Rosenrot debate

[Rosenrot]

As requested, I've made this stupid topic.
And I'd like to start by asking what's so wrong with my personal opinions(/views)?

And for all the persons not involved, you are asked not to post. Have some chivalry.

 

[Anonymous]

As RosenRot states, this thread is for a debate between himself, myself and Th1sWasATriumph. I request that other people refrain from posting until the conclusion.

 

[Rosenrot]

As I've stated in the chat, I believe that Europe shouldn't have people from Non-european countries in it. In particular, I said "negroes don't belong in Europe"
First of all, I believe all countries should be free of all people not in it since its carnation.
And emphasis on all countries and all people. I don't think Europe should be something of an exception, nor should black people.
So.. I believe for exp. Germany shouldn't have people of all colours in it, as with Nigeria.

Second, I'd like to say why I used negroes instead of "black people". I believe black people is more offensive than Negro.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I don't think chivalry is the right word, but whatever.

The onus is not on us to prove your views are wrong, as far as I'm concerned. You must justify and supply proof for the detrimental effects of ethnic immigration.

Including: why ethnic groups should stay where they are, what insoluble social problems are caused by immigration, how trade would operate . . .

 

[Rosenrot]

I don't think chivalry is the right word, but whatever.

Chivalry, as in they should acknowledge that I don't want them posting here.

And I believe immigration is bad because multiculturalism is bad.
Again I will use the example of Islam in Europe. The whole thing is going on because of people from the middle east immigrating here with the intention to take over Europe.

EDIT: "And I believe immigration is bad because multiculturalism is bad." Immigration causes multiculturalism, which is bad, which makes immigration bad.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

As I've stated in the chat, I believe that Europe shouldn't have people from Non-european countries in it. In particular, I said "negroes don't belong in Europe"
First of all, I believe all countries should be free of all people not in it since its carnation.
And emphasis on all countries and all people. I don't think Europe should be something of an exception, nor should black people.
So.. I believe for exp. Germany shouldn't have people of all colours in it, as with Nigeria.

Second, I'd like to say why I used negroes instead of "black people". I believe black people is more offensive than Negro.

For a start, this inconveniences a LOT of people who might want or need to travel somewhere outside their country of origin. Are you really suggesting that people remain in one country or landmass for their entire lives? That's shoddy human rights, there.

If applied universally, you end up with a whole bunch of isolated countries, stagnated in various senses. Those countries that are less hospitable to human life and poorer will remain so. You don't need to worry about that, you're in Europe and things are generally pretty good here, on average. But how about Sierra Leone? For some people, it's either emigrate or die/have a really rotten life. So let's reverse this on you: you are in a country with baking heat, poor infrastructure and agriculture, overpopulation, disease - all the lamentably true cliches. Do you stay put? Or do you try and get to a country where you can work for money and make a new start? Do you want to stop the people who try this?

And taken to the logical extremes, you'd need to ban trade and commerce, which means less fortunate countries are just completely fucked.

I don't think people in third world countries WANT to be penned in there, and wouldn't view it as equality that you would pen yourself into Europe simoultaneously. It's not magnanimous to apply the same rule to yourself as others when environmental, political and geographical context make the situation far less tenable for them.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

[
Chivalry, as in they should acknowledge that I don't want them posting here.

This is a forum, I still maintain it's ridiculous to not want other people taking part in a debate. All I did was jump in and suddenly I'm official - who not other people? It's not chivalrous to leave someone's antisocial views unchallenged. But anyway.

And I believe immigration is bad because multiculturalism is bad.
Again I will use the example of Islam in Europe. The whole thing is going on because of people from the middle east immigrating here with the intention to take over Europe.

But you define Islam as an ethnic group. It's not. How would you react to "Europeans" who simply convert to Islam? Anyone can be a Muslim. There may be some countries that hold the majority of Muslims, but that doesn't make it an ethnic group, and it's not a valid justification for banning immigration because even if you did, people could become Muslims anyway - through conversion or personal choice. I pretty much share your irritation at Islam, but I don't think banning immigration is the way to sort it. If that's you're main problem, why not simply narrow your issue to simply "No Muslims"?

Multiculturalism is not bad across the board, not by a long shot. It's not inherently problematic. I think your problem lies more with religious integration and subjugation - which can be an aspect of multiculturalism, but multiculturalism does not guarantee it. It depends on context, on the cultures that will be mixed and integrated. There are plenty of cultures here in London, and for the most part it all works.

 

[Rosenrot]

For a start, this inconveniences a LOT of people who might want or need to travel somewhere outside their country of origin. Are you really suggesting that people remain in one country or landmass for their entire lives? That's shoddy human rights, there.

If applied universally, you end up with a whole bunch of isolated countries, stagnated in various senses. Those countries that are less hospitable to human life and poorer will remain so. You don't need to worry about that, you're in Europe and things are generally pretty good here, on average. But how about Sierra Leone? For some people, it's either emigrate or die/have a really rotten life. So let's reverse this on you: you are in a country with baking heat, poor infrastructure and agriculture, overpopulation, disease - all the lamentably true cliches. Do you stay put? Or do you try and get to a country where you can work for money and make a new start? Do you want to stop the people who try this?

And taken to the logical extremes, you'd need to ban trade and commerce, which means less fortunate countries are just completely fucked.

I don't think people in third world countries WANT to be penned in there, and wouldn't view it as equality that you would pen yourself into Europe simoultaneously. It's not magnanimous to apply the same rule to yourself as others when environmental, political and geographical context make the situation far less tenable for them.

The thing I'm against is the fact that people who come to other countries don't want to adapt to the local culture. This is very often nowadays because of a democracy that is willing to do ANYthing in the name of avoiding conflicts.
If someone has problems inside their country they ought to stay there and try to improve the situation there, not become a parasite within an existing country.

Another thing, travelling and migrating is a different thing. Suppose you're a person who comes to a country for a short while as a worker. This isn't migration. And I do support this sort of travelling.
But migration is a genuine problem when people don't adapt to the host country's culture. Prime example being Muslim immigrants to Europe. Importing your culture here and expecting people to take it lightly is true idiocy.

Another thing, suppose the migrants are troublesome (emphasis on those living off welfare), this is where I can offer you examples from my experience. People from Bosnia / Serbia come to Slovenia, and speak Serbo-Croatian, discriminate against Slovenes (the Host nation).
This is the true problem, and that was the problem that is caused by immigration and that is why I believe it should be banned or at least very closely observed. And my statement was biggoted, for which I apologize, but ultimately these bad examples of immigration belong under the category of immigration, even if not all immigrants are like that.
And sorry if I constructed(/organized) this post badly.

EDIT: Sorry, I messed up the quote.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

The thing I'm against is the fact that people who come to other countries don't want to adapt to the local culture. This is very often nowadays because of a democracy that is willing to do ANYthing in the name of avoiding conflicts.

Yes, that's bad times. But it's not the entirety of the situation by any means. Adapting to a local culture is not necessary as long as a peaceful alternative is created - i don't complain about the number of Polish food shops in my area of London, but it's indicative of a partial refusal or reluctance to adapt to British culture. I don't care. I don't have to eat the food.

If someone has problems inside their country they ought to stay there and try to improve the situation there, not become a parasite within an existing country.

That's a very idealistic perspective. How much do you think people with nothing can do? Sometimes there's no choice except to run, and you're sort of betraying your bias here - do you think every immigrant is a "parasite"? I live with a Polish immigrant. She has a job. I knew another polish immigrant; also employed. A Moldovan - employed. Most of the builders I meet at my own work are immigrants. The parasites are in a minority.

Another thing, travelling and migrating is a different thing. Suppose you're a person who comes to a country for a short while as a worker. This isn't migration. And I do support this sort of travelling.

How long do you have to stay in a country before it's classified as immigration and not travelling, by your terms?

But migration is a genuine problem when people don't adapt to the host country's culture. Prime example being Muslim immigrants to Europe. Importing your culture here and expecting people to take it lightly is true idiocy.

Yes, I agree. But that's hardly the entirety of multiculturalism, is it? All this means is that specific problems need to be addressed, not immigration banned entirely. It's like banning cars because some people crash them into orphanages.

Another thing, suppose the migrants are troublesome (emphasis on those living off welfare), this is where I can offer you examples from my experience. People from Bosnia / Serbia come to Slovenia, and speak Serbo-Croatian, discriminate against Slovenes (the Host nation).

Well, from my experience I can offer you the opposite - people who come to his country, settle down, get a job, and get on with things. The negative aspects are not symptomatic of immigration.

This is the true problem, and that was the problem that is caused by immigration and that is why I believe it should be banned or at least very closely observed. And my statement was biggoted, for which I apologize, but ultimately these bad examples of immigration belong under the category of immigration, even if not all immigrants are like that.

very closely observed

See, I think we can agree on that. There's nothing wrong with keeping tabs on who comes into the country. Outright banning, however, is only going to cause problems.

ultimately these bad examples of immigration belong under the category of immigration, even if not all immigrants are like that

Let me offer another version of that argument to try and show how it fails: some negroes rape people. Not all negroes are rapists. But some are, so all negroes must be stopped.

Immigration should be considered minutely through context, not banned in every country purely because a minority fuck things up.

And sorry if I constructed(/organized) this post badly.

Meh, at least we're discussing it.

 

[Rosenrot]

Yes, that's bad times. But it's not the entirety of the situation by any means. Adapting to a local culture is not necessary as long as a peaceful alternative is created - i don't complain about the number of Polish food shops in my area of London, but it's indicative of a partial refusal or reluctance to adapt to British culture. I don't care. I don't have to eat the food.

Well, Polish and British culture aren't that different, since they're both Western cultures. The language is really all right if used in private. A difference in culture would be a Berber coming to London, setting up a wagon with a tent and then bargaining with you over the price.

That's a very idealistic perspective. How much do you think people with nothing can do? Sometimes there's no choice except to run, and you're sort of betraying your bias here - do you think every immigrant is a "parasite"? I live with a Polish immigrant. She has a job. I knew another polish immigrant; also employed. A Moldovan - employed. Most of the builders I meet at my own work are immigrants. The parasites are in a minority.

I don't think Polish immigrants are wrong anyway, they've got an extremely similar culture to British, same with Moldovan. In Europe I embrace Euro-nationalism. And the parasites I was reffering to are people living off welfare.

How long do you have to stay in a country before it's classified as immigration and not travelling, by your terms?

If someone is in Slovenia for his working age and after retiring returns to Bosnia, nothing wrong. If someone continues his family in the country and stays even after retiring, then that's immigration. But that's for the workerlaw to decide, anyway.

Yes, I agree. But that's hardly the entirety of multiculturalism, is it? All this means is that specific problems need to be addressed, not immigration banned entirely. It's like banning cars because some people crash them into orphanages.

If someone imports their culture along with themselves that is multiculturalism.
And maybe saying immigration should be banned is a bit hyped, but at least immigration should be closed when there's no need for it. (If you've got plenty of workers, what's the point?)

Well, from my experience I can offer you the opposite - people who come to his country, settle down, get a job, and get on with things. The negative aspects are not symptomatic of immigration.

I didn't mean all migrants are, but I doubt I need to say that some (in some cases most) of them are.

See, I think we can agree on that. There's nothing wrong with keeping tabs on who comes into the country. Outright banning, however, is only going to cause problems.

I do think saying banning it entirely is a bit ... off. But I think closing immigration when it's not needed is all right. And keeping close watch on immigration is definetaly necessary.

Let me offer another version of that argument to try and show how it fails: some negroes rape people. Not all negroes are rapists. But some are, so all negroes must be stopped.

Immigration should be considered minutely through context, not banned in every country purely because a minority fuck things up.

Of course not, but regardless of that, the people that abuse the hostnation's generousity are still here because of immigration, so again I'll say it (immigration) needs to monitored.

Seems like overall we've made some progress(?).

