• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Riots in Sweeden

Ziggurat said:
Sweden has a very permissive immigration policy. If you don't want to call that "open", that's OK, I'm not really interested in a semantic fight. The point is that they don't do a lot to select who they're letting into the country. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem, but coupled with "multiculturalism" (which really means permitting immigrants to live according to rules other than those governing the existing citizenry), it's a recipe for trouble.
Click to expand...

there is such a country on this planet? which one is it?
 
Remember, people, every time something slightly bad happens in a country you don't like, it's proof that the entirety of that country's political system is an utter failure.

When it happens in a country you like, it's explainable due to circumstances, somehow not as bad as it seems, or happens every day everywhere else anyway, or hey nobody's perfect.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Remember, people, every time something slightly bad happens in a country you don't like, it's proof that the entirety of that country's political system is an utter failure.

When it happens in a country you like, it's explainable due to circumstances, somehow not as bad as it seems, or happens every day everywhere else anyway, or hey nobody's perfect.
Click to expand...

So what are you going to do now that you've imported all these people, given them free money, free houses, free iPads and stuff and they despise you?
 
Virus said:
So what are you going to do now that you've imported all these people, given them free money, free houses, free iPads and stuff and they despise you?
Click to expand...

Based on this I think you may misunderstand what is meant by "immigration".

We can start with the first part where you believe that immigrants are imported.
 
Virus said:
So what are you going to do now that you've imported all these people, given them free money, free houses, free iPads and stuff and they despise you?
Click to expand...

Deport them for being brown and having the wrong holy book, of course.
 
Virus said:
So what are you going to do now that you've imported all these people, given them free money, free houses, free iPads and stuff and they despise you?
Click to expand...

most immigrants in my country and most other countries i know of, have those immigrant in the working force, they work hard to earn money and buy all the things you thik they get for free.

spmetimes one really has to wonder if you are from this planet.
 
I'm sure everything he knows about Sweden, he learned from right wing sources.
 
DC said:
most immigrants in my country and most other countries i know of, have those immigrant in the working force, they work hard to earn money and buy all the things you thik they get for free.

spmetimes one really has to wonder if you are from this planet.
Click to expand...

Well, in the UK:

Anjem Choudary... 25,000 pounds a year of benefits (and encouraged others to claim "Jihad seekers allowance"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/987...llowers-to-claim-Jihad-Seekers-Allowance.html

(Interesting comment: Douglas Murray once pointed out, this is £10,000 more than a soldier in Afghanistan is paid: “It’s probably not the first time in history where one side has paid its enemies and its own men, but it's probably the first war in history where somebody has paid its enemies better than its own men.”)

Then there was Abu Hamza :
Abu Hamza, the hook-handed Yemeni, was a phenomenal sponger. His London house cost taxpayers £2400 a month, and at one point he was receiving over £500 a month for incapacity benefits while his wife received an additional £1300 a month. Abu Hamza even sued the government for extra benefits.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/e...hile-america-doesnt-answer-the-welfare-state/

Then there's Omar Bakri and the July 21 bombers:

Omar Bakri, sponged £275,000 in welfare, including a £31,000 Ford Galaxy people carrier to ferry around his seven children. And between them the July 21 bombers, who were admitted into Britain as refugees from war-torn east Africa, received £500,000 in welfare payments before repaying the British people by trying (and failing) to murder lots of innocents (who were only saved because the mastermind of the plots had been through the British state education system and so was incapable of doings the sums necessary to make a bomb).

etc

etc
 
Giz said:
Well, in the UK:

Anjem Choudary... 25,000 pounds a year of benefits (and encouraged others to claim "Jihad seekers allowance"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/987...llowers-to-claim-Jihad-Seekers-Allowance.html

(Interesting comment: Douglas Murray once pointed out, this is £10,000 more than a soldier in Afghanistan is paid: “It’s probably not the first time in history where one side has paid its enemies and its own men, but it's probably the first war in history where somebody has paid its enemies better than its own men.”)
Click to expand...

Except that it compares apples and oranges.

Firstly, the comparison was between Choudary's total benefits and the take home pay of the most junior single soldier.

