Fucking gypsies
-
Well I guess you'll never understand why some people hate Americans either. PS I'm not one of them
"You get that on the big jobs."
-
Because they are shameless. Thats why I dislike Americans. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
You don't like anyone so you don't count.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Sorry your profile suggests you are from the United States. I just assumed that was America. So what "United States" is that? EDIT: Sorry I misread your post and agree. Most Americans I've meet are friendly and the donation the country has made to science and living standards is without peer. I guess sometimes your government has acted in ways "racists" have used to brand all Americans.
"You get that on the big jobs."
RobCroll wrote:
. I guess sometimes your government has acted in ways "racists" have used to brand all Americans.
I'm pretty sure all governments can be seen to act in a racist manner if it suits some political purpose. Americans are no different than anyone else: they still have to take their pants off to poop. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Oh really? Well here's the source ('Roma' angry at minister Leers of Immigration & Intergration)[^] Short translation: he wants to improve the integration of Roma (he's a PC guy ya know) by not having a different policy for Roma regarding eduction, healthcare, work and housing. Rather, they have to take their own responsibility, because they're no different from other Dutch citizens. Roma guy replies with: bull shit, we asking him to respect our culture and background, but we don't see that in his new policy. We fought hard for special treatment, but we're not getting it, so we're threatening to bawww to the european court for human rights. Leers replies with: well they don't write the law, we do, and they're not going to be any different from Dutch citizens. Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
We get a similar attitude from some in the UK.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Is it a case of race or culture?
First there are other possibilities of which economic is certain to be related. Second "culture" is probably too broad of a term since there can be "culture" groupings yet which other unmeasured factors have an impact. Third race has nothing to do with it.
-
jschell wrote:
there is a connection between race itself and criminal behavior?
The figures show that blacks make up a non representetively large percentage of prision population.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
The figures show that blacks make up a non representetively large percentage of prision population.
So? Are you unaware of the vast and long term attempts using a huge number of varying attributes to categorize not only criminal behavior but human behavior in general? All of which are almost (and perhaps total) failures? I am not even sure that there are even very small/limited categorizations which are successful. For example it is easy to diagnose Down's Syndrome but it does not then follow that one can then successfully predict the exact impact that it will have.
-
Please explain why you say that: I can't see where he is being overtly racist. I must be missing something.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
Please explain why you say that: I can't see where he is being overtly racist. I must be missing something.
Definition- racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. Corollary is that some race is inferior. Given the above definition then the following comes from the original statement. 1. Groups a set of people by a single attribute. 2. Denigrates that group (and the individuals of that group.) 3. Conclusion: They are inferior. Thus the statement is racist.
-
Oh really? Well here's the source ('Roma' angry at minister Leers of Immigration & Intergration)[^] Short translation: he wants to improve the integration of Roma (he's a PC guy ya know) by not having a different policy for Roma regarding eduction, healthcare, work and housing. Rather, they have to take their own responsibility, because they're no different from other Dutch citizens. Roma guy replies with: bull shit, we asking him to respect our culture and background, but we don't see that in his new policy. We fought hard for special treatment, but we're not getting it, so we're threatening to bawww to the european court for human rights. Leers replies with: well they don't write the law, we do, and they're not going to be any different from Dutch citizens. Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
harold aptroot wrote:
Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
Could be. However the last part of your OP is racist and has nothing to do with that. Other than that could you provide an example of any group anywhere that has previously had special treatment and which did not fight the removal of that special treatment? Matter of fact I suspect that fighting for continued special treatment is in fact reasonable given that that is what many if not all groups do. And it would be very odd, and thus probably "unreasonable" if they didn't in fact fight against it. Actually perhaps even a bit insane.
-
It is not racist, they are not a race. And political correctness is a cowards way of not dealing with a problem. They are a problem but people refuse to accept it for fear of upsetting the liberal left. I do not have a problem, I refute all political correctness and call it as I see it. If you do not like that then tough, but the world doesn't exist just to keep you happy. They are a dirty, unwanted bunch of criminal thieving bastards that have no interest in joining any society. You PC types are always going on about their rights, but what of ours?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
It is not racist, they are not a race.
