Diversity In France!

[TomServo]

Hahahahaha, Garmir Biber. That's great.

[Anonymouse]

[QUOTE=Siamanto]Someone is ignorant when someone makes gratuitous and unfounded statements about a subject that he/she has no knowledge, understanding or exposure to.
It is true that you are relatively well read and intelligent, but maybe you should limit yourself to what you understand.
You can put it in any way you please, but the fact remains that - based on your previous cheap shots - you are totally ignorant about the French Society and its nature. All you have expressed so far is - in quality and essence - comparable to the gossips commonly expressed in the US.
I hope that you will find the courage within you to face the facts.

The cheap shots are only cheap shots within the imaginitive confines of your mind, as it is subjective. You don't have to like my comments about France, but they are valid nonetheless, as they are merely making an observation based on the limited knowledge I have, since all knowledge is ultimately limited. Therefore, your whole whining that because someone hasn't had "hands on" experience with France, therefore their comments are somehow "cheap shots", is a product of your wishful thinking.

No, this thread is at least the third one that you have started during the last couple of months - and because I was not too active lately, I may have missed others. Also, the quality of the posts justify the expression of "cheap shots."
Please have the courage to be honest. Thanks.

This whole hang up with this notion of "cheap shots" you have is completely pointless and again a reflection of you murmuring.

You have expressed your opinions and understanding of Socialism on numerous occasions. I had enough occasions to read your posts during the last year or so - and, as we all know, that means many many posts.

Yes, I have talked alot about socialism both in theory, and things that are socialistic which are not necessarily socialism. My comment in this instance involved pointing out that France is heavily socialistic. Do you have a problem with that? All governments are socialistic to the degree that they tax and confiscate the productive capital of individuals, the differences are in degrees.

Your views sound so narrowly focused on the Soviet Union experience, obsolete Marxist views and often reflect the narrowness of how Socialism is perceived - or misconceived - in the US.

That is, again, untrue, and based on nothing more than you saying so. It clearly shows you have not really read all my views on socialism, as you claimed you have.

Who said you do? LOL You need to pay attention!

You did when you stated that "Your oversimplifying model and understanding of Socialism is a bit immature and limited to mono-party regimes/experiences such as the Soviet Union. It it also conditioned by the US obsession with Socialism." Like I said, you really need to pay attention.

It's a different situation. In order to understand certain issues, such as the one discussed in this thread, one should have "on hands" experience. At least, enough understanding of the subject matter. Face it you have none, not even some! You have no understanding of the French mindset, culture or society!

No it's not a different situation, although you would want to make it so, just so you would have some ammo here for this discussion. If we take your fallacious analogy we come to some funny results. Technically then, no one should discuss or express views about places they have never been. That would include many Armenians who have never been to Armenia. Or someone expressing views against rollercoasters without having been to Magic Mountain. You are becoming more and more silly with each reply. To somehow create an intellectual Berlin Wall, as you have, around yourself and your supposed knowledge of having been there, you are reinforcing nothing more than the self-absorbed elitist notion of yourself and your supposed knowledge, since you cannot fathom someone criticizing your beloved France.

How can someone so arrogantly, confidently and repeatedly express such an ignorance? Please stop ridiculing yourself.

I was simply trying to get under your skin by throwing out such statements, thus far it is working. You don't like it? However, we can only guess when France will be majority non-white and it isn't far off. The 10-20 years was from a joke I had heard making fun of France for importing so many Muslims. The 40% figure was a simply figure from answers.com. I am to guess you don't care if by 2100, like Britain, France is majority non-white, right?

You've probably never have been to Paris or France. Where do you get what you think is factual information?

Where did I claim I have been to Paris or France? Are you seriously this handicapped at reading what I right? I admitted already that I have not been there. You are starting to veer off into tautologies.

The bastion of "information????" What quality of information? The US media is so controlled and prejudiced when it's about other countries.
It was meant both in Government, media, society and Academia.

Either way, I do not rely on any of those things. Perhaps you should seriously reassess the pitiful performance you have displayed thus far here.

LOL I will repost the same sequence that I have already posted; hoping that this time you will pay attention!

All the while ignoring the whole point previously stated by me that this was in regards to the idea of importing millions of Africans, and what the thread was based on? Of course, when people want to shadow box with themselves as you do and see themselves as the sole possessors of this esoteric knowledge, they will often resort to childishness to compensate for their inability to hold on to a discussion, and often times whining that people who haven't visited France, dare express views about France.

[axel]

Have you ever lived in israel? Do you read hebrew? if not, please abstain from commenting on the israeli-palestinian "conflict".
Have you ever lived under the ottoman regime? do you speak turkish? have you ever been to turkey? please refrain from making any comments...
Have you ever lived under the nazi regime? you are not entitled to discuss hitler's policies...

a minor point, the french republic is most certainly the only country in Europe where you may find avenues bearing the name of v.i. lenin.

[Anonymouse]

Have you ever lived in israel? Do you read hebrew? if not, please abstain from commenting on the israeli-palestinian "conflict".
Have you ever lived under the ottoman regime? do you speak turkish? have you ever been to turkey? please refrain from making any comments...
Have you ever lived under the nazi regime? you are not entitled to discuss hitler's policies...

It will be hard, but I will try.

a minor point, the french republic is most certainly the only country in Europe where you may find avenues bearing the name of v.i. lenin.

That I did not know, but it is interesting nonetheless.

So now France is going to put into effect a curfew that they hope will supposedly combat this situation. I hope this riot awakens some of the French leaders to what they have done to the country by embracing the horror that is multiculturalism. Do you think this might strengthen Le Pen and the FN?

[axel]

well multiculturalism is not the actual policy in france, the republican model is culture-agnostic, its goal being assimilation and identity dissolution.
this is part of the actual problem. a lot of people here see reality through their ideological lenses and fail to (generally don't want to) recognize the problems tied to mass immigration & mentality/cultural differences (the word immigration is a taboo in france, refering to it as a potential source of problem immediately gets you associated with the far-right)

one should note the problem here is mostly with second-generation immigrants who have no real identity and are completely alienated to a point where they do not recognize any form of authority they may only consider as foreign. hate is the only feeling they have and it is deeply rooted. (these people would be total strangers in their country of origin btw). the lack of authority and laissez-faire which has been the rule for a number of years on one hand, the media-sponsored victimization of the "jeunes" and the permanent movement of claim for "rights" that is so typical of french society without any mention of duties whatsoever, encouragement by leftist associations/organizations (who, among other things, assist illegal immigrants, so-called "sans-papiers", literally "without papers", (yet another euphemism imposed by p.c.) in staging protests in the streets in all impunity), have turned these people into spoilt children who find it justified to put cars on fire or even beat people to death just to get attention, as babies cry and shout when they do not get satisfaction. added to that, they realize how weak france is as a state and on the international scene and how weak and terrorized the french people are and this weakness they despise. there is one significant fact. these people only attack the poor and the weak. he cars they've been burning are those of poor people. so much for the "class struggle" believers.

So now France is going to put into effect a curfew that they hope will supposedly combat this situation

this situation will end one way or another but the problems will remain unsolved.

riot awakens some of the French leaders to what they have done to the country

for you believe they weren't fully aware of the consequences ... "french leaders", what a laugh...

as far as this buffoon of le pen is concerned, he won't ever reach 25% of the electorate. for a number of reasons. if you had witnessed what happened between the two rounds of the 2002 presidential election in france, you would understand. totally surreal. orwellian.
if he did win the elections (which he won't ever), it would create total hysteria and chaos (much worse than wht we saw in the first years of Chavez' mandate). most if not all levers of power, all key positions whether it be in the administration, public or private sector are in the hands of elements that are intrinsically hostile to anything national.


PS: I have this feeling that in the US, some have been quick to jump on the opportunity to make amalgams and exploit the situation to justify Sharon's policies, the war on "terrorism", and the use of white phosphor bombs in Falluja... though I don't think you will hear about that last part on CNN

[Siamanto]

Have you ever lived in israel? Do you read hebrew? if not, please abstain from commenting on the israeli-palestinian "conflict".
Have you ever lived under the ottoman regime? do you speak turkish? have you ever been to turkey? please refrain from making any comments...
Have you ever lived under the nazi regime? you are not entitled to discuss hitler's policies...

I invited you to a honest discussion that would have given you the opportunity to explicit your gratuitous statements. Instead, you have chosen to run and hide behind a parody of a "methodological/epistemological" principle that I have expressed, tangential to the subject. I wonder why? Is it really the case that there is no substance beyond the "verbiage" of yours, or is it simply what I call "Intellectual Cowardice?" I hope that you'll have the honesty and courage to reply to my previous message and prove me wrong.

As for the principle - that is as old as civilization - that I have expressed:
First of all, contrary to your interpretation, the statement was not categorical. In fact, I have said:
"one should have "on hands" experience. At least, enough understanding of the subject matter."

Based on indirect knowledge or information, one can only discuss aspects that are not too intricate or complex; that is to say that only some aspects can be reasonably discussed based on indirect knowledge. Other aspects, that are multidimensional in nature and can't be reduced to and comprehended with indirect knowledge, cannot be reasonably discussed without "hands on" direct experience or exposure.
If one does it, then cautious and modesty are necessary. Otherwise, one would take the risk of uttering - at best - nonsense. Worse, combined with prejudice, misinformation and excessive self confidence - as in the case of Anonymouse - it would simply sound like sensationalistic gossip - whether intentional or not.

I hope that someday you will mature and evolve to the point where you will see the difference - in essence and quality - of direct experience as opposed to indirect information.
I hope that someday you will mature and evolve enough to discover that the real world is complex enough to defy the indirect knowledge that you acquire through "reading."

a minor point, the french republic is most certainly the only country in Europe where you may find avenues bearing the name of v.i. lenin.

That may or may not be case. Assuming that is the case what is the value of such an "information?" LOL Another "mature" comment?