The Sun's breakdown of his £25k a year is as follows:

  • £15,600 a year in housing benefit - so this goes to his landlord
  • £1,820 council tax allowance
  • £5,200 in income support
  • £3,120 in child benefits

If our putative squaddie had 4 children then he too would be eligible for child benefit and I presume that as someone on a low income with a family he would also be entitled to family tax credits and housing benefit.

The more accurate comparison would be between the £7, 020 that Choudary receives in council tax allowance and the £17,000 more or less that the private in Afghanistan would be taking home.

Super soaraway source

That's not to say that I'm comfortable with supporting someone who simply refuses to work and is so hypocritical and dangerous but I'd be more uncomfortable if his children were homeless.
 
Anyone wants to bet that the people who jump on and instantly assume that the riots are due to the loathed "multiculturalism" (whatever the hell that means) would adamantly hold that it's ridiculous to attribute U.S. shootings to the gun culture, because there is not unambiguous evidence for the latter?
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Anyone wants to bet that the people who jump on and instantly assume that the riots are due to the loathed "multiculturalism" (whatever the hell that means) would adamantly hold that it's ridiculous to attribute U.S. shootings to the gun culture, because there is not unambiguous evidence for the latter?
Click to expand...

Oh, a lot of shootings in the US are definitely attributable to "gun culture". Just... not the one most people usually mean by that phrase.

thug_life.jpg
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, a lot of shootings in the US are definitely attributable to "gun culture". Just... not the one most people usually mean by that phrase.

[qimg]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj295/XxSilent-TearsxX/thug_life.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, care to present the evidence that the riots in Sweden are caused by "multiculturalism"? Or even that they are worse compared to less multicultural places.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Meanwhile, care to present the evidence that the riots in Sweden are caused by "multiculturalism"? Or even that they are worse compared to less multicultural places.
Click to expand...

Care to actually think about the argument I made? Because it isn't the one you're presenting here.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sweden has a very permissive immigration policy. If you don't want to call that "open", that's OK, I'm not really interested in a semantic fight. The point is that they don't do a lot to select who they're letting into the country. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem, but coupled with "multiculturalism" (which really means permitting immigrants to live according to rules other than those governing the existing citizenry), it's a recipe for trouble.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Democracy. Multiculturalism. Open immigration.

Pick any two.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Care to actually think about the argument I made? Because it isn't the one you're presenting here.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Sweden has a very permissive immigration policy. If you don't want to call that "open", that's OK, I'm not really interested in a semantic fight. The point is that they don't do a lot to select who they're letting into the country. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem, but coupled with "multiculturalism" (which really means permitting immigrants to live according to rules other than those governing the existing citizenry), it's a recipe for trouble.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Democracy. Multiculturalism. Open immigration.

Pick any two.
Click to expand...


Right. Okay. Can you explain your link between these events and multiculturalism?

Please don't pretend that you don't understand what I'm asking - it's pitiful.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Right. Okay. Can you explain your link between these events and multiculturalism?

Please don't pretend that you don't understand what I'm asking - it's pitiful.
Click to expand...

Zigg is using the old 'pick two' format used to illustrate how three characteristics are very rarely encountered together or that three characteristics that can't coexist together because any combo of two works against the third. The latter is what I think he was getting at. It isn't that multiculturalism causes the riots directly but that you can't have all three without issues.


Examples.
'Women. Intelligent, beautiful, sane. Pick two.'
'Cars. Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two.'
'Jobs. Well paying, rewarding, legal. Pick two.'
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure, right after you tell me all about shootings and "gun culture".
Click to expand...

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. You've fine with making sweeping, vague and spurious assertions of how multiculturalism is connected to these riots in a negative manner, with absolutely no evidence of a connection, or for that manner a definition of multiculturalism.

Why? Because it conforms to your biases.

On the other hand, when I make an equally spurious, ambiguous and poorly defined comparison to US shootings and "gun culture", you immediately demand that I back this up.

Why? Because this goes against your biases.

The reality is that both issues, both US gun issues (which hopefully we can leave behind, unless you wish to cling to them as a diversion, and on which I do not even have much of an opinion), and the Swedish riots and even any problems connected to Swedish immigrations are far, far, more complex and nuanced that can be summed up in media-political buzzwords.

So what I am asking is that you apply the same sort of skepticism and critical thought that you apply to arguments you disagree with, to those arguments that you agree with and make yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom