[QUOTE=thisispain;40759470]k except you never really made a valid rebuttal against the fact that your country is suffering from a labour shortage
so slowing down immigration will kill your economy, theres a reason every single western country has to increase their immigration[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AuiPySXDQVsndGlIaFRYQjQwOWw1MTRxN0ZGclVBZlE&oid=11&zx=2ee3qh3rrsjc[/IMG]
17.9% of immigrants are here for our supposed "labour shortage".
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
Not to mention unemployment among the under 24’s in Sweden is 24.2%, or four times the average unemployment rate of 8%. The average for those aged 25-54 is 6.1%.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/A51rqql.jpeg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;40762359][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/A51rqql.jpeg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
broad daylight, charity and primary school are taken into account?
nope = pointless image.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;40758353]I'm sure you'd know, cause you were there at the time!?[/QUOTE]
that is a terrible logical fallacy. with that logic, no history is ever valid unless somebody is alive that has lived at that time
Can't tell you how many times I've walked along this pavement....
[img]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o202/akayz_people/reality.png[/img]
Really don't know what it'll be like walking there again.
Once again, a news thread turns curiously worrying the moment someone believes in something you don't like.
[QUOTE=James*;40758024]Out of interest why is this not okay in your opinion?[/QUOTE]
The majority of extremists come from these sort of areas, it creates huge tension between local communities, Shariah law is often openly practiced, the police aren't able to properly enforce the area because of 'cultural sensitivities', the employment rate is low - what positives are there?
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;40758834]Breaking: people gather with people from their country. More at seven.[/QUOTE]
Only if there already exists an isolated community for them to move to, everyday I work with people who have only recently come to the country but are so assimilated that you only know they're not British when they open their mouths - if they can manage it, what excuse does anyone else have for not?
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;40762359][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/A51rqql.jpeg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Except the racist attack was not a beheading in broad daylight with the words 'we're going to start a war' spoken directly to a camera
[editline]edit[/editline]
Also 'Drones put on Standby' - lol
I just wanted to mention that someone tried to throw a grenade at a group of Muslims in a mosque after the Woolwich thing. [url]http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/470265/20130523/woolwich-beheading-murder-mosque-braintree-gillingham-arson.htm[/url]
[quote]
The secretary of the mosque told Channel 4 News that the man burst in with two knives and tried to attack the congregation, and shouted "where is your allah now?"
Witnesses also claim the attacker threw an explosive device, believed to be a grenade or gas canister.
[/quote]
It's a fairly horrific situation, all around.
[QUOTE=AK'z;40762751]Really don't know what it'll be like walking there again.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPFyf1TX19M&t=57s[/url]
[QUOTE=Hellsten;40763254][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPFyf1TX19M&t=57s[/url][/QUOTE]
thank you so much. :'-)
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;40759506]I love these kind of lectures/debates (the video), seriously I love serious discussions. But after watching that I can't take it seriously, even though he has some good points he cherry picks a lot. You can't do that with a study where the range of statistics is so long. Infact he the task he has took on is a nightmare due to the scale of the study.
To start off he fucks up with the "Hunter-Gatherers" being violent (aka the dawn of man). What he described was Agriculturalists not Hunter-Gatherers because they were fighting over resources. Food and resources was abundant until the day someone "took more than their share" and had power and influence over others. That's where violence comes into play because people would have been starving and fighting those who were greedy. Statistically there was so few of us in paleolithic times that if we had been killing each other like described in the video WE WOULDN'T BE HERE NOW. We would have probably become extinct because bringing up children required a lot of "team work", more so than ever in any time period. You have the mortality rate for starters, natural selection most babies born in the wild die in those first few precious moments. The time it also takes to the raise children is in important note also, more than two if our populations were to rise.
It's been also discovered that from Paleolithic times to Mesolithic (the transition from Hunter Gatherer into some agricultural tribes) that more remains/bones were found to have blunt force trauma (suggesting death by other humans, yes not ALL but when the stats rise on such an occasion one can only assume the cause). Once we finally all went agricultural in the Neolithic period that's when things would have gotten a bit heated between our own species because the seed of greed must have developed somewhere.
In the big picture of war not murder in society. I think it'll only get worse, we technology now where people are killing others behind a screen (drones). We've turned War into a profitable business where bank executives have a vested interest and politicians can get their pockets lined. All in the name of democracy and free enterprise.
