Everybody can come into our liberal paradise - just don't go to their countries!

Truley

Yes here in our liberal paradise we tolerate swearing. We embrace swearing

Nodin

owenc wrote: »

so they're aloud to swear..

Yes, yes we fucking are. Just like in real life. Amazing isn't it.

Moomoo1

Truley wrote: »

Yes here in our liberal paradise we tolerate swearing. We embrace swearing

Liberal numpties like you should be sent to Guantanamo

Antbert

The Aussie wrote: »

Seemed funny after the pub at 1.30, still does. Anyway your still to explain how im at fault for something that happened before i was born by a previous generation and also how im not as Australian as anyone else elidgable to carry an Australian passport, are you the sort of person who sees a Nigerian child and still sees a forigner

Hello. I'm a little unclear as to why you're even making this point. Am I correct in saying the following: Original Australian guy here makes unpleasant sectarian comments, something to do with aboriginal rights is brought up, you say that it's no different to Irish travellers. Then... All relevance to current argument is lost.

Well. I think racism has gotten mixed up with sectarianism here. I'm not fully versed on aboriginal culture but it refers to indigenous people of Australia, rather than a religion doesn't it? And I'm sure some Australians are unpleasant towards aboriginies in the same way some Irish people are unpleasant towards travellers (although I think that if we're getting into technicalities and bloodlines and all other such meaningless bollocks, travellers aren't actually more "native" as such).

It doesn't matter anyway. It's irrelevant to the argument and it's annoying to pick on one tiny little point.

Antbert

EDIT: Wrong thread.

The Aussie

Antbert wrote: »

It doesn't matter anyway. It's irrelevant to the argument and it's annoying to pick on one tiny little point.

Yeh point taken, but it is also a little bit annoying how the aboriginal debate is brought up and bandied about by those least equiped to have a valid opinion on it, such as how im less Australian than an Aboriginal, imagine the flogging i would rightfully cop if i said that some paddy from Co Louth who just got his Australian Citizenship is not an Australian at all and never will be, but point taken.

Dudess

The Aussie wrote: »

you might want to stick to modding the pimple popping forums

Not that it has even the slightest relevance to her being a moderator, but anyway...

The Aussie wrote: »

Anyway your still to explain how im at fault for something that happened before i was born by a previous generation and also how im not as Australian as anyone else elidgable to carry an Australian passport

Um... nobody said that - anywhere. You are the one who said Irish people who consider the treatment of Aboriginals really sh1t are hypocrites because of how sh1t travellers get treated here - first of all, no, not all Irish people are hypocrites, because not all Irish people treat travellers badly. Their Irishness alone does not make them hypocrites.
And then, the point was made that there's a difference in history between the two groups (Irish travellers and Aboriginals) in that Aboriginals are native Australians who were there before the Europeans sh1tted all over them.

Antbert

The Aussie wrote: »

Yeh point taken, but it is also a little bit annoying how the aboriginal debate is brought up and bandied about by those least equiped to have a valid opinion on it, such as how im less Australian than an Aboriginal, imagine the flogging i would rightfully cop if i said that some paddy from Co Louth who just got his Australian Citizenship is not an Australian at all and never will be, but point taken.

It's cool. I think the whole 'more Irish/more Australian' thing is a load of bollocks anyway (as was seen quite blatantly on a patriotism thread about a week ago). You're born wherever you're born. Who cares. Incidentally, I was born in Australia and have an Aussie and an Irish passport. I think from now on I'll be French.

Dudess

I see absolutely nothing wrong with criticising the more barbaric, misogynistic customs though - I don't agree with those who insist "it's their culture, respect it" (not that there'd be many, I'd imagine) but do people really believe we'll be taken over by Islam if "they" continue to "get their way" here?

Dudess

The Aussie wrote: »

such as how im less Australian than an Aboriginal

People are referring to historically - and yes, historically, you are of European stock, not a native Australian.

imagine the flogging i would rightfully cop if i said that some paddy from Co Louth who just got his Australian Citizenship is not an Australian at all and never will be

Not even remotely comparable, but kudos on the provocative language.

Antbert

Dudess wrote: »

I see absolutely nothing wrong with criticising these customs though - I don't agree with those who insist "it's their culture, respect it" (not that there'd be many, I'd imagine) but do people really believe we'll be taken over by Islam if "they" continue to "get their way" here?

This is the thing. It doesn't even make sense in the UK where there actually is a substantial Muslim community. I know ONE Muslim. What exactly are all these people getting so riled up about? As always, people are annoyed about the wrong thing. Getting irate about unpleasant religious customs = valid. Getting irate about presence of Muslims in "our" country = stupid and infuriating.

gbee

Antbert wrote: »

indigenous people of Australia, rather than a religion doesn't it? ... travellers aren't actually more "native" as such)..

