country.
Schools are force feeding homosexuality into schools, where are you getting this notion?lowing wrote:
Actually I am for "gay marriage" in this example gays are not seeking SPECIAL treatment, they are seeking equal treatment I think they should have it.
however when you want special legislation to protect you from violent crime above anyone else I have a problem. When you seek to force feed homosexuality into the schools as equally normal behavior I have a problem. When you think being gay is supposed to protect you from or encourge law suits I have a problem.
And if so, why is it not equally normal behaviour? Now you're just being homophobic.
What law suits are you protected from or are encourage by when your sexual orientation is different? The courts do now treat violent crime any differently when they are sexually based or otherwise. You don't get a longer sentence for gay-bashing than bashing a Jewish guy due to anti-Semitism do you?
1. http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashing … ucate.htmlAussieReaper wrote:
Schools are force feeding homosexuality into schools, where are you getting this notion?lowing wrote:
Actually I am for "gay marriage" in this example gays are not seeking SPECIAL treatment, they are seeking equal treatment I think they should have it.
however when you want special legislation to protect you from violent crime above anyone else I have a problem. When you seek to force feed homosexuality into the schools as equally normal behavior I have a problem. When you think being gay is supposed to protect you from or encourge law suits I have a problem.
And if so, why is it not equally normal behaviour? Now you're just being homophobic.
What law suits are you protected from or are encourage by when your sexual orientation is different? The courts do now treat violent crime any differently when they are sexually based or otherwise. You don't get a longer sentence for gay-bashing than bashing a Jewish guy due to anti-Semitism do you?
because it is not normal behavior, and you pretty much know it. It ihas nothing to do with homophobia it is a fact.
2. discrimination lawsuits. IE using being fired because your gay when you were caught sleeping on the job or stealing. the equivalent of the race card. Or are you now going to deny knowing anything about that.
3. Hate crime legislation punishes crimes against gays or a race more severely than non-hate crimes of the same violent attributes. Guess who rarely gets to impose hate crime legislation white people.
1. Well that unbiased source "lol" does nothing but provide a "they are working towards pushing this idea" there is nothing concrete at all. Such extreme teachings would not make it into the curriculum at any stage and you know it.lowing wrote:
1. http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashing … ucate.html
because it is not normal behavior, and you pretty much know it. It ihas nothing to do with homophobia it is a fact.
2. discrimination lawsuits. IE using being fired because your gay when you were caught sleeping on the job or stealing. the equivalent of the race card. Or are you now going to deny knowing anything about that.
3. Hate crime legislation punishes crimes against gays or a race more severely than non-hate crimes of the same violent attributes. Guess who rarely gets to impose hate crime legislation white people.
2. The race card can be changed to the gay card? Being fired because you were caught sleep on the job or stealing and taking the employer to court claiming you were fired due to sexual orientation would be thrown out. Reason? They were fired for sleeping or stealing on the job. Evidence and rule of law doesn't magically disappear because you are gay.
3. Hate crimes should be punished more severely. They are far more dangerous. You know this. It causes huge tension in any society when hate crimes flare up. White people rarely get to impose hate crime because they are not hated on as much, seeing as they are the majority. Who is going to hate on them? Fellow caucasians? Of cause your going to see more hate crimes against africans, mexicans, non-whites etc in the courts. They are minorities.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-05-26 09:25:58)
I think they would agree with me. They would probably wonder how or why I'm even making such a big deal of it. Only someone with a real racism complex could see something malicious in it. If there are racists anywhere they are bound to be a minority. Last time I checked not every non-white person was a member of the NAACP. You cannot say there is no diversity or no desire for diversity based on the existence of a few groups and individuals. I do indeed find it somewhat ignorant that you assume that all the black people in Harlem, all the Italians in Italy Town etc. think the way about white people as you believe white people have been accused of thinking about them all these years. Whatever their reasons for living there I somehow doubt it involves an outright refusal and rejection to mix with others.lowing wrote:
ya might wanna tell it to the NAACP and CAIr for example. You also might wanna tell it to the blacks in Harlem, the Italians in Little Italy. the greeks in Greektown or the Koreans in Korea town. Lets also not forget the Cubans in Little Havana. they might buy your bullshit but I am not.Aries_37 wrote:
That definition is your alone. Diversity has nothing to do with forcing anything on anyone. If everyone were 'forced' to accept one thing then that would be the opposite of diversity.lowing wrote:
Nope, I don't like the version of cultural diversity as it is in our PC nation. Diversity here is forcing special interest and special rights on everyone else. If you don't accept it you are a racist. It has nothing to do with assimilation into a community.
the "mini nations" is merely proof of everyone else being guilty of what white people are accused of on a daily basis.
You cannot say that there is no diveresity by picking on such geographically restricted examples as Chinatown. Over here Chinatown is a couple of streets tops. Moreover you need to learn to distinguish wanting to enjoy your own culture with wanting to shield yourself from other cultures. A localised concentration of one culture arises due to practical reasons. They aren't scared or wanting to avoid diversity, if that were the case they would have stayed in their home country.
Some people want diversity. Some don't.lowing wrote:
This is because, truth be known, NOBODY wants real diversity. We all want to either keep things the way we like them or change them from what someone else likes to their own liking.Turquoise wrote:
True... which is less often than it should be.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Diversity is good when both the native population and the immigrants can work together in peace.
I do not want to be force feed culture I do not like. Of course in everyones eyes this makes me a bigot. Never mind it is fine when others do not want to be force feed western democracy. Calling someone a racist is the only way someone can deflect the truth of the matter and avoid devulging their own predjudices.
I give you the threads started by benefit as a perfect example of this. The man said nothing insulting or unreasonable but the usual suspects bashed him relentlessly to the point where his threads had to be closed, and he is the one that is supposed to need tp be more diverse and open minded? This does nothing but show diversity means changing from one way to another way. It does not mean compromise in the real world. If you do not "diversify" willingly ( IE, accept forced non beneifical change) you are a racist. Never mind the agenda of those accusing.
Muslims don't want diversity, they want Islam
no race wants diversity either, which is why cities like NY or divided into racial or national mini nations.
I am feed up with everyones oneway street version of diversity.
As you said though, most people just want things their way. The majority wants its way. Minorities want their way.
We innately tend to vex and oppress each other, and when we are dramatically different from each other in culture or appearance, we are even more likely to do so.
This is why I'm not a fan of diversity. It seems to be more of a negative than a positive in most cases.
sums it all up really - Just arrived back from Italy & stepped off the plane to this shite..The chief constable has asked the Police Ombudsman to investigate claims that his officers stood by and did not intervene as Kevin McDaid was attacked.
The Catholic father-of-four was beaten to death by a gang of men near his home in Coleraine on Sunday after Rangers won the Scottish league title.
Twelve people, including a 15-year-old youth, have been arrested.
Police said there was nothing to suggest loyalist paramilitaries were involved in the attack.
Mr McDaid's wife, Evelyn, said she believed her husband's death was the work of loyalist paramilitaries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ire … 068956.stm
And oll that rot.FatherTed wrote:
tally ho chap wot wot