Nonsense. There are any number of attributes used to group humans which are used then to denigrate the group and by association individuals in that group. And that has occurred throughout history: Jews, Irish, Japanese, Catholics, Harijans, homosexuals, mentally retarded, etc. Pick whatever word that you want for that negative action - and that is what the comment is.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Honestly, how is the gypsy-position anything but completely unreasonable?
Could be. However the last part of your OP is racist and has nothing to do with that. Other than that could you provide an example of any group anywhere that has previously had special treatment and which did not fight the removal of that special treatment? Matter of fact I suspect that fighting for continued special treatment is in fact reasonable given that that is what many if not all groups do. And it would be very odd, and thus probably "unreasonable" if they didn't in fact fight against it. Actually perhaps even a bit insane.
It can't be racist, they're not a race. It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves? But who gives a shit. They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing. At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination. * The gypsies haven't either, because they did it in reaction to something that wasn't a budget cut.
-
mark merrens wrote:
Please explain why you say that: I can't see where he is being overtly racist. I must be missing something.
Definition- racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. Corollary is that some race is inferior. Given the above definition then the following comes from the original statement. 1. Groups a set of people by a single attribute. 2. Denigrates that group (and the individuals of that group.) 3. Conclusion: They are inferior. Thus the statement is racist.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Is it a case of race or culture?
First there are other possibilities of which economic is certain to be related. Second "culture" is probably too broad of a term since there can be "culture" groupings yet which other unmeasured factors have an impact. Third race has nothing to do with it.
I agree nostly. I dont think ecconomics is related. Theives, muggers and so on are prepared to break the rules of society to get what they want instead of working for it. Thats attitude, not ecconomics. It comes dwn to culture, to role models, to programming IMO.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
It can't be racist, they're not a race. It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves? But who gives a shit. They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing. At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination. * The gypsies haven't either, because they did it in reaction to something that wasn't a budget cut.
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
Look mate, it's supposed to be offensive. You can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism. I can give you some racism too, if you'd like.
jschell wrote:
Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I refuse. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. My point was never that they should quietly accept everything, though that would be nice too. They do, however, have to accept it. It's the law. They don't get to bawww about "human rights" when 1) they aren't even human, and 2) their human rights, supposing they deserve them, are not being threatened. And yes, that was offensive again, boohoo.
-
RobCroll wrote:
I here you but it's discrimination from the broader community that makes these people exist the way they do.
There is your mistake, you assume that the society doesn’t wants to integrate them but it’s the vice-versa. Most of the countries with a significant gipsy population have tried to integrate them at least partially during the years without even a partial success. We are not talking of isolated case or particular country or even a continent. They WANT their way of life, which would be okay if their way of life wasn’t consists of not working, stealing, polluting, making a lot of children which they neither are able to support nor care. Just a few weeks ago in my country they run over a young boy with a cargo van for the only reason they haven’t liked him and he’s been a Bulgarian dare to walk in a gipsy ghetto. They have ran over him a few times, just to be on the save side. During the communism when I was in the middle school the education was mandatory(and this was enforced) for everybody. Even then in the whole school we had only one gipsy boy. The reason for him been there? The poor kid had serious heart disease, so his parents decided he is useless and will die soon anyway and allow him to school. Do I think they are evil people? No of course they aren’t. Do I hate them? No I don’t although in some cases they disgust me. But I’m scared from the fact that such a people regarding the forecasts will be the majority of the population in my country (this will be the end of it of course) after only 30 years. As I said they double their population every 10 years if they receive welfare and have what to steal (which is the case from 1945).
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
There is your mistake, you assume that the society doesn’t wants ...
And your mistake is not in understanding history and even current events in terms of how "racist" might be applied. Everything you are saying is used by many, many other people to rationalize their own specific prejudice. Myself I make a broad allowance for the beliefs of people but take exception when they attempt to 'prove' that their belief is more than just a personal opinion. Own your prejudice as a personal choice or give it up. Your 'evidence' is not and never will be more than a vain attempt at rationalization.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
But I’m scared from the fact that such a people regarding the forecasts will be the majority of the population in my country (this will be the end of it of course) after only 30 years. As I said they double their population every 10 years if they receive welfare and have what to steal (which is the case from 1945).
Which is obvious nonsense. Based on that model one can just as easily demonstrate that at some time in the future they will mass more than the entire earth. It completely ignores the very, very complex nature of human relationships and the very, very complex nature of human cultures. For that matter it uses a model that applies to almost nothing in the real world much less people and culture.
-
No he is not a racist (at least on this subject). I understand your sentiments and they are normal for a decent guy from a country with a very little or none Gypsy population. I would react the same way if you didn’t know better. Nearly 90% of the street crimes on my country are committed from the 7% Gypsy population. Nobody can forced them to send their kids to School. There is some small part of them who are normal hard working people from a Gypsy origin, but at least in my country nobody call them Gypsy and they don’t consider themselves as such. They also tends to double their numbers every 20 or so years while living on welfare and stealing, which is scary. And don’t let me start with the smelly ghettos they create every ware, old people killed for their pensions etc. Just a resent case, from a few months ago. In order to clean one ghetto the government has given to the inhabitants an bright new 9 stories apartment building some years ago…for free! No rent, no payments nothing, they usually don’t pay their electricity, heating and water bills as well. After a few years of them being there the building is about to collapse. Horses in the apartments, all wooden parts of the building (beams, hardwood floors, ) burned in the stoves, fires on the floor, steel bindings stoled and sold etc. After the inspectors alarmed that it’s dangerous for people to live there the police is send to remove the inhabitance. They not only refuses but in a protest start to destroy the building concrete pillars with a sledgehammers…don’t taking under account that they are IN the building. The police finally stops them but not before a 7 yo girl is flattened under the concrete.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
No he is not a racist (at least on this subject). I understand your sentiments and they are normal for a decent guy from a country with a very little or none Gypsy population. ...
Said by every prejudice person attempting to justify that their personal prejudice is in fact rational even though those of other people are not.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It can't be racist, they're not a race.
Nonsensical rationalization and nothing more. Pick what ever term you wish which fits the following. A person with a prejudiced belief that one arbitrary grouping of characteristic/attribute is superior to others. Own your arbitrary prejudice rather than attempting to relabel it in a vain attempt to make it objective.
harold aptroot wrote:
It could be a discriminating generalization - maybe some of them do wash themselves
Obviously another offensive statement.
harold aptroot wrote:
They're not just complaining or protesting. They're going way overboard with their threats and bawwing.
At nearly every budget cut this year, the affected party has complained and protested. None* of them have threatened to step to the european court for human rights. Especially not over something that is essentially the opposite of discrimination.Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I might point out that he is not basing his opinion upon a prejudice. Prejudice means to pre-judge before any evidence. The societal behavior of the people he speaks about provides plenty of evidence for him to go by.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Look mate, it's supposed to be offensive. You can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism. I can give you some racism too, if you'd like.
jschell wrote:
Provide examples of other groups that have had special treatment and which did not also protest in various ways when that treatment was removed or was attempted to be removed.
I refuse. That would be an entirely pointless exercise. My point was never that they should quietly accept everything, though that would be nice too. They do, however, have to accept it. It's the law. They don't get to bawww about "human rights" when 1) they aren't even human, and 2) their human rights, supposing they deserve them, are not being threatened. And yes, that was offensive again, boohoo.
harold aptroot wrote:
ou can label it "racist" if you like - I don't really care, it's just that I like calling it what it is, and it ain't racism.
In general usage of how the term is currently used - it is. But as I said you can pick another term if you wish. It will still mean the same thing.
harold aptroot wrote:
they aren't even human,
I would say that should make it very clear what your "point" really is.
-
I might point out that he is not basing his opinion upon a prejudice. Prejudice means to pre-judge before any evidence. The societal behavior of the people he speaks about provides plenty of evidence for him to go by.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
The societal behavior of the people he speaks about provides plenty of evidence for him to go by.
Standard rationalization for probably every prejudicial grouping.
Re-read what I wrote. It's not a prejudice (pre-judgement) if you are going by evidence.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