Correct. At some time one must decide where indigenous starts and immigration begins. The Irish Traveller is two fold, one is set on the road after evictions by landlords. The other is an economic migrant who tries to trace route to the original gypsies of Rumania.

In any event they were part of the indigenous people of Ireland prior to their separation, either forcefully or by choice.

Unquestionably, Australia was discovered by the west and colonised whilst there was an indigenous people already there.

The Aussie

Piste wrote: »

the Aboriginals were there first, then Europeans came over and took their land and continues to treat them badly.

Um Dudess, sucks to be you i think, the part about "continues to treat them badly" and "the aboriginals were there first" really sinks your battle ship and the part about being a "native Australian" i love as i was born in Australia im also a "native Australian, but kudos for trying

dlofnep

The Aussie wrote: »

Um Dudess, sucks to be you i think, the part about "continues to treat them badly" and "the aboriginals were there first" really sinks your battle ship and the part about being a "native Australian" i love as i was born in Australia im also a "native Australian, but kudos for trying

Why are you saying Dudess when you're responding to a quote by Piste?

The Aussie

Dudess wrote: »

Um... nobody said that - anywhere.

because of this little pearl

Dudess

The Aussie wrote: »

sucks to be you i think

Um... yeah.

the part about "continues to treat them badly" and "the aboriginals were there first" really sinks your battle ship and the part about being a "native Australian" i love as i was born in Australia im also a "native Australian, but kudos for trying

But nobody said you personally are less Australian than an Aboriginal in today's context - just that this applies to your ancestors. Also, the Aboriginals were there first...
And nobody said you personally are at fault for what was done by the Europeans in the early days.
You just seem to be imagining these things, evidenced by your "paddy" jibe.

dlofnep

I for one was highly moderately insulted by the paddy comment.

The Aussie

Dudess wrote: »

evidenced by your "paddy" jibe.

Jibe its no different to me being called an aussie or these
Kiwi = New Zealand
Yank= American
Jock=Scotland
Pom=English
Safa=South African
and a whole load of other names

Dudess

Fair enough. It is used pejoratively though - possibly of most note: against Irish immigrants in Britain in the 1970s/80s - but like a lot of phrases, it's all about context.

Antbert

Just like to say... I'm in no way bothered by the 'Paddy' thing. I'm saddened the whole "native" argument is going on. Patriotism is boring.

Dave!

Excellent, well thought-out and finely written thesis, OP.

Good work.

kuntboy

gbee wrote: »

Unquestionably, Australia was discovered by the west and colonised whilst there was an indigenous people already there.

Just as the West is in the process of being colonized by Muslims. All the demographic projections show birth rates favourable to their eventual majority. The logical conclusion is their way of life dominating our society, them in power, us a gradually weakening minority. People who think the Muslim society of our future will be tolerant are kidding thamselves. Liberals naively believe "if we just keep encouraging everyone to be tolerant they will be". Well if history has shown has anything its that they won't be.

Antbert

kuntboy wrote: »

Just as the West is in the process of being colonized by Muslims. All the demographic projections show birth rates favourable to their eventual majority. The logical Daily Mail conclusion is their way of life dominating our society, them in power, us a gradually weakening minority. People who think the Muslim society of our future will be tolerant are kidding thamselves. Liberals naively believe "if we just keep encouraging everyone to be tolerant they will be". Well if history has shown has anything its that they won't be.

FYP.

Dudess

kuntboy wrote: »

People who think the Muslim society of our future will be tolerant are kidding thamselves.

I don't think it's a case of that, more a case of not believing it likely that western society will be taken over by Islam.

kuntboy

So a society with for example 80% Muslim population wouldn't be considered "taken over"? It's not this generations problem, its decades away, so people can't see it.

Antbert

kuntboy wrote: »

So a society with for example 80% Muslim population wouldn't be considered "taken over"? It's not this generations problem, its decades away, so people can't see it.

So. Other than your opinion, what evidence do you have to support this theory?

dlofnep

kuntboy wrote: »

Just as the West is in the process of being colonized by Muslims.

No, it's not. Do you understand what colonize means?

kuntboy wrote: »

All the demographic projections show birth rates favourable to their eventual majority. The logical conclusion is their way of life dominating our society, them in power, us a gradually weakening minority. People who think the Muslim society of our future will be tolerant are kidding thamselves. Liberals naively believe "if we just keep encouraging everyone to be tolerant they will be". Well if history has shown has anything its that they won't be.

Name the largest muslim population in the EU.

Dudess

kuntboy wrote: »

So a society with for example 80% Muslim population wouldn't be considered "taken over"?

I'd imagine it would. And?

dlofnep

kuntboy wrote: »

So a society with for example 80% Muslim population wouldn't be considered "taken over"? It's not this generations problem, its decades away, so people can't see it.

When country do you project at having 80% muslim population (not that it would matter in a secular country) within the EU?

kuntboy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

Is the Telegraph acceptable to your tastes?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5621482.ece

Or is the Times too high brow?