Gone off on a tangent about War instead of just murder within society, but it's all apart of it I guess, there's always the same motivations involved, danger or greed. Outside of culture going to shit and gang ideology being pumped into idiot poor kid's brains on TV (You haven't got a future, but you feel safer in numbers right?) I believe in the long run when it comes to war, we're fucked and it's not far off.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://thecontentcocktail.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cherry.jpg[/img]
Mate, you're actually desperate for something to argue here, and you've got nothing.
We've been splitting each others skulls open since before we were even fucking human, and you realise that the statistics he had for the hunter gatherers are from surviving modern day tribes right? SO they're completely valid.
[quote]In the big picture of war not murder in society. I think it'll only get worse, we technology now where people are killing others behind a screen (drones).[/QUOTE]
You actually just ignored, every fucking statistic in that video! I don't mean to be insulting here, but do you actually have Downs? Maybe dyslexia? Those are the only things that I can think of which would cause such a fucking selective bias because you literally ignored any part of the video that proves my point and you're actually just fabricating shit now.
War is in decline, and it's been in decline for thousands of years.
[quote]Gone off on a tangent about War instead of just murder within society, but it's all apart of it I guess, there's always the same motivations involved, danger or greed. Outside of culture going to shit and gang ideology being pumped into idiot poor kid's brains on TV (You haven't got a future, but you feel safer in numbers right?) I believe in the long run when it comes to war, we're fucked and it's not far off.[/quote]
Speak for yourself, if you don't have a future then that's your problem, I do actually. On top of that, I know how statistics work and I'm not some alarmist mongo.
By the way? Explain what British culture is and why it's worth defending, because lets face it, that's what you're now pushing, that British culture is going down the drain and we need to defend it.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40763618][img]http://thecontentcocktail.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cherry.jpg[/img]
Mate, you're actually desperate for something to argue here, and you've got nothing.
We've been splitting each others skulls open since before we were even fucking human, and you realise that the statistics he had for the hunter gatherers are from surviving modern day tribes right? SO they're completely valid.
You actually just ignored, every fucking statistic in that video! I don't mean to be insulting here, but do you actually have Downs? Maybe dyslexia? Those are the only things that I can think of which would cause such a fucking selective bias because you literally ignored any part of the video that proves my point and you're actually just fabricating shit now.
War is in decline, and it's been in decline for thousands of years.
Speak for yourself, if you don't have a future then that's your problem, I do actually. On top of that, I know how statistics work and I'm not some alarmist mongo.
By the way? Explain what British culture is and why it's worth defending, because lets face it, that's what you're now pushing, that British culture is going down the drain and we need to defend it.[/QUOTE]
Friend, I'm not here to argue nor to be called names, Albert Einstein and John Lennon were Dyslexic by the way. This is a forum however, where we post opinions (hopefully not to the point where it develops into verbal warfare).
This article has some interesting comments on Pinker's study:
[url]http://mrgadfly.com/changing-minds-how-my-views-on-paleolithic-violence-evolved/[/url]
Like the writer state's he's "willing to be wrong" as am I, I just can't see us being THAT violent when our population was so low, we would have become extinct.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare[/url]
[QUOTE]It is hypothesized that in the earliest hunter-gatherer societies of Homo erectus, [B]population density was probably low enough to avoid armed conflict.[/B] The development of the throwing-spear, together with ambush hunting techniques, made potential violence between groups very costly, dictating conflict avoidence, groups moving apart as far as possible to alleviate resource competition. This behaviour would have facilitated the migration out of Africa of H. erectus some 1.8 million years ago as a natural consequence of conflict avoidance. This period of "Paleolithic warlessness" would then have persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 0.2 million years ago, and probably ended only with a shift in societal organization in the Upper Paleolithic. At this stage, the mobilization of all male group members in a raiding party (as opposed to a hunting party) for the purpose of dawn raids on another group's sleeping quarters shifts the tactical advantage from defenders to attackers, capitalizing on the advantages of surprise and numerical superiority. [B][U]Of the many cave paintings from the Upper Paleolithic, none depict people attacking other people.[/U][/B] [B]There is no known archaeological evidence of large scale fighting until well into the Aurignacian.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think it's fair basing the pie charts of all the past tribes behaviors on a couple of modern tribes.
Anyway I'm going to call it quits here on this discussion because I can tell I'm going to derail the thread and I'll contribute to the statistics of the banlist. I'm going to PM you, would be cool talking about to you about this if you're happy too.
Back onto topic, it amazes me when people dig out old videos and find this:
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=772_1369354873[/url]
It's the guy back in 2007 at a protest.
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;40763839]It is hypothesized that in the [b]earliest hunter-gatherer societies of Homo erectus[/b], population density was probably low enough to avoid armed conflict.[/quote]
We are Homo-Sapiens, not erectus.
[quote]Of the many cave paintings from the Upper Paleolithic, none depict people attacking other people. There is no known archaeological evidence of large scale fighting until well into the Aurignacian.[/quote]
[quote]The most critical single discovery is that of the so-called Egbert skeleton from Ksar Akil, embedded in deposits overlain by Levantine Aurignacian industries. This is a fully modern human in both cranial and postcranial terms, between 40,000 and 45,000 years old.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurignacian[/url]
Given that we only finished becoming behaviorally and physiologically modern humans at the time, it's a bit of a stretch.
[quote]I don't think it's fair basing the pie charts of all the past tribes behaviors on a couple of modern tribes.[/quote]
There are also mass grave sites from back then.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40763876]We are Homo-Sapiens, not erectus.[/QUOTE]
I probably should have added the highlight till the end "This period of "Paleolithic warlessness" [B]would then have persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 0.2 million years ago,[/B] and probably ended only with a shift in societal organization in the Upper Paleolithic. "
The mass graves could have been due to disease? Like the graves of the Plague in England.
Sorry for replying again on the matter, broke my own oath.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c2_1369328816[/url]
Interview with the EDL leader that was apart of the riots the night after the event, I expected a completely racist tirade but he seemed quite well spoken. Always treading on egg shells with this topic so his response surprised me. Doesn't excuse or justify violent riots and burglarizing shops so it hopefully doesn't go to that extent.
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;40763839]Friend, I'm not here to argue nor to be called names, Albert Einstein and John Lennon were Dyslexic by the way. This is a forum however, where we post opinions (hopefully not to the point where it develops into verbal warfare).
This article has some interesting comments on Pinker's study:
[url]http://mrgadfly.com/changing-minds-how-my-views-on-paleolithic-violence-evolved/[/url]
Like the writer state's he's "willing to be wrong" as am I, I just can't see us being THAT violent when our population was so low, we would have become extinct.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare[/url]
I don't think it's fair basing the pie charts of all the past tribes behaviors on a couple of modern tribes.
Anyway I'm going to call it quits here on this discussion because I can tell I'm going to derail the thread and I'll contribute to the statistics of the banlist. I'm going to PM you, would be cool talking about to you about this if you're happy too.
Back onto topic, it amazes me when people dig out old videos and find this:
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=772_1369354873[/url]
It's the guy back in 2007 at a protest.[/QUOTE]
I swear to god man, if you keep saying that bullshit "if we killed each other that often we would be extinct" tripe then I'm actually gonna lose my mind.
60% of men =/= 100% of everyone.
Some good points Sobotnik!
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40760258]War isn't actually profitable unless you are a rent-seeker. The Rothchilds are blamed for starting war with their financial habits, but those actions actually cost them a great deal of money, and they found that peace was more profitable than war.[/QUOTE]
If this is valid, surely they'd see 'war' as a threat and seek to eradicate potential war-triggers (ie Religion).
[QUOTE=EndOfTheWorld;40763927]I probably should have added the highlight till the end "This period of "Paleolithic warlessness" [B]would then have persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 0.2 million years ago,[/B] and probably ended only with a shift in societal organization in the Upper Paleolithic. "
The mass graves could have been due to disease? Like the graves of the Plague in England.[/quote]
But disease like that was rare in hunter-gatherer societies. By their very nature, small bands of nomadic peoples are unable to die en-masse from disease. This sort of thing could only be possible in a society where the people had close contact with each other and animals, crammed together due to a lack of space, and with poor sanitation.
[editline]24th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;40764101]Some good points Sobotnik!
If this is valid, surely they'd see 'war' as a threat and seek to eradicate potential war-triggers (ie Religion).[/QUOTE]
Eradicating religion would be a bit too difficult.
Mostly, they would be trying to convince national leaders to back down, try to open up countries to business, and generally be more passive actions.
[QUOTE=uzikus;40741641]Keep telling yourself that.[/QUOTE]
Where I live, there are a lot of Muslims, and I have to tell you, they are all super nice, even when doing something simple like pushing a shopping cart or driving, they're super courteous to everyone. I haven't met one in real life that was a total dick.
Kind of like how the Westboro Baptist Church is terrible, and very few Christians are like that.
There will always be extremists of every type.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
