Continued mass shootings in America

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Continued mass shootings in America

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 12 of 26 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

dreamwaverider London 06 Aug 19 5.47pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That's not what it said at all. The forecast was for a marked slow down between 2050 and 2100 with it peaking then and stabilising. No responsible forecast has ever indicated a growth rate that would take us towards 20 billion. The current level is 7.7 billion. The forecast is 9.7 by 2050 and around 11 billion by 2100. These are big numbers, but manageable with planning and the use of technology and science. There is just no need to panic. The movement of people is an entirely separate subject. It is though completely wrong to assume that just because the genetic make up of our fellow citizens will continue to change, just as it always has, that means there is some kind of threat to us by way of decreased living standards. Everyone wants high living standards, including any new arrivals, and it's them whose standards will be raised and not ours diminished. We just need to make sure that new arrivals are welcomed and integrated, just as we have done with previous waves. Challenges are there to be faced and overcome. They are not overcome by sitting at a keyboard complaining about how awful things are going to be. We will only be defeated if we surrender our well earned reputation for tolerance, good humour and kindness. Other nations respect that and we should be flattered when people want to join us. Make them welcome and train them to be like us and before long even people like you will wonder what all the fuss was about. Wisbech you are dreaming of some kind of Utopia moving forward. If the world does reach 11 billion by 2100 and it is structured roughly the same as today then it will be a very different place. Boil it down to your own home. IF for instance you live in a house with 3 other people, imagine the difference if there are 6 other people. Cramped right?? That will be the world with 11 billion. My view is that numbers will drop in the second half of this century when nature will intervene to significantly reduce the numbers of mankind who by then will have done enough to seriously upset nature in its capacity as current main tenant of this planet. There are various possibilities of reduction one of which will almost certainly cull huge numbers of mankind. War, virus or just natural disaster or something else that none of us have even considered. The world is heading for many changes in the not too distant future (say half a century) in my view.
Alert a moderator to this post

dreamwaverider

London 06 Aug 19 5.47pm

Send a Private Message to dreamwaverider

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That's not what it said at all. The forecast was for a marked slow down between 2050 and 2100 with it peaking then and stabilising. No responsible forecast has ever indicated a growth rate that would take us towards 20 billion. The current level is 7.7 billion. The forecast is 9.7 by 2050 and around 11 billion by 2100. These are big numbers, but manageable with planning and the use of technology and science. There is just no need to panic.

The movement of people is an entirely separate subject. It is though completely wrong to assume that just because the genetic make up of our fellow citizens will continue to change, just as it always has, that means there is some kind of threat to us by way of decreased living standards. Everyone wants high living standards, including any new arrivals, and it's them whose standards will be raised and not ours diminished. We just need to make sure that new arrivals are welcomed and integrated, just as we have done with previous waves.

Challenges are there to be faced and overcome. They are not overcome by sitting at a keyboard complaining about how awful things are going to be. We will only be defeated if we surrender our well earned reputation for tolerance, good humour and kindness. Other nations respect that and we should be flattered when people want to join us. Make them welcome and train them to be like us and before long even people like you will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Wisbech you are dreaming of some kind of Utopia moving forward. If the world does reach 11 billion by 2100 and it is structured roughly the same as today then it will be a very different place.
Boil it down to your own home. IF for instance you live in a house with 3 other people, imagine the difference if there are 6 other people. Cramped right??
That will be the world with 11 billion. My view is that numbers will drop in the second half of this century when nature will intervene to significantly reduce the numbers of mankind who by then will have done enough to seriously upset nature in its capacity as current main tenant of this planet.
There are various possibilities of reduction one of which will almost certainly cull huge numbers of mankind. War, virus or just natural disaster or something else that none of us have even considered.
The world is heading for many changes in the not too distant future (say half a century) in my view.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 7.42pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That's not what it said at all. The forecast was for a marked slow down between 2050 and 2100 with it peaking then and stabilising. No responsible forecast has ever indicated a growth rate that would take us towards 20 billion. The current level is 7.7 billion. The forecast is 9.7 by 2050 and around 11 billion by 2100. These are big numbers, but manageable with planning and the use of technology and science. There is just no need to panic. The movement of people is an entirely separate subject. It is though completely wrong to assume that just because the genetic make up of our fellow citizens will continue to change, just as it always has, that means there is some kind of threat to us by way of decreased living standards. Everyone wants high living standards, including any new arrivals, and it's them whose standards will be raised and not ours diminished. We just need to make sure that new arrivals are welcomed and integrated, just as we have done with previous waves. Challenges are there to be faced and overcome. They are not overcome by sitting at a keyboard complaining about how awful things are going to be. We will only be defeated if we surrender our well earned reputation for tolerance, good humour and kindness. Other nations respect that and we should be flattered when people want to join us. Make them welcome and train them to be like us and before long even people like you will wonder what all the fuss was about. I never suggested that one was the consequence of the other. Are you paying attention? The reduction of living standards will occur through numbers. The world struggles to feed itself now and the only way to address that is to share resources more equally particularly when world food and water production and supply is at maximum. That has to mean a reduction of living standards in the West. The race issue is about whether you are happy or indifferent about your genetic lineage being absorbed or if you think it is worth preserving. That is for the individual to decide. Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage by not marrying into other cultures or races. it is not uncommon. Why should Europeans be any less protective if they choose to be?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Aug 19 7.42pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The movement of people is an entirely separate subject. It is though completely wrong to assume that just because the genetic make up of our fellow citizens will continue to change, just as it always has, that means there is some kind of threat to us by way of decreased living standards. Everyone wants high living standards, including any new arrivals, and it's them whose standards will be raised and not ours diminished. We just need to make sure that new arrivals are welcomed and integrated, just as we have done with previous waves.

