- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 400
- Country
Eeeorrr
Well its certainly changed since i were a lad there. My town was predominantly indigenous english christian/atheist. Certainly not the majority anymore.
John Cleese criticised for saying London is 'no longer an English city'
- Thread starter festive
- Start date
- Status
Eeeorrr
Well its certainly changed since i were a lad there. My town was predominantly indigenous english christian/atheist. Certainly not the majority anymore.
Sponsored Links
Tell me what year you think it was not multi-ethnic.
Thick winker
24th July 1522
Sponsored Links
The Hanseatic league had a trading headquarters in London.
Continental Protestants moved to London, and were instrumental in developing the printing trade.
Many religious orders and nunneries were there.
There were already thousands of Hugenots.
Continental Protestants moved to London, and were instrumental in developing the printing trade.
Many religious orders and nunneries were there.
There were already thousands of Hugenots.
I can relate to that, communities in London and around the country have changed a huge amount.
But society has changed a huge amount in the last few decades, do you not think that, like it or not, change was inevtitable?
Change is of course inevitable, because it has always been thus...
Human beings continually move around irrespective of political boundaries, whether that be for reasons of economics, greed, conquest or survival...
And every now and then those that feel that they have become the true 'indigenous' people fear the next human movement...
Because they invariably believe they are 'superior' to the newcomers...
At present here in this country we have the rise of the right, and thus also the white 'indigenous' population who have been trained to believe that all their ills are because of them 'damned foreigners'.
It's happening elsewhere of course, but as we are witnessing here all that happens is regions are being torn apart simply because a few people who stand to gain massively find it easy to manipulate the gullible!
I did ask you where you get your definition from. You did not provide a source of your definitions. Indeed, throughout our discussion you failed to provide one single source of support for your version of the definition.
You will recall that I consistently supported my accepted definitions with evidence from estimable sources.
Just to reiterate
Phobia is a medical term, taken from the Greek phobos https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/what-is-the-word-for-a-fear-of/
The Greek word phobos meaning "fear", "morbid fear" or "aversion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
You persistently concentrate on the "fear", or "morbid fear" parts of the definition, conveniently ignoring the "aversion" part of the definition.
"aversion" meaning (a person or thing that causes) a feeling of strong dislike https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/aversion
islamophobia is a conjunction of, obviously Islam and phobia (from the Greek word phobos) meaning aversion, (among other things) to Islam. It is not a conjunction of the word Islam, and the English medical term of "phobia".
Homophobia is a conjunction of homo and phobia, again meaning an aversion to gay people.
You cannot choose a part of the estimable definition, ignoring the rest of that definition, to make an intelligent argument. You must accept all parts of the definition, and apply it. In this case, "aversion" motivating prejudice and bigotry is applicable. A definition in common usage and pseudo-legal adoption does not have to meet all the criteria, just one part of the criteria is sufficient.
Last edited:
Since Homo Sapiens did not arise in this part of the world, there can be no indigenous population. Every single person living here, at any point in history, was either an immigrant or a descendent of immigrants.
It's quite amusing seeing only one half of the conversation between you and EFLI.
I have to warn you you'll get absolutely nowhere.
But as for your question I quoted, ask yourself what kind of person would want to destroy all the means that we have to describe prejudice against, dislike of, hatred of, unfair treatment of, etc etc, others on the basis of the colour of their skin, or their place of birth, or their sexual orientation, or their religious views?
What kind of person would have beliefs which would be would be legitimised by an acceptance that there is no such thing as racism, there is no such thing as islamophobia, there is no such thing as homophobia, and so on, in the senses in which they are currently used?
Many people feel their local area has changed over the years and they may feel that the change is due to large numbers of foreign people moving into the area.
Its natural for the same groups of people to stick together, which brings a fear of 'others', especially where it may be felt that these 'other people' are invading their community.
That does not mean British people feel superior to newcomers. Sadly this attitude by remainers is very divisive, it just goes to show that anybody that raises concerns over immigration will be labelled zenophobic, by smug remainers.
interesting to see that notch thinks only remainers disapprove of racism and xenophobia.
When the people of Cable Street and their supporters fought the BUF, which were the remainers? The ones who weren't fascists, I suppose.
As I see it, when one's argument has been resolutely dismantled, one has several options.
1. Admit that one's argument has been dismantled, and accept the others's argument. One must admire this type of behaviour.
2. Quietly, keep one's head down, with the intrinsic acceptance that he other's argument was correct. One must accept this type of behaviour.
3. Put one's fingers in one's ears and sing, "la la la" as loud as possible in order to refuse to accept the inevitable. One ought to quietly close and lock the door of their padded room on the way out.
4. Resort to petulant behaviour with personal insults and false assertions. One should ridicule such behaviour.
Although I have usually agreed with your position, I have rarely agreed with your methods, but I do fully understand them now.
Why waste time with intelligent debate with those who steadfastly refuse to engage in it? What is more, if they persistently refuse to engage in intelligent discussion, but resort to petulant behaviour, one might as well skip the attempts at reasoned discussion and just go straight into the final session, i.e. personal insult. It might be the language that they understand.
- Status
Sponsored Links