NationStates Jolt Archive

Are Ukrainians 'white' then? I thought that area was settled by Arabs?

Arabs? LOL. Maybe they came after the martians...

What? I'm allowed to say that. My friends have asian pride.


You're allowed to say everything, my dear friend. I just wanted to point out that pride only leads to blindnes. Blindness for good things in other cultures. Blindness for bad things in your own culture.

I don't structure my societies out of ethnic superiority. I structure my societies out of monoethnicism and monoculturalism.

Yet you claim that only your ethnic group is civilized, and others are inferior. Seems like ethnic superiority to me.

The Ukranians at my university tend to get offended when someone calls them "Russian"...

We do. It's just easier to call us "Russian." Because when you tell somebody that you're Ukrainian, they give you the "Where?" look.

You're allowed to say everything, my dear friend. I just wanted to point out that pride only leads to blindnes. Blindness for good things in other cultures. Blindness for bad things in your own culture.

Just because you cant feel proud of yourself doesnt mean we cant neither...

Slavic, surely?

Yes. See my other post.

Im Ukranian and i am also American and i dont see any diffrence between the two

We do. It's just easier to call us "Russian." Because when you tell somebody that you're Ukrainian, they give you the "Where?" look.Yeah, well I honestly believe you're about as Ukranian as you are German, culturally speaking: Not at all. Do you speak Ukranian?

Yet you claim that only your ethnic group is civilized, and others are inferior. Seems like ethnic superiority to me.

I suppose it is. Good for me.

Again, a rather silly thing to do since you happen to have multi-ethnic heritage.

Pfhhh. If my mother didn't speak German on the phone, I'd have walked around all my life thinking I was wholly Ukrainian.

Yes. See my other post.

So despite having your genetic roots in two separate ethnicities you consider monoethnicity to be the way forward?

Yeah, well I honestly believe you're about as Ukranian as you are German, culturally speaking: Not at all. Do you speak Ukranian?

Nope. Why? It's probably far too hard. I'd much rather learn German. At least I might possibly visit Germany.

Just because you cant feel proud of yourself doesnt mean we cant neither...

the question is, why am i not proud of my country? Because nationalism leads to blindness and blindness only leads to conflict and war.

one good thing that came out of the USSR was the fact that all the minorites could communicate together because thay spoke one language

I suppose it is. Good for me.

Which brings us back to the validity of investing some of your precious time in studying the history of other societies who have based themselves upon notions of ethnic superiority and discovering what became of them as a direct result.

So despite having your genetic roots in two separate ethnicities you consider monoethnicity to be the way forward?

Yes. It's just so much easier. Besides, I'm a genetic wreck. What possible reason could I have to want to breed a society of me?

one good thing that came out of the USSR was the fact that all the minorites could communicate together because thay spoke one languageThe Balts would disagree that the Russian attempts to destroy their languages was a good thing.

Arabs? LOL. Maybe they came after the martians...

Actually, the Ukraine was settled by Arabs called Scythians. They were eventually driven out or killed and replaced by the Sarmatians. So he was right, it's just not true anymore.

Good that you make sure you know what you're talking about before you speak. His was a question. You insulted him and all the while you were completely WRONG.

this led to more peole who have now integrated together for instance were i live there are moldovians,belarussians,kazistanians,Ukranians, and russians and we all stick together because we speak one language

Which brings us back to the validity of investing some of your precious time in studying the history of other societies who have based themselves upon notions of ethnic superiority and discovering what became of them as a direct result.

My version is better. Because I don't want to kill people. I just never want to see them.

Yes. It's just so much easier. Besides, I'm a genetic wreck. What possible reason could I have to want to breed a society of me?

Well, personally speaking I find you very entertaining. Entertainment is a good thing.

the question is, why am i not proud of my country? Because nationalism leads to blindness and blindness only leads to conflict and war.

You havent answered my question if you are ethnically flemish, eth. waloon and/or eth. european?

No, we're Russian. Here's a copy of "Ex-Soviet States for Dummies."

Again - you might want to read your history.

Ukraine was one of the founder nations OF the USSR, but they have never 'been' Russian.

The fundamental 'ethnic' group of Ukraine is Slavs, and the Slavs are most likely the descendents of the Scythians, who settled Ukraine some time in the late BC era, I recall.

And, the Scythians are 'native' to the part of the world we now call 'Iran'.

Thus - Ukrainians are, at some dilution, 'Arabs', in our modern usage of the word.

My version is better. Because I don't want to kill people. I just never want to see them.
Reminds me of "Wishmaster"...:D

My version is better. Because I don't want to kill people. I just never want to see them.

Japan wasn't primarily concerned with killing people either: it was just a method to reach their goals.

Actually, the Ukraine was settled by Arabs called Scythians. They were eventually driven out or killed and replaced by the Sarmatians. So he was right, it's just not true anymore.

Good that you make sure you know what you're talking about before you speak. His was a question. You insulted him and all the while you were completely WRONG.
the slavs were later enslaved by Vikings from the north possibly scandanavian
and they sold slavs to bazyintine and thats were the world slave was derived from

Again - you might want to read your history.

Ukraine was one of the founder nations OF the USSR, but they have never 'been' Russian.

It's easier to just call us Russian. In this thread, we have pinpointed everybody on the planet that knows where and what Ukraine is.

Thus - Ukrainians are, at some dilution, 'Arabs', in our modern usage of the word.

So? Everyone is related. I'm related to my stupid dog over there.

we only create groups inorder to feel good about our selves and to be part of something

Actually, the Ukraine was settled by Arabs called Scythians. They were eventually driven out or killed and replaced by the Sarmatians. So he was right, it's just not true anymore.

Good that you make sure you know what you're talking about before you speak. His was a question. You insulted him and all the while you were completely WRONG.

Damn. Beat me to it.

I suspect the Scythians were largely 'assimilated' actually... in much the same way that the Romans 'assimilated' (i.e. got their women pregnant).

the vikings later assimulated with the slavs

It's easier to just call us Russian. In this thread, we have pinpointed everybody on the planet that knows where and what Ukraine is.


It'd be just as easy to call you "Polish", surely? And just as 'accurate'.


So? Everyone is related. I'm related to my stupid dog over there.

So - what is your 'monocultural' argument then?

so Ukranians are arabs/viking(possibly scandanavian)/Romans??

Again - you might want to read your history.

Ukraine was one of the founder nations OF the USSR, but they have never 'been' Russian.

The fundamental 'ethnic' group of Ukraine is Slavs, and the Slavs are most likely the descendents of the Scythians, who settled Ukraine some time in the late BC era, I recall.

And, the Scythians are 'native' to the part of the world we now call 'Iran'.

Thus - Ukrainians are, at some dilution, 'Arabs', in our modern usage of the word.

Well, to be fair, there are many that believe that Scythians did not remain in Europe after the first couple of centuries AD. From what I can find they are suspected to be some degree decended from Sarmatians. I think it would, however, be ignorant to pretend there are no ethnic influences left of the Scyths.

EDIT: Actually depending on who you listen to the time when the Scythians were no longer considered to be in the Ukraine varies by almost a millenia.

It'd be just as easy to call you "Polish", surely? And just as 'accurate'.

Russian's still easier; I'm sure there are some people who "forget about Poland."

So - what is your 'monocultural' argument then?

Simple. People are racist. They'll be happier with people of the same colour.

This Monoculture that seems to be a problem was created by the USSR to easily control people

so Ukranians are arabs/viking(possibly scandanavian)/Romans??

Why would they be arabs? They said Scythians were native to Iran. I dont know if this is true as no one showed any evidence. But the modern iranians are descendant of Scythians? I dont think so...

This Monoculture that seems to be a problem was created by the USSR to easily control people

It's doesn't work if you force it.

Damn. Beat me to it.

I suspect the Scythians were largely 'assimilated' actually... in much the same way that the Romans 'assimilated' (i.e. got their women pregnant).

Yeah, it's probably a little bit of all three. Assimilated, killed or driven out. That's what is funny about this whole thing. Until a few hundred years ago it was common place to enslave and breed with the cultures you conquered or combatted with. This is why rape was so common among certain societies. They thought of it as a way to spread their ethnicity.

mabey not directly Arab but we seem to get along with them well

so Ukranians are arabs/viking(possibly scandanavian)/Romans??

Pretty much. Like everyone else, they are a nation of mongrels. :)

Why would they be arabs? They said Scythians were native to Iran. I dont know if this is true as no one showed any evidence. But the modern iranians are descendant of Scythians? I dont think so...

You clearly researched the subject before you started speaking I see. Yes, they absolutely did decend from the Scyths.

It's doesn't work if you force it.
Dont be to sure i mean you see alot of slavs speak russian because they forgot their own native language it seems to have worked

Simple. People are racist. They'll be happier with people of the same colour.

Just because you are racist doesn't mean everyone else is.

You clearly researched the subject before you started speaking I see. Yes, they absolutely did decend from the Scyths.

Will you prove me with a link or what?
In any case, ukranians have nothing to do with iranians today....

I am not even 1st generation and i cant speak Ukranian but can speak Russian

Will you prove me with a link or what?
In any case, ukranians have nothing to do with iranians today....

Nope. I think I'll let you keep making things up. It makes me giggle.

Will you prove me with a link or what?
In any case, ukranians have nothing to do with iranians today....
except sell weapons and more weapons along with traning and money...

Will you prove me with a link or what?
In any case, ukranians have nothing to do with iranians today....

Oh, I see. Yet, you claim that Samis aren't more native than you because they immigrated from Siberia. I love how your lines keep shifting depending on where we are talking about.

There is no one on this planet that is "PURE BLOOD" Unless it was Thousands of years ago when people live in small isolated communities

Simple. People are racist. They'll be happier with people of the same colour.

SOME people, maybe. Some of us are 'colour-blind'.

Think about it if US hadnt accepted many immagrants then the US wouldnt be were it is today an SUPER POWER so we need to migrate people around in order to move ideas and labor

Simple. People are racist. They'll be happier with people of the same colour.

I'll tell that to my brother and his Maori girlfriend then.:rolleyes:

i like darker skinned people

Oh, I see. Yet, you claim that Samis aren't more native than you because they immigrated from Siberia. I love how your lines keep shifting depending on where we are talking about.

What have I shifted exactly?

i like darker skinned people

I dont find non-whites attractive sexually. Does that make me racist too?

GnI, I just checked it out and it seems that Sarmatians were believed to be Iranian too (suggested to have been mixed with gothic). That makes the Ukranian link to Iran even more recent.