I never suggested that one was the consequence of the other. Are you paying attention?

The reduction of living standards will occur through numbers. The world struggles to feed itself now and the only way to address that is to share resources more equally particularly when world food and water production and supply is at maximum. That has to mean a reduction of living standards in the West.
The race issue is about whether you are happy or indifferent about your genetic lineage being absorbed or if you think it is worth preserving. That is for the individual to decide. Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage by not marrying into other cultures or races. it is not uncommon.

Why should Europeans be any less protective if they choose to be?

Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd 06 Aug 19 8.03pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I never suggested that one was the consequence of the other. Are you paying attention? The reduction of living standards will occur through numbers. The world struggles to feed itself now and the only way to address that is to share resources more equally particularly when world food and water production and supply is at maximum. That has to mean a reduction of living standards in the West. The race issue is about whether you are happy or indifferent about your genetic lineage being absorbed or if you think it is worth preserving. That is for the individual to decide. Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage by not marrying into other cultures or races. it is not uncommon. Why should Europeans be any less protective if they choose to be? "Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage..." You do not speak on behalf of British people. A majority don't mind and an equal number to yours actively encourage it. Even on your own side, most can't agree on what they think "Genetic heritage" is. Is it skin colour? Is it the good old "Love of the queen"? Is it "Britain and the commonwealth countries"? Before the Anglo-saxons got involved? Roman? I strongly suspect that "Genetic heritage" is a dog-whistle but I'm going to assume it isn't. You need to give us a strong definition on what genetic heritage is, because as it stands, almost nobody in this country agrees with you and you are in danger of sharing a platform with some truly awful people... ...and if its down to skin colour, ironically you would really be in a minority
Alert a moderator to this post

Beanyboysmd

06 Aug 19 8.03pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I never suggested that one was the consequence of the other. Are you paying attention?

Why should Europeans be any less protective if they choose to be?

"Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage..."
You do not speak on behalf of British people. A majority don't mind and an equal number to yours actively encourage it. Even on your own side, most can't agree on what they think "Genetic heritage" is. Is it skin colour? Is it the good old "Love of the queen"? Is it "Britain and the commonwealth countries"? Before the Anglo-saxons got involved? Roman?
I strongly suspect that "Genetic heritage" is a dog-whistle but I'm going to assume it isn't. You need to give us a strong definition on what genetic heritage is, because as it stands, almost nobody in this country agrees with you and you are in danger of sharing a platform with some truly awful people...

...and if its down to skin colour, ironically you would really be in a minority

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 8.25pm
Originally posted by Beanyboysmd "Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage..." You do not speak on behalf of British people. A majority don't mind and an equal number to yours actively encourage it. Even on your own side, most can't agree on what they think "Genetic heritage" is. Is it skin colour? Is it the good old "Love of the queen"? Is it "Britain and the commonwealth countries"? Before the Anglo-saxons got involved? Roman? I strongly suspect that "Genetic heritage" is a dog-whistle but I'm going to assume it isn't. You need to give us a strong definition on what genetic heritage is, because as it stands, almost nobody in this country agrees with you and you are in danger of sharing a platform with some truly awful people... ...and if its down to skin colour, ironically you would really be in a minority To sum up, you think that wishing to preserve your own 'race' is racist? I can't be bothered to respond to your post in detail because it is so full of nonsense that it would take all night.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Aug 19 8.25pm

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

...and if its down to skin colour, ironically you would really be in a minority

To sum up, you think that wishing to preserve your own 'race' is racist?

I can't be bothered to respond to your post in detail because it is so full of nonsense that it would take all night.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lucretius 06 Aug 19 8.36pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The word supremacist relates to superiority. It has nothing to do with anything else. The term White supremacist could only accurately be used to describe a very small number of Nazi type fanatics who believe that they are superior to others by some god given right or in some other non measurable way. Maybe we're just quibbling over semantics. 'White supremacist' does certainly have connotations of superiority, but it is also used to apply to those who feel the 'white race' is facing an existential threat. Though the two groups overlap perhaps we just need a new word for the latter group, such as, 'white militant'.
Alert a moderator to this post

Lucretius

06 Aug 19 8.36pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The word supremacist relates to superiority. It has nothing to do with anything else.
The term White supremacist could only accurately be used to describe a very small number of Nazi type fanatics who believe that they are superior to others by some god given right or in some other non measurable way.

Maybe we're just quibbling over semantics. 'White supremacist' does certainly have connotations of superiority, but it is also used to apply to those who feel the 'white race' is facing an existential threat. Though the two groups overlap perhaps we just need a new word for the latter group, such as, 'white militant'.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lucretius 06 Aug 19 8.40pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Everything you wrote here is a croc of crap. White supremacy is an anti white term. Identity politics for non whites but when it's whites you describe it as 'white supremacy'. Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Aug 2019 2.23pm) I'd say 'white supremacy' is more of an anti-terrorist term. It's a label attached to those who support, engage in or are predisposed to political violence. To hate white supremacy is to hate political violence. I mean, it's obviously the case that white people are the majority group in this country and so face nothing like the same levels of discrimination that ethnic minorities face. How could there be a civil rights movement for the group possessing the power?
Alert a moderator to this post

Lucretius

06 Aug 19 8.40pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Everything you wrote here is a croc of crap. White supremacy is an anti white term.

Identity politics for non whites but when it's whites you describe it as 'white supremacy'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Aug 2019 2.23pm)

I'd say 'white supremacy' is more of an anti-terrorist term. It's a label attached to those who support, engage in or are predisposed to political violence. To hate white supremacy is to hate political violence.

I mean, it's obviously the case that white people are the majority group in this country and so face nothing like the same levels of discrimination that ethnic minorities face. How could there be a civil rights movement for the group possessing the power?

Alert a moderator to this post

Lucretius 06 Aug 19 8.45pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger To sum up, you think that wishing to preserve your own 'race' is racist? I can't be bothered to respond to your post in detail because it is so full of nonsense that it would take all night. From a scientific perspective, there really is no such thing as race. Genetically, a random Kenyan and a random Nigerian are likely to have more in common with an Irishman than they are with each other, such is the genetic diversity within Africa.
Alert a moderator to this post

Lucretius

06 Aug 19 8.45pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

To sum up, you think that wishing to preserve your own 'race' is racist?

I can't be bothered to respond to your post in detail because it is so full of nonsense that it would take all night.

From a scientific perspective, there really is no such thing as race. Genetically, a random Kenyan and a random Nigerian are likely to have more in common with an Irishman than they are with each other, such is the genetic diversity within Africa.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 9.15pm
Originally posted by Lucretius From a scientific perspective, there really is no such thing as race. Genetically, a random Kenyan and a random Nigerian are likely to have more in common with an Irishman than they are with each other, such is the genetic diversity within Africa. I am well aware of that thanks. We use the term as an easy reference. Try telling a Black man he isn't Black. Do you think African or Chinese people would like to 'disappear? Do you think that American Indians are dead chuffed to have been wiped out? A better comparison would be Neanderthals. I bet they would be really pleased to know that their genes sill exist in little pieces in many of us.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Aug 19 9.15pm

Originally posted by Lucretius

From a scientific perspective, there really is no such thing as race. Genetically, a random Kenyan and a random Nigerian are likely to have more in common with an Irishman than they are with each other, such is the genetic diversity within Africa.

I am well aware of that thanks.

We use the term as an easy reference.

Try telling a Black man he isn't Black.

Do you think African or Chinese people would like to 'disappear?

Do you think that American Indians are dead chuffed to have been wiped out?

A better comparison would be Neanderthals. I bet they would be really pleased to know that their genes sill exist in little pieces in many of us.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 06 Aug 19 9.26pm
Originally posted by Lucretius From a scientific perspective, there really is no such thing as race. Genetically, a random Kenyan and a random Nigerian are likely to have more in common with an Irishman than they are with each other, such is the genetic diversity within Africa. This reasoning is nothing but a blurring of reality.....it's the 'Zulus are Greeks' argument....of course all humans are similar...because they are human. However, it's ignoring the real distinctions between human groups for political purposes....in my view. Race can be accurately and independently geographically attributed via genes even using everyday 'off the shelf genealogy packages. If race didn't exist, sickle cell would be common place within all races at the same extents. Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Aug 2019 9.44pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

06 Aug 19 9.26pm

Originally posted by Lucretius

This reasoning is nothing but a blurring of reality.....it's the 'Zulus are Greeks' argument....of course all humans are similar...because they are human. However, it's ignoring the real distinctions between human groups for political purposes....in my view.

