31 August 2005

Response to Devil's Kitchen on Immigration.

After getting Andrew to change his opinion on abortion and admit his inconsistencies , I suppose I'd better turn my attention to you lot!

Devils Kitchen, lets start with you shall we by picking the holes in your post on immigration; 'a good harding fisking'!

Firstly I admit that I should have put that it is 'achievements linked to personal life' rather than 'personal achievements' that makes people proud of something. Which is in the opening point of my post. So I give you that point but you still don't explain why I should be 'proud of my accident of birth'?

In fact you go on to back up what I say with this comment;

"Do I feel pride [in my country]? Yes. This may be illogical, but...". It doesn't matter what you argue after that, as you have admitted pride in your country is illogical, which was what I was saying.

On my point that, 'the crux of those arguing against immigration rests on implying that people born abroad are inferior'.

you say;

"I do not think that foreigners are inferior, and yet I am against unfettered immigration. Why? Well, because they are culturally different; not inferior"

You give examples of why this 'cultural difference' is a problem by citing the Burnley riots.

Of course this totally ignores the fact that it was poverty that was the main cause of those riots, not people being 'culturally different'. Otherwise, why does the most diverse cultural city in the world, i.e. London, not have riots every day?

Also aren't you overplaying these supposed 'culturally different' riots as a problem? What about all the 'politically different' riots that were much more serious, like the Poll Tax riot?

So if your 'culturally different' argument is rubbish, what else does that leave you with for why you dislike immigration?

As for the economics of the argument, you don't seem to disagree with me? I too think asylum seekers should be allowed to work, that is not an argument to stop them coming here!

'All the data suggests those countries with the highest immigration also have the highest economic growth'

The statement above was complete with a link to back it up, you forgot to mention that!

As for your final point;

"Humans are naturally, no matter how enlightened you may think that we are, tribal animals."

This seems to be arguing in favour of not even trying to be enlightened. Which, I suppose is not surprising considering what you are trying to say!

11 comments:

  1. After getting Andrew to change his opinion on abortion and admit his inconsistencies , I suppose I'd better turn my attention to you lot!

    Actually Neil, before you joined the thread, I was swaying in favour of unlimited abortion. I'm afraid your inability to hold a coherent, logical argument together simply entrenched my position. Hard luck, chap.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why then did you post this a few hours ago?

    “I’ve mellowed from wanting an outright ban to being happy to settle for further restriction in the time limit. Call it a moral victory for your team if you like.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because he's taking the piss, muppet. You seem incapable of discussing things rationally and accepting factual corrections - like missing the difference between Andrew's prudential endorsement of a 20-week limit and his maintenance of a strict pro-life position in principle. Mockery seems the only answer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well he's moved his position, so I was asking how far?

    Once again, keep the insults coming. It is the arguments that really matter. I'm not going to personally abuse anyone. Its you who it reflects badly on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Neil: You really need to develop a sense of humour, old chap.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andrew, you've lost it when you have to censor someone's point of view.

    So you were being humorous when you said you had changed your position on abortion?

    I have a sense of humour, but I have to see or hear something funny first.

    You and Blimpish's extreme views are not funny!

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, they're not funny.

    Just right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, but to claim your fiction as truth is funny in this instance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It would be, if I had. But my fiction I leave to my publishers, Mills & Boon. I think they'd find your stuff here too lurid, as well as badly written. Too many exclamation marks, for one thing!

    (You are such fun. I've never had a personal bitch before.)

    ReplyDelete