This means the Ukranians can be directly connected to Iranians up unitl 4th century AD. I would say that's pretty late.

I dont find non-whites attractive sexually. Does that make me racist too?

No, that in itself does not make you racist.

No its a prefrence

Well, to be fair, there are many that believe that Scythians did not remain in Europe after the first couple of centuries AD. From what I can find they are suspected to be some degree decended from Sarmatians. I think it would, however, be ignorant to pretend there are no ethnic influences left of the Scyths.

EDIT: Actually depending on who you listen to the time when the Scythians were no longer considered to be in the Ukraine varies by almost a millenia.

I spotted a reference that says, since Sarmatians were largely nomadic, and spoke the same basic 'iranian' language, it is likely that the Samartians originated as one of the same 'groups' as the 'true' Scythians.

In other words - the Scythians were later replaced or assimilated in Ukraine, by their own people... only, a few generations down the line.

I spotted a reference that says, since Sarmatians were largely nomadic, and spoke the same basic 'iranian' language, it is likely that the Samartians originated as one of the same 'groups' as the 'true' Scythians.

In other words - the Scythians were later replaced or assimilated in Ukraine, by their own people... only, a few generations down the line.

Hehe. Beat you to it.

GnI, I just checked it out and it seems that Sarmatians were believed to be Iranian too (suggested to have been mixed with gothic). That makes the Ukranian link to Iran even more recent.

This means the Ukranians can be directly connected to Iranians up unitl 4th century AD. I would say that's pretty late.

Ah CRAP! That's TWICE you've done this to me, now... :D

What have I shifted exactly?

Let's see the Sami people have been in Scandanavia for thousands of years and I mention they got their before you and you point that they're Siberian.

Now, we mention that Ukranians are Iranian and you claim they aren't. When prove they are you act like it doesn't count because it was too long ago. Interesting how you're not even consistent on points that have nothing to do with your argument.

Well Im proud that im Ukranian but hat dosnt mean oi hate anyone diffrent than me because we are all the same

Hehe. Beat you to it.

Bugger. And again...

Bugger. And again...

It's interesting stuff. It's just more evidence that the blood of Europeans is hardly 'pure'. It's also why it's so silly to claim that ethnicity matters. In terms of genetics a millenia is the blink of an eye.

I'm anti-immigrant coz I'm an immigrant...

In my very poor country we all have to be immigrant, and no immigrant invades us.. (However we are invaded by French who are no immigrants but the rulers)


I'm from Brittany http://www.kraffe.org/kraffe/breton/bretons.html

Let's see the Sami people have been in Scandanavia for thousands of years and I mention they got their before you and you point that they're Siberian.

Now, we mention that Ukranians are Iranian and you claim they aren't. When prove they are you act like it doesn't count because it was too long ago. Interesting how you're not even consistent on points that have nothing to do with your argument.

Just because they have some 'native Iranian' (this hasnt been proven by a link or anything btw, but I'm no 'prove it freak' like some people here) elements doesnt make them iranian. Iranian themselves today have only SOME 'native Iranian' elements.
So clearly, ukrainians have few or none similarity with the modern iranians today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_people

You keep saying that my arguments were annhilated and I keep shifting. Yet you cant back none of these claims up. Maybe you have to accept it's you who cant sustain to debate anything besides calling racist and saying anything racist is stupid and world should be 0 racist...

It's interesting stuff. It's just more evidence that the blood of Europeans is hardly 'pure'. It's also why it's so silly to claim that ethnicity matters. In terms of genetics a millenia is the blink of an eye.

Ethnicity matters to me. And all ethnic-europeans look different than most of the rest of the world. Anyways you keep saying it doesnt matter, I keep disagreeing. It's been more than 100 pages, we should agree to disagree...

Immigrants are great, but come here legally...there are sooo many reasons why it is wrong to be illegal. And by the way illegals have no rights...they are illegal. Everyone is too coward to stand up for what's right because we might hurt someone's feelings. Well, here's a bucket for those tears and then once your done crying, stand up for yourselves in your own country. Don't expect the grass is greener on the other side, make your own oasis in your own country. Don't expect to sneak into my country...you illegals who think everything is owed to you and you are somehow above the law...

I'm too lazy to go through the last 40+ pages. Did New Nordland ever explain why I'm not a "native" European?

I'm too lazy to go through the last 40+ pages. Did New Nordland ever explain why I'm not a "native" European?

Yes. And if you are going to call me in english, use new northland...

Doesn't all the vehement arguing on this thread, and the fact that it's like 1500 posts long demonstrate that everybody could be happier if there were some countries that accepted immigration (for the people that want it), and some that don't (for the people who dont)?

Also, the Iranians (ancient & modern) aren't "Arabs". Totally different people.

Just because they have some 'native Iranian' (this hasnt been proven by a link or anything btw, but I'm no 'prove it freak' like some people here) elements doesnt make them iranian. Iranian themselves today have only SOME 'native Iranian' elements.
So clearly, ukrainians have few or none similarity with the modern iranians today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_people

You keep saying that my arguments were annhilated and I keep shifting. Yet you cant back none of these claims up. Maybe you have to accept it's you who cant sustain to debate anything besides calling racist and saying anything racist is stupid and world should be 0 racist...

In all fairness, people only keep saying your 'arguments' have been destroyed, and that you keep shifting... because your arguments HAVE been destroyed, and you DO keep shifting.

You also ignore questions you don't want to field, or try to brush them off with 'one-liner' responses... usually more about what you think of the person that asked you, than about what the question asked.

I find it humourous that you can apparently 'wiki' Iranian, but can't do the same thing for Ukraine or Scythian.

Here, let me help you:

"According to Herodotus (Hist. 4.6), the Scythians called themselves Skolotoi. The Greek Skythēs probably reflects an older rendering of the very same name, *Skuδa- (whereas Herodotus transcribes the unfamiliar [ð] as Λ; -toi represents the North-east Iranian plural ending -ta). The word originally means "shooter, archer", and it ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *skeud- "to shoot, throw" (compare English shoot).

SO - Scythians have an Iranian link - they speak an Iranian langauge, at the very least.

"In antiquity, the southern and eastern parts of modern Ukraine were populated by Iranian nomads called Scythians"

So - the Scythians WERE 'iranian nomads'.

From the same source you were using... it took, what half a minute, to find information on both Scythians and their significance in Ukraine.


Let me just point out also, of course - that modern Iranians are going to be 'descendents' of earlier 'iranians'. I realise that sounds redundant... but it means the MODERN Iranian, and the MODERN Ukrainian, BOTH originate from the same 'ethnic' group.

Immigrants are great, but come here legally...there are sooo many reasons why it is wrong to be illegal. And by the way illegals have no rights...they are illegal. Everyone is too coward to stand up for what's right because we might hurt someone's feelings. Well, here's a bucket for those tears and then once your done crying, stand up for yourselves in your own country. Don't expect the grass is greener on the other side, make your own oasis in your own country. Don't expect to sneak into my country...you illegals who think everything is owed to you and you are somehow above the law...
Im with you on that because i came here LEGALY and had to learn every thing-- the illegals of the US are to dam lazy to learn our language and expect us to help them even though they are illegal

Yes. And if you are going to call me in english, use new northland...


As I said, I'm lazy. Would you mind explaining again, or telling me what page the post is on?

Ethnicity matters to me. And all ethnic-europeans look different than most of the rest of the world. Anyways you keep saying it doesnt matter, I keep disagreeing. It's been more than 100 pages, we should agree to disagree...

Again, you claim that skin, hair and eye color are the most important factors and you wonder why people suggest you're racist. I know you'll never agree because you associate racism and violence as if they mean the same thing. Regardless, the link between your ideologies and racism is clear.

Meanwhile, are you actually claiming that much of what you says does not require you to add in all kinds of exceptions.

Try this -

Are Samis Scandinavian? Why not? They were there first.

Are Ukranians genetically linked to Iranians, much more so than to say, Spaniards? Yup. You are free to look it up if you like. I'm tired of doing the work for you.

Are their Scandinavian Muslims? Undoubtedly. Do you claim their cannot be? Clearly. Do you get to decide who is a 'real' Scandinavian? According to you, yes.

Ever heard of the 'real' Scotsman fallacy? Look it up. It's pretty much the reason why we keep making you make exceptions. See, proving you wrong makes us giggle.

Don't expect to sneak into my country... and you [think you] are somehow above the law...

Yeah...because people who think they're above the law have to sneak around...

As I said, I'm lazy. Would you mind explaining again, or telling me what page the post is on?
in a galaxy far far away

Im with you on that because i came here LEGALY and had to learn every thing-- the illegals of the US are to dam lazy to learn our language and expect us to help them even though they are illegal

We don't have an official language. Many of the states were primarily spanish speaking when they were accepted into the union. The California constitution was in Spanish originally.

It's interesting stuff. It's just more evidence that the blood of Europeans is hardly 'pure'. It's also why it's so silly to claim that ethnicity matters. In terms of genetics a millenia is the blink of an eye.

It'd be foolish to assume that ANY 'people' are pure.

I look at myself as a fairly typical example of an Englishman, I guess.

So - what is THIS 'Englishman' made of?

Jewish blood, Romany blood, clearly visible Viking blood, Scottish, Welsh and Irish blood... and that's ALL well within the last three generations. I KNOW my family history, further back, involves Norman blood, because our 'bloodline' had hereditary Normon 'names' until the last few generations - when such things kind of faded from the public consciousness.

We are ALL 'mixed-up pups'.

In all fairness, people only keep saying your 'arguments' have been destroyed, and that you keep shifting... because your arguments HAVE been destroyed, and you DO keep shifting.

You also ignore questions you don't want to field, or try to brush them off with 'one-liner' responses... usually more about what you think of the person that asked you, than about what the question asked.

I find it humourous that you can apparently 'wiki' Iranian, but can't do the same thing for Ukraine or Scythian.

Here, let me help you:



SO - Scythians have an Iranian link - they speak an Iranian langauge, at the very least.



So - the Scythians WERE 'iranian nomads'.

From the same source you were using... it took, what half a minute, to find information on both Scythians and their significance in Ukraine.


Let me just point out also, of course - that modern Iranians are going to be 'descendents' of earlier 'iranians'. I realise that sounds redundant... but it means the MODERN Iranian, and the MODERN Ukrainian, BOTH originate from the same 'ethnic' group.

More importantly one can find on Wiki the same link with Sarmatians. They were around even later and they were also Iranian nomads. So it appears that until the huns dilluted their influence the Ukranians were Iranian. Then, according to NY Nordland's spectacular research, the martians came.

Ethnicity matters to me. And all ethnic-europeans look different than most of the rest of the world. Anyways you keep saying it doesnt matter, I keep disagreeing. It's been more than 100 pages, we should agree to disagree...

You keep saying it 'matters', but what you mean is it matters ONLY TO YOU. It is illogical, unreasonable, and a self-destructive chain of logic.

Should I let you drill holes in your own head? Or, should I point out that your 'idea' is dangerous, not least to yourself?

It'd be foolish to assume that ANY 'people' are pure.

I look at myself as a fairly typical example of an Englishman, I guess.

So - what is THIS 'Englishman' made of?

Jewish blood, Romany blood, clearly visible Viking blood, Scottish, Welsh and Irish blood... and that's ALL well within the last three generations. I KNOW my family history, further back, involves Norman blood, because our 'bloodline' had hereditary Normon 'names' until the last few generations - when such things kind of faded from the public consciousness.

We are ALL 'mixed-up pups'.

He has since admitted this isn't about purity. This is about surrounding yourself with people who have the same skin, hair and eye color as you. But it's not racism because he doesn't want to kill anyone. Amusing, no?

In all fairness, people only keep saying your 'arguments' have been destroyed, and that you keep shifting... because your arguments HAVE been destroyed, and you DO keep shifting.

You also ignore questions you don't want to field, or try to brush them off with 'one-liner' responses... usually more about what you think of the person that asked you, than about what the question asked.

I find it humourous that you can apparently 'wiki' Iranian, but can't do the same thing for Ukraine or Scythian.


Here, let me help you:



SO - Scythians have an Iranian link - they speak an Iranian langauge, at the very least.



So - the Scythians WERE 'iranian nomads'.

From the same source you were using... it took, what half a minute, to find information on both Scythians and their significance in Ukraine.


Let me just point out also, of course - that modern Iranians are going to be 'descendents' of earlier 'iranians'. I realise that sounds redundant... but it means the MODERN Iranian, and the MODERN Ukrainian, BOTH originate from the same 'ethnic' group.

MY arguments still stand, because you cant connect dots yourself and I have to explain it to you each time...
Ukranians arent 100% Scythians. Iranians arent 100% Scythians. Hence it's stupid to say Ukranians are Iranians as Jocabia said it. I said the smilarity between iranians and ukranians are few or none. And I was right. You quoted
"In antiquity, the southern and eastern parts of modern Ukraine were populated by Iranian nomads called Scythians". We dont know what happened to them. If some of them stayed, relation between iranians and ukranians are few. If they were all killed or forced emigrate, the relationship is none. Here is how Iran isnt 100% Scy...

The ancient Persians established themselves in the western portion of the Iranian plateau and appear to have interacted considerably with the Elamites and Babylonians, while the Medes also intermingled with local Semitic peoples to the west, but remnants of their languages show their common Proto-Iranian roots emphasized by Strabo and Herodotus' analysis of their languages which they believed to be similar to those spoken by the Bactrians and Soghdians in the East. Following the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire, the Persian language spread from Fars to various regions of the empire and the modern dialects of Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki are descended from Old Persian. The Avestan's main impact was religious and liturgical as the early inhabitants of the Persian Empire appear to have adopted the religion of Zoroastrianism.

The other prominent Iranian peoples such as the Kurds are surmised to stem from Iranic populations that mixed with Caucasian peoples such as the Hurrians due to some unique qualities found in the Kurdish language that mirror those found in Caucasian languages.[15] The most dominant surviving Eastern Iranians are represented by the Pashtuns whose origins are generally believed to be in southern Afghanistan from whence they began to spread until they reached as far west as Herat and as far east as the Indus. Pashto shows affinities to Bactrian as both languages are believed to be of Middle Iranian origin. The Baloch relate an oral tradition regarding their migration from Aleppo, Syria around roughly the year 1000 CE, whereas linguistic evidence links Baluchi to Kurdish and Zazaki and appears to been heavily influenced by Persian.[16] The modern Ossetians today claim to be the ancestors of the Alano-Sarmatians and their claims are supported by their Northeast Iranian language, while culturally the Ossetes resemble their Caucasian neighbors, the Kabardians, Circassians, and Georgians.[17]

You keep saying it 'matters', but what you mean is it matters ONLY TO YOU. It is illogical, unreasonable, and a self-destructive chain of logic.

Should I let you drill holes in your own head? Or, should I point out that your 'idea' is dangerous, not least to yourself?

You should probably add the caveat that you are not actually suggesting he drill holes in his head, but instead giving an example of another dangerous idea that you would try to help discover the danger of. He sometimes seems to miss the examples in these kinds of cases.

More importantly one can find on Wiki the same link with Sarmatians. They were around even later and they were also Iranian nomads. So it appears that until the huns dilluted their influence the Ukranians were Iranian. Then, according to NY Nordland's spectacular research, the martians came.

Maybe that's it?

Maybe it wasn't the Sarmatians... maybe it was the MARTIANS!

That'd explain how they could be 'non-Iranian'...

(Unless, of course... Iranians ALSO settled Mars...)

Ok I'm out for now. It's Friday, have fun guys...

MY arguments still stand, because you cant connect dots yourself and I have to explain it to you each time...
Ukranians arent 100% Scythians. Iranians arent 100% Scythians. Hence it's stupid to say Ukranians are Iranians as Jocabia said it. I said the smilarity between iranians and ukranians are few or none. And I was right. You quoted
"In antiquity, the southern and eastern parts of modern Ukraine were populated by Iranian nomads called Scythians". We dont know what happened to them. If some of them stayed, relation between iranians and ukranians are few. If they were all killed or forced emigrate, the relationship is none. Here is how Iran isnt 100% Scy...

The ancient Persians established themselves in the western portion of the Iranian plateau and appear to have interacted considerably with the Elamites and Babylonians, while the Medes also intermingled with local Semitic peoples to the west, but remnants of their languages show their common Proto-Iranian roots emphasized by Strabo and Herodotus' analysis of their languages which they believed to be similar to those spoken by the Bactrians and Soghdians in the East. Following the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire, the Persian language spread from Fars to various regions of the empire and the modern dialects of Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki are descended from Old Persian. The Avestan's main impact was religious and liturgical as the early inhabitants of the Persian Empire appear to have adopted the religion of Zoroastrianism.

The other prominent Iranian peoples such as the Kurds are surmised to stem from Iranic populations that mixed with Caucasian peoples such as the Hurrians due to some unique qualities found in the Kurdish language that mirror those found in Caucasian languages.[15] The most dominant surviving Eastern Iranians are represented by the Pashtuns whose origins are generally believed to be in southern Afghanistan from whence they began to spread until they reached as far west as Herat and as far east as the Indus. Pashto shows affinities to Bactrian as both languages are believed to be of Middle Iranian origin. The Baloch relate an oral tradition regarding their migration from Aleppo, Syria around roughly the year 1000 CE, whereas linguistic evidence links Baluchi to Kurdish and Zazaki and appears to been heavily influenced by Persian.[16] The modern Ossetians today claim to be the ancestors of the Alano-Sarmatians and their claims are supported by their Northeast Iranian language, while culturally the Ossetes resemble their Caucasian neighbors, the Kabardians, Circassians, and Georgians.[17]
thats alot of info good work;)

thats alot of info good work;)

I copy&pasted it from wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_people

MY arguments still stand, because you cant connect dots yourself and I have to explain it to you each time...
Ukranians arent 100% Scythians. Iranians arent 100% Scythians. Hence it's stupid to say Ukranians are Iranians as Jocabia said it.

Um, I never said that. But if you want to support your claim, why don't you quote me? I said they were decended from the same people.

I said the smilarity between iranians and ukranians are few or none. And I was right. You quoted
"In antiquity, the southern and eastern parts of modern Ukraine were populated by Iranian nomads called Scythians". We dont know what happened to them. If some of them stayed, relation between iranians and ukranians are few. If they were all killed or forced emigrate, the relationship is none. Here is how Iran isnt 100% Scy...

They don't have to be 100% Scythian. We do know what happened to the Sarmatians and they were Iranian as well. Since when is 100% necessary to provide a genetic link. I've got new for you, there is pretty much no chance you are 100% viking.

The ancient Persians established themselves in the western portion of the Iranian plateau and appear to have interacted considerably with the Elamites and Babylonians, while the Medes also intermingled with local Semitic peoples to the west, but remnants of their languages show their common Proto-Iranian roots emphasized by Strabo and Herodotus' analysis of their languages which they believed to be similar to those spoken by the Bactrians and Soghdians in the East. Following the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire, the Persian language spread from Fars to various regions of the empire and the modern dialects of Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki are descended from Old Persian. The Avestan's main impact was religious and liturgical as the early inhabitants of the Persian Empire appear to have adopted the religion of Zoroastrianism.

The other prominent Iranian peoples such as the Kurds are surmised to stem from Iranic populations that mixed with Caucasian peoples such as the Hurrians due to some unique qualities found in the Kurdish language that mirror those found in Caucasian languages.[15] The most dominant surviving Eastern Iranians are represented by the Pashtuns whose origins are generally believed to be in southern Afghanistan from whence they began to spread until they reached as far west as Herat and as far east as the Indus. Pashto shows affinities to Bactrian as both languages are believed to be of Middle Iranian origin. The Baloch relate an oral tradition regarding their migration from Aleppo, Syria around roughly the year 1000 CE, whereas linguistic evidence links Baluchi to Kurdish and Zazaki and appears to been heavily influenced by Persian.[16] The modern Ossetians today claim to be the ancestors of the Alano-Sarmatians and their claims are supported by their Northeast Iranian language, while culturally the Ossetes resemble their Caucasian neighbors, the Kabardians, Circassians, and Georgians.[17]

Oh, look, the Sarmatians are also mention in the Iranian heritage. How useful. Good thing you don't read your own links.

He has since admitted this isn't about purity. This is about surrounding yourself with people who have the same skin, hair and eye color as you. But it's not racism because he doesn't want to kill anyone. Amusing, no?

I see.

It is NOT about 'purity'... but it IS about a concept defined exactly the same AS purity...

Should I let you drill holes in your own head? Or, should I point out that your 'idea' is dangerous, not least to yourself?

Is drilling holes in your own head acceptable if it is part of your culture/ethnicity, frex the pre-Colombian Mesoamericans?

Maybe that's it?

Maybe it wasn't the Sarmatians... maybe it was the MARTIANS!

That'd explain how they could be 'non-Iranian'...