Race can be accurately and independently geographically attributed via genes even using everyday 'off the shelf genealogy packages.

If race didn't exist, sickle cell would be common place within all races at the same extents.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Aug 2019 9.44pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 9.30pm
Originally posted by Lucretius Maybe we're just quibbling over semantics. 'White supremacist' does certainly have connotations of superiority, but it is also used to apply to those who feel the 'white race' is facing an existential threat. Though the two groups overlap perhaps we just need a new word for the latter group, such as, 'white militant'. So to be clear. If you feel that your race is under threat of being absorbed into the sheer numbers of migrants arriving that makes you a white supremacist? So it is a sin to wish to avoid extinction because it is done via interbreeding and replacement even though the results for your 'race' will be virtually the same as being humanely exterminated. In other words, it's not OK to complain because no one is actually killed but rather will never be born?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Aug 19 9.30pm

Originally posted by Lucretius

Maybe we're just quibbling over semantics. 'White supremacist' does certainly have connotations of superiority, but it is also used to apply to those who feel the 'white race' is facing an existential threat. Though the two groups overlap perhaps we just need a new word for the latter group, such as, 'white militant'.

So to be clear. If you feel that your race is under threat of being absorbed into the sheer numbers of migrants arriving that makes you a white supremacist?

So it is a sin to wish to avoid extinction because it is done via interbreeding and replacement even though the results for your 'race' will be virtually the same as being humanely exterminated.

In other words, it's not OK to complain because no one is actually killed but rather will never be born?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 06 Aug 19 9.37pm
Originally posted by Beanyboysmd "Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage..." You do not speak on behalf of British people. Was he claiming too? You can't either. Originally posted by Beanyboysmd A majority don't mind and an equal number to yours actively encourage it. I don't agree that a 'majority don't mind'. It's not something that a 'majority' have to deal with. The majority have already kept their genetic heritage and when you look at the demographic map the majority of any race move to areas where their own race is in the highest numbers....that's the reality. Originally posted by Beanyboysmd Even on your own side, most can't agree on what they think "Genetic heritage" is. Is it skin colour? Is it the good old "Love of the queen"? Is it "Britain and the commonwealth countries"? Before the Anglo-saxons got involved? Roman? Every 'side' is a broad church. You could say this of any movement or group that come together on anything. No one is required to sign up to specifics. Originally posted by Beanyboysmd I strongly suspect that "Genetic heritage" is a dog-whistle but I'm going to assume it isn't. You need to give us a strong definition on what genetic heritage is, because as it stands, almost nobody in this country agrees with you and you are in danger of sharing a platform with some truly awful people... ...and if its down to skin colour, ironically you would really be in a minority You make plenty of assumptions and assertions here.....and I'm curious as to why you'd care. No one is telling you how to behave or what to think are they? You either agree or don't and you plainly don't so....fair enough. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

06 Aug 19 9.37pm

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

"Many cultures wish to preserve their genetic heritage..."
You do not speak on behalf of British people.

Was he claiming too?

You can't either.

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

A majority don't mind and an equal number to yours actively encourage it.

I don't agree that a 'majority don't mind'. It's not something that a 'majority' have to deal with.

The majority have already kept their genetic heritage and when you look at the demographic map the majority of any race move to areas where their own race is in the highest numbers....that's the reality.

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

Even on your own side, most can't agree on what they think "Genetic heritage" is. Is it skin colour? Is it the good old "Love of the queen"? Is it "Britain and the commonwealth countries"? Before the Anglo-saxons got involved? Roman?

Every 'side' is a broad church. You could say this of any movement or group that come together on anything. No one is required to sign up to specifics.

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

I strongly suspect that "Genetic heritage" is a dog-whistle but I'm going to assume it isn't. You need to give us a strong definition on what genetic heritage is, because as it stands, almost nobody in this country agrees with you and you are in danger of sharing a platform with some truly awful people...

...and if its down to skin colour, ironically you would really be in a minority

You make plenty of assumptions and assertions here.....and I'm curious as to why you'd care.

No one is telling you how to behave or what to think are they?

You either agree or don't and you plainly don't so....fair enough.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 9.39pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You make plenty of assumptions and assertions here.....and I'm curious as to why you'd care. No one is telling you how to behave or what to think are they? You either agree or don't and you plainly don't so....fair enough. I think you deserve today's medal.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

06 Aug 19 9.39pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You make plenty of assumptions and assertions here.....and I'm curious as to why you'd care.

No one is telling you how to behave or what to think are they?

You either agree or don't and you plainly don't so....fair enough.

I think you deserve today's medal.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 12 of 26 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Continued mass shootings in America

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors