Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Chivalry, as in they should acknowledge that I don't want them posting here.Th1sWasATriumph said:I don't think chivalry is the right word, but whatever.
Rosenrot said: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.
Rosenrot said:[
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.
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.
Rosenrot said: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.
very closely observed
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.How long do you have to stay in a country before it's classified as immigration and not travelling, by your terms?
If someone imports their culture along with themselves that is multiculturalism.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.
I didn't mean all migrants are, but I doubt I need to say that some (in some cases most) of them are.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 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.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.
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.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.
Rosenrot said: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.
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.
If someone imports their culture along with themselves that is multiculturalism.
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?)
I didn't mean all migrants are, but I doubt I need to say that some (in some cases most) of them are.
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(?).
(22:31:07) Rosenrot: You can now, it's pretty much done with.
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.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).
Rosenrot said: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.
Quote: "Europe is not a geographical, but a biological term." (Not sure by whom, but I found it on Varg Vikernes' site.