(Unless, of course... Iranians ALSO settled Mars...)

Did you notice the strawmen? Now, we claimed Ukranians are 100% Iranian. I know I remember saying that, don't you? /sarcasm

More evidence that he can't make his point without calling out exceptions. I suppose he doesn't realize that we groups immigrate they tend to branch out and differentiate in some ways. Suggesting that, say, Scandanavians (minus the Samis) are germanic, doesn't mean they are 100% German. It just links their ancestors. Of course, he has to change the point becuase if he replies to our real point, his claims are proven objectively wrong.

Is drilling holes in your own head acceptable ... ?

http://www.austinfilmfestival.net/aff/new/images/movies/2005/ghostbusters.jpg

It's okay for scientific purposes.

besides me...just curious

Yeah, I'm anti-immigrant. I hate everyone except for the population of Kenya's Rift Valley who stayed put in pre-historic times. All you other buggers, GRRR!

MY arguments still stand, because you cant connect dots yourself and I have to explain it to you each time...
Ukranians arent 100% Scythians. Iranians arent 100% Scythians. Hence it's stupid to say Ukranians are Iranians as Jocabia said it. I said the smilarity between iranians and ukranians are few or none. And I was right. You quoted
"In antiquity, the southern and eastern parts of modern Ukraine were populated by Iranian nomads called Scythians". We dont know what happened to them. If some of them stayed, relation between iranians and ukranians are few. If they were all killed or forced emigrate, the relationship is none. Here is how Iran isnt 100% Scy...

The ancient Persians established themselves in the western portion of the Iranian plateau and appear to have interacted considerably with the Elamites and Babylonians, while the Medes also intermingled with local Semitic peoples to the west, but remnants of their languages show their common Proto-Iranian roots emphasized by Strabo and Herodotus' analysis of their languages which they believed to be similar to those spoken by the Bactrians and Soghdians in the East. Following the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire, the Persian language spread from Fars to various regions of the empire and the modern dialects of Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki are descended from Old Persian. The Avestan's main impact was religious and liturgical as the early inhabitants of the Persian Empire appear to have adopted the religion of Zoroastrianism.

The other prominent Iranian peoples such as the Kurds are surmised to stem from Iranic populations that mixed with Caucasian peoples such as the Hurrians due to some unique qualities found in the Kurdish language that mirror those found in Caucasian languages.[15] The most dominant surviving Eastern Iranians are represented by the Pashtuns whose origins are generally believed to be in southern Afghanistan from whence they began to spread until they reached as far west as Herat and as far east as the Indus. Pashto shows affinities to Bactrian as both languages are believed to be of Middle Iranian origin. The Baloch relate an oral tradition regarding their migration from Aleppo, Syria around roughly the year 1000 CE, whereas linguistic evidence links Baluchi to Kurdish and Zazaki and appears to been heavily influenced by Persian.[16] The modern Ossetians today claim to be the ancestors of the Alano-Sarmatians and their claims are supported by their Northeast Iranian language, while culturally the Ossetes resemble their Caucasian neighbors, the Kabardians, Circassians, and Georgians.[17]

What does that large (and unedited) blob of text MEAN to your argument?

The Scythians settle in Ukraine - and are conquered and assimilated for a few hundreds of years.

SO - they ARE still Scythians, just with new stuff thrown in.

The Iranians are conquered, do some conquering, are assimilated, and do some assimilating.

So - they are STILL Iranians, just with some new stuff thrown in.


Just as the French were originally Frankish Germans and the Normans were orginally Frankish Vikings. Both 'roots' still remain - just mixed with new things.

Is drilling holes in your own head acceptable if it is part of your culture/ethnicity, frex the pre-Colombian Mesoamericans?

No, it's acceptable if it's part of your culture from watching Ghostbusters too much, though... ;)

What does that large (and unedited) blob of text MEAN to your argument?

The Scythians settle in Ukraine - and are conquered and assimilated for a few hundreds of years.

SO - they ARE still Scythians, just with new stuff thrown in.

The Iranians are conquered, do some conquering, are assimilated, and do some assimilating.

So - they are STILL Iranians, just with some new stuff thrown in.


Just as the French were originally Frankish Germans and the Normans were orginally Frankish Vikings. Both 'roots' still remain - just mixed with new things.
NO NO IT HAS TO 100% OR THERE IS NO LINK

Interesting enough, it has to be 100% or they are not similar at all was also his argument when he was arguing that monkeys are as similar to humans as one ethnicity is to another. Forget the idea of degrees. When you're arguing a point that is getting annihilated make it an all or nothing deal and then call everything that shows it is not all an 'exception'. Don't you know how it works, GnI?

http://www.austinfilmfestival.net/aff/new/images/movies/2005/ghostbusters.jpg

It's okay for scientific purposes.

Yay! Cool Points for RPP, for catching the reference!

Yay! Cool Points for RPP, for catching the reference!

I'll admit. I missed it. I think we've adequately exposed the Aryan-goggles used in this thread to defy all reason that doesn't agree with their want to mate with this ugly idea. What do you think?

NO NO IT HAS TO 100% OR THERE IS NO LINK

Interesting enough, it has to be 100% or they are not similar at all was also his argument when he was arguing that monkeys are as similar to humans as one ethnicity is to another. Forget the idea of degrees. When you're arguing a point that is getting annihilated make it an all or nothing deal and then call everything that shows it is not all an 'exception'. Don't you know how it works, GnI?

I have a problem...

My mother's side of the family is Celtic in origin, with Jewish blood.

My father's side of the family is ALSO Celtic in origin, with Gypsy blood.

Thus - since I am CLEARLY not 100% alike with either... am I not related to them?

I'll admit. I missed it. I think we've adequately exposed the Aryan-goggles used in this thread to defy all reason that doesn't agree with their want to mate with this ugly idea. What do you think?

I think this particular affair was over some time ago, and all we've been doing since is canoodling in the afterglow, and deciding who sleeps in the sticky patch.

I have a problem...

My mother's side of the family is Celtic in origin, with Jewish blood.

My father's side of the family is ALSO Celtic in origin, with Gypsy blood.

Thus - since I am CLEARLY not 100% alike with either... am I not related to them?

Nope. You're similar to them, but you're also similar to monkeys as proven by the sound logic of a link showing that we have genetic similarities to something that is NOT a monkey. There are no degrees, as PROVEN by Ny Nordland. There is only all or nothing. And if they have a different eye and hair color than you like my parents do, look out, because then you have absolutely nothing in common.

all i know is that i lived in ukraine and when i moved to US the people looked no difrent:D

I think this particular affair was over some time ago, and all we've been doing since is canoodling in the afterglow, and deciding who sleeps in the sticky patch.

The part I like best was when K-P's head exploded and he started running around the thread like a chicken after the fatal blow.

:p <---- immigrant :sniper:, as long as they come in the right way it doesnt matter but if they dont please refer to the top line.

I think this particular affair was over some time ago, and all we've been doing since is canoodling in the afterglow, and deciding who sleeps in the sticky patch.

That may be but the thread will doubtless continue for a few thousand posts.

Our resident non-racist, non-xenophobic racial puritans have a remarkable ability to prolong discussion with the art of dodging, denial, dismissal, insult and ignore.

That may be but the thread will doubtless continue for a few thousand posts.

Our resident non-racist, non-xenophobic racial puritans have a remarkable ability to prolong discussion with the art of dodging, denial, dismissal, insult and ignore.

Denial = "Oh, look evidence. Hmmmm... we'll just call that an 'exception'."

My favorite part is when he said the only people who have been stable in Scandanavia for sever millennia are not Scandanavian because they don't look like him.

...and all we've been doing since is canoodling in the afterglow...


Keep your hands to yourself, please.

It just keeps on going and going and going....

"I find it hard to be againt immigration of any type when i live in a country founded by immigrants. Immigrants who raped, murdered and basically commited genocide to get the country they are in now just to establish a government and thensuddenly say no one else can come in. The only people who are against immigrants are the ignorant, the racist, and the terminally stupid (which if you're racist you just happen to cover all three categories).

It's amazing to me how many people rage against immigrants in this country, espcially certain irish talk show hosts. My familiy are irish immigrants (true they worked through the system to become legal) and my great grandma had all sorts or stories about people protesting and beating up Irish immigrants at the NY docks and certain talkchristian talk show hosts rail against people trying to do the same thing.

And if you dare say that mexican immigrants are a drain on our society then you better look in the mirror and start with looking at all the welfare sucking white trash trailor parks that cover the out skirts of cities and populate the south and wyoming like no other.

The whole immigration thing is bullshit, they are not killing off "our people" or our way of life they are taking the jobs that lazy white trash won't do. If our own citizens would get off of their bloated pastey asses and get a job instead of being a drain on their own society then there wouldn't be any jobs to attract immigrants, and if the government would make it a federal crime with high fines and jail time as well as seizure of the business and enforce it then people would be less likely to hire illegal immigrants. So before you blame the people who are just looking for a job so they can survive, start gettnig pissed off at your own fat, ignorant, lazy, leaching people, and our own ineffective governmnet who, (much like it's ignorant supporters) can only blame everyone and everything else and not look at it's own inability to even function properly for simple everyday tasks.


I love what my country has and could once again stand for, but not what it has become."


Finally an American who does have eyes and a IQ bigger than his belly. Congrats.

(I'm just discriminating just to watch the funny reactions of the Americans, that are probably the worst people on earth [I mean intelectually, cause they are nice sometimes and all] and still have that nazi ideal of a superior race)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UZI3MV2Q

USA - The Moron Nation

PS- The problem is that your intelectual elite, as you have a lot of money, is composed by foreigners who gather there cause they do not have the best working conditions in their homeland. Some of the best portuguese scientists are there, unfortunatly.
And there are a few american that are good, strong, and ethic people, it's a shame none of them gets to have a standing political position - just like at Michael Moore.

:upyours: America.

"I find it hard to be againt immigration of any type when i live in a country founded by immigrants. Immigrants who raped, murdered and basically commited genocide to get the country they are in now just to establish a government and thensuddenly say no one else can come in. The only people who are against immigrants are the ignorant, the racist, and the terminally stupid (which if you're racist you just happen to cover all three categories).

It's amazing to me how many people rage against immigrants in this country, espcially certain irish talk show hosts. My familiy are irish immigrants (true they worked through the system to become legal) and my great grandma had all sorts or stories about people protesting and beating up Irish immigrants at the NY docks and certain talkchristian talk show hosts rail against people trying to do the same thing.

And if you dare say that mexican immigrants are a drain on our society then you better look in the mirror and start with looking at all the welfare sucking white trash trailor parks that cover the out skirts of cities and populate the south and wyoming like no other.

The whole immigration thing is bullshit, they are not killing off "our people" or our way of life they are taking the jobs that lazy white trash won't do. If our own citizens would get off of their bloated pastey asses and get a job instead of being a drain on their own society then there wouldn't be any jobs to attract immigrants, and if the government would make it a federal crime with high fines and jail time as well as seizure of the business and enforce it then people would be less likely to hire illegal immigrants. So before you blame the people who are just looking for a job so they can survive, start gettnig pissed off at your own fat, ignorant, lazy, leaching people, and our own ineffective governmnet who, (much like it's ignorant supporters) can only blame everyone and everything else and not look at it's own inability to even function properly for simple everyday tasks.


I love what my country has and could once again stand for, but not what it has become."


Finally an American who does have eyes and a IQ bigger than his belly. Congrats.

(I'm just discriminating just to watch the funny reactions of the Americans, that are probably the worst people on earth [I mean intelectually, cause they are nice sometimes and all] and still have that nazi ideal of a superior race)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UZI3MV2Q

USA - The Moron Nation

PS- The problem is that your intelectual elite, as you have a lot of money, is composed by foreigners who gather there cause they do not have the best working conditions in their homeland. Some of the best portuguese scientists are there, unfortunatly.
And there are a few american that are good, strong, and ethic people, it's a shame none of them gets to have a standing political position - just like at Michael Moore.

:upyours: America.


Warned for trolling.

PS- The problem is that your intelectual elite, as you have a lot of money, is composed by foreigners who gather there cause they do not have the best working conditions in their homeland. Some of the best portuguese scientists are there, unfortunatly.
And there are a few american that are good, strong, and ethic people, it's a shame none of them gets to have a standing political position - just like at Michael Moore.

:upyours: America.
The fattest of them all. Haha. Nice example to bring up.

.....:upyours: America.

America loves you too.

Warned for trolling.

I'm still trying to work out how that post could be considered trolling lol.

It could be argued that a large proportion of the world would agree with the comments expressed. :D

The fattest of them all. Haha. Nice example to bring up.

Is Michael Moore actually fat or just blown up with righteous fury? :confused:

I'm still trying to work out how that post could be considered trolling lol.

It could be argued that a large proportion of the world would agree with the comments expressed. :D

But common sense holds that people are stupid. And most especially more than the rest. So where does that put those America-haters? :p

But common sense holds that people are stupid. And most especially more than the rest. So where does that put those America-haters? :p

Difficult to say, especially as "I hate america" is the only freedom of expression many of them are allowed to voice publicly... I can't imagine any of the flag burning mob in Iran feeling safe saying " I hate america, but it's pretty shit here too".

Denial = "Oh, look evidence. Hmmmm... we'll just call that an 'exception'."

Someone didn't listen in maths class. If you did, you'd know about outliers.

Just because you are racist doesn't mean everyone else is.

Yes it does. Everyone is. Most people do their utmost not to seem it, though. Everyone's a little bit racist.

SOME people, maybe. Some of us are 'colour-blind'.

No, nobody is.

Yes it does. Everyone is. Most people do their utmost not to seem it, though. Everyone's a little bit racist.

No. Let me say it again, Mr Egomaniacal: Just because YOU are racist does NOT mean everyone else is racist. Okay?

You know, it's kind of like just because I have an 11 inch cock, that doesn't mean everyone else does. People are different. They're not all like me, and they're not all like you. (Thank god on both accounts.)

Someone didn't listen in maths class. If you did, you'd know about outliers.

How far out is this outlier, though? One standard deviation (sigma)? Two? Three? Four? Five? What?

No. Let me say it again, Mr Egomaniacal: Just because YOU are racist does NOT mean everyone else is racist. Okay?

You know, it's kind of like just because I have an 11 inch cock, that doesn't mean everyone else does. People are different. They're not all like me, and they're not all like you. (Thank god on both accounts.)

I'm racist!

The part I like best was when K-P's head exploded and he started running around the thread like a chicken after the fatal blow.

Beautiful, I am now having Turok (2) flashbacks... :D

Keep your hands to yourself, please.

Yeah, like you weren't enjoying it...

Someone didn't listen in maths class. If you did, you'd know about outliers.

But, when ALL YOU HAVE is outliers, it could be argued that your 'trend' is nothing more than random.

Things I learned from reading this thread.

1) I'm racist
2) I'm a rapist

I have to say I really enjoy it that xenophobes know so much about me. Even I wasn't aware of my own racist tendencies until they were [not] pointed out. And I certainly didn't remember raping anyone, but that just goes to show how faulty my memory is compared to the telepathy of random online strangers who don't know me.

Yes it does. Everyone is. Most people do their utmost not to seem it, though. Everyone's a little bit racist.

I've heard it said before, and yet, I still don't believe it.

And - that is the problem with generalised assertions. If you state categorically that EVERYONE is racist... and we can find even ONE person that isn't... your argument is false.

Things I learned from reading this thread.

1) I'm racist
2) I'm a rapist

I have to say I really enjoy it that xenophobes know so much about me. Even I wasn't aware of my own racist tendencies until they were [not] pointed out. And I certainly didn't remember raping anyone, but that just goes to show how faulty my memory is compared to the telepathy of random online strangers who don't know me.

It's all part of the Liberal Conspiracy.

Or, is it the White Conspiracy?

No... wait, the American Agenda Conspiracy...

The PC Conspiracy?

It's got to be one of those things... people can't just act civilised and NOT want to promulgate hate, for NO reason, right?

I am.
They need to stay in their own country, dammit. Or become citizens. We don't need immigrants to come in and take jobs.

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/pavlov.gif

I am.
They need to stay in their own country, dammit. Or become citizens. We don't need immigrants to come in and take jobs.

But I guess the people in those poor country also dont need us taking jobs away from them. Because that is what the western world really does. They say they want to help the poor countries but in fact they want their own economies to be the best even more. So they want to make money out of the poor countries (petrol, diamands,...) and create jobs in their own countries. And when we've exploited those poor countries enough we say "Hey, you lazy guys, stay in the shit, because we don't have room for you, our economie will suffer". (and that's very unchristian of our so deeply believing leaders)

But I guess the people in those poor country also dont need us taking jobs away from them. Because that is what the western world really does. They say they want to help the poor countries but in fact they want their own economies to be the best even more. So they want to make money out of the poor countries (petrol, diamands,...) and create jobs in their own countries. And when we've exploited those poor countries enough we say "Hey, you lazy guys, stay in the shit, because we don't have room for you, our economie will suffer". (and that's very unchristian of our so deeply believing leaders)

Very true.

One only needs to look at the US oil companies in Africa, and the constant conflicts as 'local' peoples demand some kind of fair 'cut' of the rewards for their national resources.

We go over there, we build our machinery. Then we hire a few natives to do the dirty or dangerous bits, and we pay them crap. Then we get a couple of 'exec' types to send over there... and we give them a pretty good benefit package (because, otherwise... let's face it, they wouldn't GO)... and then we rake as MUCH of the profits as we can, back into onshore markets.

Very true.

One only needs to look at the US oil companies in Africa, and the constant conflicts as 'local' peoples demand some kind of fair 'cut' of the rewards for their national resources.

We go over there, we build our machinery. Then we hire a few natives to do the dirty or dangerous bits, and we pay them crap. Then we get a couple of 'exec' types to send over there... and we give them a pretty good benefit package (because, otherwise... let's face it, they wouldn't GO)... and then we rake as MUCH of the profits as we can, back into onshore markets.


That's right, and when those exploited people come and try their luck in our countries because they also want a big house and a few cars, we invent terms like "illegal" for them and say "this isn't the land of milk and honey" but don't we only say that because the western world IS the land of milk and honey and we just don't want to share it?

It's so uncivilised, so inhumane to call a person illegal.

That's right, and when those exploited people come and try their luck in our countries because they also want a big house and a few cars, we invent terms like "illegal" for them and say "this isn't the land of milk and honey" but don't we only say that because the western world IS the land of milk and honey and we just don't want to share it?

It's so uncivilised, so inhumane to call a person illegal.

If shoe fits....

If shoe fits....

Find a way to set the price so that the people who make it, can't afford to wear it?

Find a way to set the price so that the people who make it, can't afford to wear it?

exactly! :D (although it's a scinical laugh)

Find a way to set the price so that the people who make it, can't afford to wear it?

Most of the people who make shoes couldn't afford them as is.

Most of the people who make shoes couldn't afford them as is.

Exactly...?

Exactly...?

Weren't we trying to pretend to fix a problem or something?

Weren't we trying to pretend to fix a problem or something?

Sure, let's go with that.

Doesn't it seem that there is a fundamental inequality, when the organisation that brings together the human resource and the material resource, coordinates the system such that the result of production (of even such a minor item as a shoe) lies totally outside of the grasp of those doing the 'producing'?

Sure, let's go with that.

Doesn't it seem that there is a fundamental inequality, when the organisation that brings together the human resource and the material resource, coordinates the system such that the result of production (of even such a minor item as a shoe) lies totally outside of the grasp of those doing the 'producing'?

It does, indeed, sir.

However, by raising the wage of the Workers, you would then have companies either raising prices (such that the Workers can still not afford their own products) or cutting profits. I find the latter choice somewhat unlikely, and the former to be too vicious a cycle for my tastes. But the only way to escape that cycle, that I can think of, would be rather immoral.

Doesn't it seem that there is a fundamental inequality, when the organisation that brings together the human resource and the material resource, coordinates the system such that the result of production (of even such a minor item as a shoe) lies totally outside of the grasp of those doing the 'producing'?

It's really more like the system is such that those who do the producing would never be bothered to produce the product for the organization if they could afford to purchase it, and therefore the product wouldn't get produced and therefore, even those that could afford the product wouldn't be able to buy it since no one would have produced it. It may be a fundamental inequality, but reality is full of those.

It does, indeed, sir.

However, by raising the wage of the Workers, you would then have companies either raising prices (such that the Workers can still not afford their own products) or cutting profits. I find the latter choice somewhat unlikely, and the former to be too vicious a cycle for my tastes. But the only way to escape that cycle, that I can think of, would be rather immoral.

I don't see what is so bad about cutting profits.... but I don't think that would be enough to bring the products to the sweatshops.

A more logical idea - would be to produce a 'local' version, DRASTICALLY subsidised, but with a 'no export' logo, or some such. (A logo that signals an automatic, and LARGE, 'tax', perhaps?)

That way - your workers being capitalised upon by the 'rich' West, can still afford to buy what they produce... but you don't have to worry about flooding Western markets with subsidised produce.

I don't see what is so bad about cutting profits.... but I don't think that would be enough to bring the products to the sweatshops.

A more logical idea - would be to produce a 'local' version, DRASTICALLY subsidised, but with a 'no export' logo, or some such. (A logo that signals an automatic, and LARGE, 'tax', perhaps?)

That way - your workers being capitalised upon by the 'rich' West, can still afford to buy what they produce... but you don't have to worry about flooding Western markets with subsidised produce.

Nor do I. But the CEOs and shareholders of these corporations would scarcely see morality as a reason to take a hit to their income from 50 million US dollars a year to, say, 25 millions.

It's really more like the system is such that those who do the producing would never be bothered to produce the product for the organization if they could afford to purchase it, and therefore the product wouldn't get produced and therefore, even those that could afford the product wouldn't be able to buy it since no one would have produced it. It may be a fundamental inequality, but reality is full of those.

That logic only works if you assume the two different markets pay the same 'cost' for the same 'value'.

If your third-world-sweatshop-worker could afford to buy the shoe on 5th Avenue, you'd have a point... he/she wouldn't want to be working in a shoe factory.

However - if you find a 'different' solution to that problem, you can keep both 'sides' happy (well, happier, maybe).

Nor do I. But the CEOs and shareholders of these corporations would scarcely see morality as a reason to take a hit to their income from 50 million US dollars a year to, say, 25 millions.

That's what they'd SAY... but you and I both know, they'd be being dishonest.

A factory production system breeds waste. It's an allowance the industry makes... automatically 'write-off' 20% of your stock is NOT an unusual concept.

So - you keep the basic 'write-off' level of 20% quality-fail pieces as a 'threshhold level'. When your workers waste 20% or more production, you have problems that need addressing. When they undercut the 20% wastage, you free-up the 'difference' to the local market at a 'write-off' cost.

You were going to throw the material away, if it WAS 'wasted', so you allow a certain amount of 'constructive waste' in that same figure, and you make a small amount of cost back, on those pieces.

That's what they'd SAY... but you and I both know, they'd be being dishonest.

A factory production system breeds waste. It's an allowance the industry makes... automatically 'write-off' 20% of your stock is NOT an unusual concept.

So - you keep the basic 'write-off' level of 20% quality-fail pieces as a 'threshhold level'. When your workers waste 20% or more production, you have problems that need addressing. When they undercut the 20% wastage, you free-up the 'difference' to the local market at a 'write-off' cost.

You were going to throw the material away, if it WAS 'wasted', so you allow a certain amount of 'constructive waste' in that same figure, and you make a small amount of cost back, on those pieces.

You could always suggest that to a corporation. I'd back you. Not that that means anything.

But, either way, I doubt they'd follow your advice. Assuming that they took you seriously and this thing went all the way up and down the ladder. They'd just look at it as being more money for themselves. (A bonus, if you will. Ironic. A 'bonus' for doing something utterly selfish.)

It's really more like the system is such that those who do the producing would never be bothered to produce the product for the organization if they could afford to purchase it, and therefore the product wouldn't get produced and therefore, even those that could afford the product wouldn't be able to buy it since no one would have produced it. It may be a fundamental inequality, but reality is full of those.


I agree that solutions to escape the circle are not that easy to formulate, but that does not allow us to say "hey, people are starving, but that's just the way it is, we can't do anything about it, they'll have to face it" and take another sip of our glas of champagne.
That's just immoral. And perhaps equality is a utopian idea, but at least it's worth fighting for.

I agree that solutions to escape the circle are not that easy to formulate, but that does not allow us to say "hey, people are starving, but that's just the way it is, we can't do anything about it, they'll have to face it"

That's not exactly what I said. I don't contend that the fact that businesses can choose what to pay their employees leads to starvation.

That said, starvation IS the way it is. Look at anorexics. They can afford 5th Avenue Shoes but they still starve themselves anyway.

And perhaps equality is a utopian idea, but at least it's worth fighting for.

I don't agree. I don't even think "equality" is utopian, not in the sense that many anti-capitalists tend to mean it. And I think the pursuit of it can and has lead to some rather dystopian societies.

That's not exactly what I said. I don't contend that the fact that businesses can choose what to pay their employees leads to starvation.


that's also not what I meant to say, I was rather talking about the differences between rich and the people in the third world. People are just starving in those countries cause we don't seem to give a fuck. Or at least we don't want to share our wealth




I don't agree. I don't even think "equality" is utopian, not in the sense that many anti-capitalists tend to mean it. And I think the pursuit of it can and has lead to some rather dystopian societies.

It does not have to be total equality, but don't you think the world would be better of if the differences between the west and the third world were smaller? I would be supprised if you think that is "dystopian".

And where, may I ask, has balancing wealth created a dystopian society?

Ah yeah, some books or something.

And where, may I ask, has balancing wealth created a dystopian society?

The Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union.


Yeah, I was thinking he was referring to something like that. But I don't think the soviet Union was really a good example of balancing wealth.

And the most important thing is, you don't need to have a communist regime, it does not have to be that extreme if you only want the gigantic gap between the west and the third world to be smaller.

The Soviet Union.

Ah, so there was a balance of wealth in the Soviet Union, and the upper echelons of the party received no more perks or remuneration than a random factory worker?

Ah, so there was a balance of wealth in the Soviet Union, and the upper echelons of the party received no more perks or remuneration than a random factory worker?

The Soviet Union is as close an example you'll find. The government was rich; everybody else could all be poor together.

The Soviet Union is as close an example you'll find. The government was rich; everybody else could all be poor together.

So there wasn't a balance of wealth?

Areas under collectivism during the SCW are probably a far better example.

Did you notice the strawmen? Now, we claimed Ukranians are 100% Iranian. I know I remember saying that, don't you? /sarcasm

More evidence that he can't make his point without calling out exceptions. I suppose he doesn't realize that we groups immigrate they tend to branch out and differentiate in some ways. Suggesting that, say, Scandanavians (minus the Samis) are germanic, doesn't mean they are 100% German. It just links their ancestors. Of course, he has to change the point becuase if he replies to our real point, his claims are proven objectively wrong.

You said ukranians are iranians. Dont you think that's just stupid?

Let's see the Sami people have been in Scandanavia for thousands of years and I mention they got their before you and you point that they're Siberian.

Now, we mention that Ukranians are Iranian and you claim they aren't. When prove they are you act like it doesn't count because it was too long ago. Interesting how you're not even consistent on points that have nothing to do with your argument.

NO NO IT HAS TO 100% OR THERE IS NO LINK

Interesting enough, it has to be 100% or they are not similar at all was also his argument when he was arguing that monkeys are as similar to humans as one ethnicity is to another. Forget the idea of degrees. When you're arguing a point that is getting annihilated make it an all or nothing deal and then call everything that shows it is not all an 'exception'. Don't you know how it works, GnI?

You didnt completely understand what I meant...

I have a problem...

My mother's side of the family is Celtic in origin, with Jewish blood.

My father's side of the family is ALSO Celtic in origin, with Gypsy blood.

Thus - since I am CLEARLY not 100% alike with either... am I not related to them?

That's why you are so against my arguments I guess. I also noticed while you were defining englishmen, jewish blood was the first thing you said...

Denial = "Oh, look evidence. Hmmmm... we'll just call that an 'exception'."

My favorite part is when he said the only people who have been stable in Scandanavia for sever millennia are not Scandanavian because they don't look like him.

Sami 's population are in thousands. They are so few, they are an exception to me...

No. Let me say it again, Mr Egomaniacal: Just because YOU are racist does NOT mean everyone else is racist. Okay?

You know, it's kind of like just because I have an 11 inch cock, that doesn't mean everyone else does. People are different. They're not all like me, and they're not all like you. (Thank god on both accounts.)

LOL....Assuming it's true, are you black?

That's right, and when those exploited people come and try their luck in our countries because they also want a big house and a few cars, we invent terms like "illegal" for them and say "this isn't the land of milk and honey" but don't we only say that because the western world IS the land of milk and honey and we just don't want to share it?

It's so uncivilised, so inhumane to call a person illegal.

Are you an illegal too? I'm thinking you are some generation of non-european immigrants...

I'm getting bored of this thread. It just seems like all people I'm arguing with, isnt my 'target audience' anyways...

You are born and raised in USA, right? All my following statements are under that assumption... All your interactions have been with Americans ...You lived there all your life. That's why you are american. Maybe if you'd live in Scandinavia for 10 years you'd be scandinavian, I dont know.
But just because your parents are scandinavian and you come to here for few summers doesnt make you scandinavian, I think....

My parents were immigrants to the UK (from outside of the Europe). I am a UK citizen, as are they. I consider myself to be a "native" European insofar as anyone can be described as "native" to Europe. Would you?

You will lose marks every time you bring up race.

....

I appear to be an exception.

....

I appear to be an exception.

No, you are clearly not native-european...

Who else is anit-immigrant?
I'm hardly "anti-immigrant," but I am pro-law. IMHO, if immigrants want to work here, they should follow the law just like anyone else.

No, you are clearly not native-european...

Why not?

As this juncture I will accept "I don't know" as an answer, but this will bring you slightly lower down in my estimation. On the plus side, it's not like you can much lower anyway.

Are you an illegal too? I'm thinking you are some generation of non-european immigrants...


Come on mate, stay cool. I'm as native as european can ever get. I even got blond hair and the bluest eyes. That's nothing to be proud of though (nor ashamed)

I'm getting bored of this thread. It just seems like all people I'm arguing with, isnt my 'target audience' anyways...

no that's right, you better go fishing in some more naive waters

Come on mate, stay cool. I'm as native as european can ever get. I even got blond hair and the bluest eyes. That's nothing to be proud of though (nor ashamed)

Assuming you are being truthful, you are the only 'target audience' here for me I guess and we disagree...
Does Brussels have a muslim majority yet? What do you think of this if it does?

Why not?

As this juncture I will accept "I don't know" as an answer, but this will bring you slightly lower down in my estimation. On the plus side, it's not like you can much lower anyway.

Ok I really dont care what you think. As for my answer, I already gave it to you. Stop asking for repeating myself 3rd time, the thread is already too big...

Assuming you are being truthful, you are the only 'target audience' for me I guess and we disagree...
Does Brussels have a muslim majority yet? What do you think of this if it does?


There is not a majority yet, especially not muslim, because not all immigrants in Brussels are muslim of course. And if there would be a muslim majority in a couple of years or something, why not? I can't see a problem, we're all inhabitants of the same country, of the same world. They've got as much right to live in Brussels as I have.

BTW, I am being truthful, I can send you a picture if you don't believe me

There is not a majority yet, especially not muslim, because not all immigrants in Brussels are muslim of course. And if there would be a muslim majority in a couple of years or something, why not? I can't see a problem, we're all inhabitants of the same country, of the same world. They've got as much right to live in Brussels as I have.

Ok, if you are ready and willing for such a change then we neednt debate further.

Edit: Lol, it's ok. No pic required...

Ok, if you are ready and willing for such a change then we neednt debate further.

Of course, why not? It is my opinion we need to be willing for such a change because everybody got as much right to be rich and comfortable

No, you are clearly not native-european...
Are you?

Someone didn't listen in maths class. If you did, you'd know about outliers.

I paid attention in science where it says if you propose a hypothesis, you can't just call everything that disproves it an 'exception'. The point is that many of these things are concepts. They have nothing to do with Math.

If someone says "'real' Jocabians are defined as X because Y. And I show people who fit under Y who you don't consider to be 'real' Jocabians, then your definition is broken. In the end all you guys have is "'real' Jocabians are this sub-group of people because I said so."

LOL....Assuming it's true, are you black?

No. Look overhead! That's the point, flying away from you.

I've heard it said before, and yet, I still don't believe it.

And - that is the problem with generalised assertions. If you state categorically that EVERYONE is racist... and we can find even ONE person that isn't... your argument is false.

"You obviously didn't pay attention in maths". Ha. They'll just call it an exception or simply deny it.

I have a problem...

My mother's side of the family is Celtic in origin, with Jewish blood.

My father's side of the family is ALSO Celtic in origin, with Gypsy blood.

That's why you are so against my arguments I guess. I also noticed while you were defining englishmen, jewish blood was the first thing you said...

For the most part Englishmen don't have primarily Celtic blood. It isn't only the Jewish and Gypsy blood that throws things here.

Ok I really dont care what you think. As for my answer, I already gave it to you. Stop asking for repeating myself 3rd time, the thread is already too big...

I gave you the dictionary definition of "native" (by which I can be described as a "native" of Europe), and explained that many white Americans are native Americans. I also noticed that you have pigeon-holed Jocabia into the American category because apparently the USA has an "immigrant culture" and he/she is a "cultural" American by virtue of birth. One can only assume that you believe all of Europe to be (or to have been) one monolithic entity with one culture, history and set of traditions because you aren't applying the same standard to myself.

You said ukranians are iranians. Dont you think that's just stupid?

They decended from the same people. The only thing that is stupid is trying to pretend like you didn't understand my point.

Sami 's population are in thousands. They are so few, they are an exception to me...

I notice everything is an exception to you. Everyone that doesn't happen to have the same hair, eyes and skin as you. Of course, it would be silly to compare that racism no matter how similar they are.

No, you are clearly not native-european...

My mother was born in Malaya and my Father in Ireland, am I a native-European?

You didnt completely understand what I meant...

No, I understood it. You are simply spinning. You kept pretending like there is no such thing as degrees.

I'll make it simple. Is the degree of similarity between two ethnic groups even remotely close to the degree of similarity between men and monkeys? If you answer yes, you're either or lying or wrong or both. Because it's a fact the similarities are not comparable, yet you tried to treat them as equal.

try this one....bring back 50% of our troops that are currently stationed in iraq and put them on the border with mexico until we can build a 50 foot high wall reaching from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico...the flood of illegals coming into this country, especially from mexico is alarming...i am not anti-immigration, as a matter of fact im pro-immigration, but i want it done the right way...its insanely too easy to cross our borders...who knows how many terriorists have crossed into america due to our wide open mexican border :headbang:

bring back 50% of our troops that are currently stationed in iraq and put them on the border with mexico until we can build a 50 foot high wall reaching from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico... ...its insanely too easy to cross our borders...who knows how many terriorists have crossed into america due to our wide open mexican border :headbang:

What? And leave your Northward flank exposed?

I am a citizen of the US have been in the BSA, and STILL can't pass the stupid immigration test, if I wanted too...

That's why you are so against my arguments I guess. I also noticed while you were defining englishmen, jewish blood was the first thing you said...

Surely, Celtic was the FIRST thing I listed, and Jewish was the second... and they were placed in that order because I listed my mother first, and because my lineage is about proportinally greater from the 'celtic' side, than from the Jewish...

I'm not sure quite WHAT kind of strawman you are trying to make... but, you aren't even looking at the posts you are pretending to respond to, apparently.

Are you an illegal too? I'm thinking you are some generation of non-european immigrants...

Good technique. Anyone that argues with you, is immediately dismissed as some kind of 'immigrant' (and thus, it seems, not worth talking to)... and now you've added suggesting that they must be 'illegal immigrants', at that.

Pretty sad, really... if that's the extent of the debate... it's come down to ad hominem.

Assuming you are being truthful, you are the only 'target audience' here for me I guess and we disagree...
Does Brussels have a muslim majority yet? What do you think of this if it does?

How 'native' does one have to 'look' to meet your ridiculous requirements, then?

I'm a six-foot-plus viking... how is that NOT your target audience?

For the most part Englishmen don't have primarily Celtic blood. It isn't only the Jewish and Gypsy blood that throws things here.

I'll agree... the Jewish blood is not the biggest deal in the box. However... I think the 'English' are actually pretty diverse. My mothers family are 'based' in the shires (about as 'isolated' as the UK gets)... and yet even our 'blood' is far from homogenous.

What? And leave your Northward flank exposed?

Not to mention the fact that 'port' control is notoriously laughable.

The really ridiculous thing, of course, is that a brief overview of recent US history shows that terrorist strikes are generally carried out by people that came here legitimately.

Hell, WE even taught them to fly the damn planes for 9/11....

Of course, why not? It is my opinion we need to be willing for such a change because everybody got as much right to be rich and comfortable

Instead of letting immigrants, we should help developing countries more, directly. Besides, most immigrants do the jobs that not many people wants to do. It's not really noble to import foreigners to do the dirty work. On the other hand few immigrants who does high skilled jobs cause brain drain in developing countries.

Are you?

No, I'm muslim arab...(sarcasm)

They decended from the same people. The only thing that is stupid is trying to pretend like you didn't understand my point.

They decended from the same people? All ukranians are descendant of scy.'s now?

besides me...just curious

Not me. I'm an immigrant myself.

No, I understood it. You are simply spinning. You kept pretending like there is no such thing as degrees.

I'll make it simple. Is the degree of similarity between two ethnic groups even remotely close to the degree of similarity between men and monkeys? If you answer yes, you're either or lying or wrong or both. Because it's a fact the similarities are not comparable, yet you tried to treat them as equal.

Please back your claims with quotes. I never said differences between ethnicities equal the difference between humans and apes...

Immigration sux.

Immigration sux.

You suck.

You suck.
No you suck.

Please back your claims with quotes. I never said differences between ethnicities equal the difference between humans and apes...

I have a question for you and Kieven-Prussia

My family comes mostly from Northern Germany (Berlin) but in some cases from Austria (Vienna) and some from Western Russia (I think North Western).

Anyway, some of my family moved to America around the 1890's, but most of them moved here around the 1920's.

I have light blonde hair (used to be white blonde), green eyes, I stand around 6'3 and I'm Jewish.

I would like to know where I fit into your whole scheme of things.
according to you, would I be considered White?
according to you, would I be considered European if I moved to Europe to start a family there?

What do you think?

Sami 's population are in thousands. They are so few, they are an exception to me...
Sami population is 30000-70000, according to this. (http://www.suri.ee/eup/samis.html)

How large a group is a problem?

I have a question for you and Kieven-Prussia

My family comes mostly from Northern Germany (Berlin) but in some cases from Austria (Vienna) and some from Western Russia (I think North Western).

Anyway, some of my family moved to America around the 1890's, but most of them moved here around the 1920's.

I have light blonde hair (used to be white blonde), green eyes, I stand around 6'3 and I'm Jewish.

I would like to know where I fit into your whole scheme of things.
according to you, would I be considered White?
according to you, would I be considered European if I moved to Europe to start a family there?

What do you think?

That's tricky, you didnt mention about how your nose is...(joke)

I guess you are white and if you move to europe and live here for some years, learn the language and work on that horrible american accent, etc..you can be european and be a 'jew-exception'.

according to you, would I be considered European if I moved to Europe to start a family there?

What do you think?

Obviously not directed at me but, my two cents:

You would be American (US) but you're offspring would be European. IMO.

I guess you are white and if you move to europe and live here for some years, learn the language and work on that horrible american accent, etc..you can be european and be a 'jew-exception'.

So lets say I did that. I moved to Oslo, started a family there, became fluent in Norwegian, embraced the Norwegian culture, (keep in mind, I along with my family are still Jewish) would I be an a Norwegian as equal to anyone else who you consider Norwegian? Would I be considered 100% your equal? Even not being Christian?

Obviously not directed at me but, my two cents:

You would be American (US) but you're offspring would be European. IMO.

I would sorta agree...to me it would all depend on how well I assimilated into Norway. Theres a big difference to me between being an American living in Norway and a Norwegian.

So I'm not really sure.

So lets say I did that. I moved to Oslo, started a family there, became fluent in Norwegian, embraced the Norwegian culture, (keep in mind, I along with my family are still Jewish) would I be an a Norwegian as equal to anyone else who you consider Norwegian? Would I be considered 100% your equal? Even not being Christian?

You are already an equal whether you move or not...Besides I'm not 'that' christian myself...

My mother was born in Malaya and my Father in Ireland, am I a native-European?

Again for K-P and Nordland...

Again for K-P and Nordland...

What's their ethnicities?

What's their ethnicities?

So it doesn't matter where they are born? Their ethnicities are the only thing that matters in this question?

So it doesn't matter where they are born? Their ethnicities are the only thing that matters in this question?

After ethnicity, there are cultural issues...

After ethnicity, there are cultural issues...


But ethnicity is more important than geographical location?

You are already an equal whether you move or not...Besides I'm not 'that' christian myself...

I meant would you consider me and my family to be of equal Norwegian-ness to you if we were to move there and do all the things I said?

Yes well I'm not Christian at all, seeing as I'm Jewish.

But ethnicity is more important than geographical location?

In my opinion at least, yeah...But as you can see many people dont agree.