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Well, Polish and British culture aren't that different, since they're both Western cultures. The language is really all right if used in private. A difference in culture would be a Berber coming to London, setting up a wagon with a tent and then bargaining with you over the price.

Still culturally different, though. If you want there to be some finite point at which two cultures suddenly become radically different, that's going to be difficult.

I don't think Polish immigrants are wrong anyway, they've got an extremely similar culture to British, same with Moldovan. In Europe I embrace Euro-nationalism. And the parasites I was reffering to are people living off welfare.

But it's immigration. Initially, you didn't like it. Now you seem fine, as long as it's the right kind of immigration. You embrace Euro-nationalism but you also don't want European immigrants coming into your European country. That simply makes no sense.

If someone imports their culture along with themselves that is multiculturalism.

Yes, but why is that intrinsically bad? As I've said, I can go and buy some kind of smoked Polish meat. Multiculture for the win.

but at least immigration should be closed when there's no need for it. (If you've got plenty of workers, what's the point?)

All hail your odd dystopian worldview. "What's the point"? It sounds like you're saying that immigrants function purely as a slave workforce. That's pretty awful. Maybe they just want to see the country. Maybe they want to be free people to move where they like.

I didn't mean all migrants are, but I doubt I need to say that some (in some cases most) of them are.

Proof needed! You mean that most of the ones in YOUR experience are. In my experience, not.

Of course not, but regardless of that, the people that abuse the hostnation's generousity are still here because of immigration, so again I'll say it (immigration) needs to monitored.

Well, we've moved from banning to monitoring. Excellent. However, you still think immigration should only be allowed for the material good of the host country - not as a concession to human rights.

Seems like overall we've made some progress(?).

I thought so until you shifted your argument and began saying how it's culture, not country, that should be kept isolated. By your old argument, Saudi Arabians should stay put. By your new one, they can come in as long as they assimilate. How can you say "Europe for the Europeans" whilst not wanting European immigration into your country? Your argument is now totally inconsistent and contradictory. If it's a cultural matter, anyone can come in as long as they embrace the host culture or at least operate under it. If it's a country matter, the lines are far stricter. So which is it? Because now, under your new terms, negroes CAN belong in Europe - if they play nice as far as you're concerned.

 

[Rosenrot]

Let me make this very clear, the problems with immigrations are a thing of TODAY, and I have stated this earlier in the chat.
And " By your old argument, Saudi Arabians should stay put. By your new one, they can come in as long as they assimilate." That was ultimatelly my point; culture is the problem.
If Saudi Arabians wouldn't have migrated here, there would have been no problem to start with. It's the current (and past) migration that bothers me and are the reason that me and a lot of other people have an opinion like this.

And the experiences, the ones I listed are indeed mine.. If you need more I'll give you a few links.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/07/muslim-violence.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163510/All-homosexuals-stoned-death-says-Muslim-preacher-hate.html

About Bosnians and Serbians in Slovenia:
First of all, it's very hard to characterize the immigrantchavs that live here in the first place.
There are more nations that combine themselves to form these Chavish gangs.
I suppose the most of them are Bosnians, whose culture is in my opinion more Turkish than Western.
Second would be Serbs, their culture is of course Russian, which could be, for the most part, reffered to as Western, but the religion (Orthodox) is unlike anything seen elsewhere in Europe (Greece is an exception).
Next come people from Albania and Kosovo. This one is a particularly hard one to explain, because they hate and love eachother. They are the ones who are proud of their country and force people to accept Kosovo as a country etc.

All of these nations are in "gangs" working in the urbanized areas of Slovenia, and it isn't hard to recognize them. Graffiti "Srbija do Tokija"* , "Živel Tito"* etc., violence & discrimination (Against Slovenes, homosexuals, generally advocates of anything they don't agree with.)

I have indeed "changed" my arguement as the debate progressed, I admit this, but it's hard to defend something with which you don't see a problem in the first place, and I do believe that rethorically you have won this debate, and I will end it now.
If you would like me to, I will open a thread about my views, or indeed I will explain it fully here.

1st * = Serbia to Tokyo, means something like "Serbia's influence stretches all the way to Tokyo"
2nd* = Live Tito, means something like "Long Live Tito".