But ethnicity is more important than geographical location?

Depends on the situation.

I meant would you consider me and my family to be of equal Norwegian-ness to you if we were to move there and do all the things I said?

Yes well I'm not Christian at all, seeing as I'm Jewish.

Depends on the ethnicity of your wife and children(in case they are adopted)...

In my opinion at least, yeah...But as you can see many people dont agree.

In my opinion, it depends.

But sometimes, sure, it can be.

In my opinion at least, yeah...But as you can see many people dont agree.

If ethnicity is more important than geographical location why do you keep harking back to a geographical signifier of ethnicity time and time again?

If ethnicity is more important than geographical location why do you keep harking back to a geographical signifier of ethnicity time and time again?

After ethnicity, geography does matter because you are affected by the culture of where you are born and raised...

Depends on the ethnicity of your wife and children(in case they are adopted)...

My wife is either a White American (maybe Jewish) who I move to Norway with. (Keep in mind she would also learn the language and contribute to the Norwegian culture), or she may be a Norwegian whom I happen to fall in love with. Either way our kids will be White (and depending on if the moms Jewish, maybe Jewish).

What do you think?

Would we be "true" Norwegians like yourself?

My wife is either a White American (maybe Jewish) who I move to Norway with. (Keep in mind she would also learn the language and contribute to the Norwegian culture), or she may be a Norwegian whom I happen to fall in love with. Either way our kids will be White (and depending on if the moms Jewish, maybe Jewish).

What do you think?

Would we be "true" Norwegians like yourself?
psst...it is already established that she is not Norwegian...

After ethnicity, geography does matter because you are affected by the culture of where you are born and raised...

I can agree with that.

psst...it is already established that she is not Norwegian...

What do you mean?

My wife is either a White American (maybe Jewish) who I move to Norway with. (Keep in mind she would also learn the language and contribute to the Norwegian culture), or she may be a Norwegian whom I happen to fall in love with. Either way our kids will be White (and depending on if the moms Jewish, maybe Jewish).

What do you think?

Would we be "true" Norwegians like yourself?

I guess, yeah. If people like you are in few numbers. I mean I'd be against 100,000 jewish families moving because it'd be a big change for Oslo.

What do you mean?

He's just mad because I ignore him. Funny...he established that I'm not norwegian but female

What do you mean?
from this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10807587&postcount=1358), and a few pages onward...

He's just mad because I ignore him. Funny...he established that I'm not norwegian but female
Not at all. We ethnic Icelanders don't go mad. We just go berserk, and almost only when we visit the British Isles by boat.

Did you ever say you were a male?

After ethnicity, geography does matter because you are affected by the culture of where you are born and raised...

And which is more important to you: Scandinavian ethnicity or Scandinavian culture?

Not at all. We ethnic Icelanders don't go mad. We just go berserk, and almost only when we visit the British Isles by boat.

Did you ever say you were a male?

I am. Why did you bad-mouth Norway if you are ethnic icelander?

And which is more important to you: Scandinavian ethnicity or Scandinavian culture?

To me? Hmm ethnicity I guess.

I am. Why did you bad-mouth Norway if you are ethnic icelander?
Why should I not?

To me? Hmm ethnicity I guess.

So accidents of genetics are more important than the results of actual purposeful human endeavour?

I guess, yeah. If people like you are in few numbers. I mean I'd be against 100,000 Christian families moving because it'd be a big change for Oslo.

I can understand that.

But just to make sure you arnt just being a bigot....what if I changed your post to look like this, would you still agree with what you are saying.

Notice I changed Jewish

from this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10807587&postcount=1358), and a few pages onward...

Hmm...I would also like to know if he is really Norwegian.

Nordland, are you really Norwegian?

Instead of letting immigrants, we should help developing countries more, directly. Besides, most immigrants do the jobs that not many people wants to do. It's not really noble to import foreigners to do the dirty work. On the other hand few immigrants who does high skilled jobs cause brain drain in developing countries.


HAHAHA although I sort of agree with this, it is quite ridiculous how you are now trying to give your argument some ethics, but after everything you've said about etnicity etc, it's very hard to believe you're being sincere.

HAHAHA although I sort of agree with this, it is quite ridiculous how you are now trying to give your argument some ethics, but after everything you've said about etnicity etc, it's very hard to believe you're being sincere.

I can agree with what he said though.

For instance, if you viewed immigration as a problem to be solved, why not attack the source to find the solution.

To halt immigration, simply help build up the countries people are fleeing so they dont have to come to yours.

Therefore, everyone wins. You dont have immigrants, they dont have to flee their countries, and their countries have stable governments. Like I said, everyone wins....except the liberals.

But when the liberals win, everybody loses. ;)

I can agree with what he said though.

For instance, if you viewed immigration as a problem to be solved, why not attack the source to find the solution.

To halt immigration, simply help build up the countries people are fleeing so they dont have to come to yours.

Therefore, everyone wins. You dont have immigrants, they dont have to flee their countries, and their countries have stable governments. Like I said, everyone wins....except the liberals.

Except the problem there is one of the big arguements against immigration is that they hurt your economy by taking jobs and money out of your countries hands. With that solution now your just bypassing the middle man and giving the countries they come from money and services. I guess if you don't think they are hurting the economy and thats not a reason for you not caring about immigration its a consistant arguement but if your against immigration for economic reasons it seems a bit out there.

Except the problem there is one of the big arguements against immigration is that they hurt your economy by taking jobs and money out of your countries hands. With that solution now your just bypassing the middle man and giving the countries they come from money and services. I guess if you don't think they are hurting the economy and thats not a reason for you not caring about immigration its a consistant arguement but if your against immigration for economic reasons it seems a bit out there.

Hypothetically, what if your against immigration because you wish your soceity to be that of a homogenous one?

Then would my solution apply?

Hypothetically, what if your against immigration because you wish your soceity to be that of a homogenous one?

Then would my solution apply?

Well your solution wouldn't seem like a hypocritical stance. Of course people would then argue against the point of should society be that of a homogenous one or a heterogenous one. Frankly I am for a heterogenous one because you should be free to go where you want. If I want to move to Ireland I don't think the reason I'm not from Ireland should be a reason to keep me out.

Well your solution wouldn't seem like a hypocritical stance. Of course people would then argue against the point of should society be that of a homogenous one or a heterogenous one. Frankly I am for a heterogenous one because you should be free to go where you want. If I want to move to Ireland I don't think the reason I'm not from Ireland should be a reason to keep me out.

But thats just your point of view.

I tend to view society like a marriage.

You USUALLY dont want to get the two most opposite people together and have them get married. No, you want people who share the most things, alot of times beleifs, religion, race...ect...just some examples.

Marriages NOT ALWAYS, but alot of the time tend to to better when you have more in common with each other.

I find the same with society. I find that people of the same..eh..people tend to do better together.

For instance, at school....by no higher power forcing them to, white kids tend to be with white kids, blacks tend to be with blacks, hispanics tend to be with hispanics.

But race isnt the only thing I'm talking about, hell, its not even the most important, I'm just using it as an example.

Did that make any sense to you?

But thats just your point of view.

I tend to view society like a marriage.

You USUALLY dont want to get the two most opposite people together and have them get married. No, you want people who share the most things, alot of times beleifs, religion, race...ect...just some examples.

Marriages NOT ALWAYS, but alot of the time tend to to better when you have more in common with each other.

I find the same with society. I find that people of the same..eh..people tend to do better together.

For instance, at school....by no higher power forcing them to, white kids tend to be with white kids, blacks tend to be with blacks, hispanics tend to be with hispanics.

But race isnt the only thing I'm talking about, hell, its not even the most important, I'm just using it as an example.

Did that make any sense to you?

Except the problem is societies aren't entirely homogenous. If your lucky some of the groups will have a some similarities but there is no single country where everyone is the same in everything. To say that society is better off just being the same people is really using something for an example which isn't even a reality. And the examples on race are dubeous at best especially when you look at past cultural and historical examples. Saying black kids tend to be with other black kids and what not doesn't look at the reasons why and is just being attributed to them being black which is just a generalization.

No, considering how Canada and the US became the supreme uber duo of ass kickage thanks to immigrants.

Silly European.

I can understand that.

But just to make sure you arnt just being a bigot....what if I changed your post to look like this, would you still agree with what you are saying.

Notice I changed Jewish

Depends on if they are 100,000 swedish christians (which would be hard to find), or 100,000 kenyan christians...

Hmm...I would also like to know if he is really Norwegian.

Nordland, are you really Norwegian?

Yeah, I am. The big secret is that I got some finnish blood, so ethnically I'm not 100% ethnic norwegian/scandinavian.

HAHAHA although I sort of agree with this, it is quite ridiculous how you are now trying to give your argument some ethics, but after everything you've said about etnicity etc, it's very hard to believe you're being sincere.

I said this before, not the first time I've said something like this. And why not? In order to help poor people and be sincere, you gotta let them in your home?
Just because I'm anti-immigrant doesnt mean I dont feel sorry for all those starving people in africa...

Except the problem there is one of the big arguements against immigration is that they hurt your economy by taking jobs and money out of your countries hands. With that solution now your just bypassing the middle man and giving the countries they come from money and services. I guess if you don't think they are hurting the economy and thats not a reason for you not caring about immigration its a consistant arguement but if your against immigration for economic reasons it seems a bit out there.

My anti-immigration stance isnt because of economical reasons. Obviously, they are economically beneficial because they are cheap labour which make rich bosses richer...

Immigration is un-American.

Well your solution wouldn't seem like a hypocritical stance. Of course people would then argue against the point of should society be that of a homogenous one or a heterogenous one. Frankly I am for a heterogenous one because you should be free to go where you want. If I want to move to Ireland I don't think the reason I'm not from Ireland should be a reason to keep me out.

I disagree. European societies are so small, they need to be protected. ex: norwegians are 0.075% of the world population...

But thats just your point of view.

I tend to view society like a marriage.

You USUALLY dont want to get the two most opposite people together and have them get married. No, you want people who share the most things, alot of times beleifs, religion, race...ect...just some examples.

Marriages NOT ALWAYS, but alot of the time tend to to better when you have more in common with each other.

I find the same with society. I find that people of the same..eh..people tend to do better together.

For instance, at school....by no higher power forcing them to, white kids tend to be with white kids, blacks tend to be with blacks, hispanics tend to be with hispanics.

But race isnt the only thing I'm talking about, hell, its not even the most important, I'm just using it as an example.

Did that make any sense to you?


I'm very surprised. Most jewish people are very pro-immigration...