Quote: "Europe is not a geographical, but a biological term." (Not sure by whom, but I found it on Varg Vikernes' site.

 

[Nemesis]

(22:31:07) Rosenrot: You can now, it's pretty much done with.

I can now post, yey.

Second would be Serbs, their culture is of course Russian, which could be, for the most part, reffered to as Western, but the religion (Orthodox) is unlike anything seen elsewhere in Europe (Greece is an exception).

Belarus (88%), Bulgaria (83%), Republic of Macedonia (65%), Republic of Cyprus (80%), Greece (98%), Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[Russia (80%) and Ukraine (80%). The number of Eastern Orthodox adherents represents about 36% of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Albania the adherents number around 25% out of a 40% Christian population, the other being Catholic. 4% of Lithuania, 9% of Latvians 13% of the Estonian population.
So yeah... Europe has seen Orthodox-ism.

I have a question: what is "European" for you? (or "true European")

 

[Rosenrot]

If th1s or Ree want to, I'll make a thread or a document about it for you to read, won't bother if those two don't tell me to.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

That was ultimatelly my point; culture is the problem.

I suppose I'm just confused because your initial point was not about culture, but countries. Fine, I'll accept that you've switched your terms, but it's damn shoddy.

if Saudi Arabians wouldn't have migrated here, there would have been no problem to start with. It's the current (and past) migration that bothers me and are the reason that me and a lot of other people have an opinion like this.

You can't say that for certain. The problems with Islamic immigrants are linked to religion, which is not bound to a specific country or culture. Indigenous populations can convert to a religion just as easily. It bothers me as well, but we seem to have reached a consensus on immigration monitoring at least.

And the experiences, the ones I listed are indeed mine.. If you need more I'll give you a few links.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/07/muslim-violence.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163510/All-homosexuals-stoned-death-says-Muslim-preacher-hate.html

You don't need to find me examples, believe me. Islamic fundamentalism is awful. But it's not a reason to ban immigration - it's a very specific problem and should be addressed as such.

About Bosnians and Serbians in Slovenia:
First of all, it's very hard to characterize the immigrantchavs that live here in the first place.
There are more nations that combine themselves to form these Chavish gangs.
I suppose the most of them are Bosnians, whose culture is in my opinion more Turkish than Western.
Second would be Serbs, their culture is of course Russian, which could be, for the most part, reffered to as Western, but the religion (Orthodox) is unlike anything seen elsewhere in Europe (Greece is an exception).
Next come people from Albania and Kosovo. This one is a particularly hard one to explain, because they hate and love eachother. They are the ones who are proud of their country and force people to accept Kosovo as a country etc.

All of these nations are in "gangs" working in the urbanized areas of Slovenia, and it isn't hard to recognize them. Graffiti "Srbija do Tokija"* , "Živel Tito"* etc., violence & discrimination (Against Slovenes, homosexuals, generally advocates of anything they don't agree with.)

I never said problems didn't exist with immigration. You clearly live in a place where it's raised more issues than usual, but some countries are like that thanks to all sorts of variables of location, political makeup, population etc. This doesn't mean ban immigration, just target the hot spots.

I have indeed "changed" my arguement as the debate progressed, I admit this, but it's hard to defend something with which you don't see a problem in the first place, and I do believe that rethorically you have won this debate, and I will end it now.
If you would like me to, I will open a thread about my views, or indeed I will explain it fully here.

I don't think I've won in that sense - there's still stuff to debate, I've just cleared up some confusions.

Your problem is: refusal to assimilate with local culture can be problematic; I agree.

You occupy an area where these problems are condensed, so your views are understandably stronger. I support the exiling and deportation of hate preachers and the like. Islamic zealotism is a bastard of a problem.

We seem to agree that outright banning won't work, but monitoring and rigorous enforcement could.

Quote: "Europe is not a geographical, but a biological term." (Not sure by whom, but I found it on Varg Vikernes' site.

Got to say, I don't much agree with that one!

 

[Anonymous]

I'm locking this topic, no more posts will be allowed.