[Siamanto]

Anonymouse,
This conversation seems to have exhausted almost all its substance.
Considering nothing new was said in your post, my reply will be, mainly, a repetition of what I've already said.

This whole hang up with this notion of "cheap shots" you have is completely pointless and again a reflection of you murmuring.

No, I call a cat a cat. Yes, the quality and essence of your posts and comments justify the expressions "cheap shot" and "gossip."

Yes, I have talked alot about socialism both in theory, and things that are socialistic which are not necessarily socialism. My comment in this instance involved pointing out that France is heavily socialistic. Do you have a problem with that? All governments are socialistic to the degree that they tax and confiscate the productive capital of individuals, the differences are in degrees.

Please pay attention. I have even said:
" fortunately - France, like many other European countries, believes in and has integrated Socialistic values."
I simply
That obviously indicates that I don't have a problem. However, you seem to have a problem recognizing how narrow minded and embryonic is your understanding of Socialism, the history of Socialism and how its influence on modern societies.

That is, again, untrue, and based on nothing more than you saying so. It clearly shows you have not really read all my views on socialism, as you claimed you have.

It may not please you, but it is true that your views on the subject are a bit obsolete and narrow minded.
Also, I simply said:
"I had enough occasions to read your posts during the last year or so - and, as we all know, that means many many posts."
That, in no way, implies that I have read all your views, nor all your post. However, enough to make a reasonable assessment.
What's wrong with the "Logical" Machine? Malfunctioning?

You did when you stated that "Your oversimplifying model and understanding of Socialism is a bit immature and limited to mono-party regimes/experiences such as the Soviet Union. It it also conditioned by the US obsession with Socialism." Like I said, you really need to pay attention.

No, my statement does imply that you
"prescribe to the U.S. governments ideas of what are or are not proper, and what is defined as socialism."
Please pay attention! Read again.
What's wrong with the "Logical" Machine? Malfunctioning?

No it's not a different situation, although you would want to make it so, just so you would have some ammo here for this discussion. If we take your fallacious analogy we come to some funny results. Technically then, no one should discuss or express views about places they have never been. That would include many Armenians who have never been to Armenia. Or someone expressing views against rollercoasters without having been to Magic Mountain. You are becoming more and more silly with each reply. To somehow create an intellectual Berlin Wall, as you have, around yourself and your supposed knowledge of having been there, you are reinforcing nothing more than the self-absorbed elitist notion of yourself and your supposed knowledge, since you cannot fathom someone criticizing your beloved France.

It is a different situation and requires different approaches. Please, read my reply to axel. Deal with your ignorance and many misconception on the subject and try to go beyond your "thin" and bookish knowledge.
The debate between direct and indirect knowledge is many thousand years old.

I was simply trying to get under your skin by throwing out such statements, thus far it is working. You don't like it? However, we can only guess when France will be majority non-white and it isn't far off. The 10-20 years was from a joke I had heard making fun of France for importing so many Muslims. The 40% figure was a simply figure from answers.com. I am to guess you don't care if by 2100, like Britain, France is majority non-white, right?

Those imaginary scenarios, based on simplistic models and incomplete and/or of poor quality data, belong to the realm of speculation, not knowledge. In my professional life, I deal with such issues on a daily basis; that is my expertise.
Also, if you recall, bell-the-cat once replied - to the same or similar question - with something like:
"Great, in 100 years we will become what the US is already as of now."
Do you consider the US as a horrible experience?

Where did I claim I have been to Paris or France? Are you seriously this handicapped at reading what I right? I admitted already that I have not been there. You are starting to veer off into tautologies.

Pay attention please. Read again. I hope that, this time, the "Logic" Machine function properly.
I said:
"How can someone so arrogantly, confidently and repeatedly express such an ignorance? Please stop ridiculing yourself. You've probably never have been to Paris or France. Where do you get what you think is factual information?"
That does not imply - nor suggest - that you have claimed that you've been to Paris.

Either way, I do not rely on any of those things. Perhaps you should seriously reassess the pitiful performance you have displayed thus far here.

Of course, calling a cat a cat would seem as a "pitiful performance" for someone who wants to call it a mouse!
Deal with your ignorance and get over it!

All the while ignoring the whole point previously stated by me that this was in regards to the idea of importing millions of Africans, and what the thread was based on? Of course, when people want to shadow box with themselves as you do and see themselves as the sole possessors of this esoteric knowledge, they will often resort to childishness to compensate for their inability to hold on to a discussion, and often times whining that people who haven't visited France, dare express views about France.

LOL My favorite part!

You can put in any way you please; the fact remains that it was a P.S. and was not a reply to initial statement. For the third time - I hope that you will pay attention this time - the sequence was:

P.S. Yes, the Africans and the African Culture did enrich European and American Culture in a sensible manner.

That my friend is a matter of opinion.

That is a matter of knowledge. European Art - sculpture, painting - has been greatly enriched by African elements; contemporary classical music has incorporated African polyrhythmy and pop music has African roots etc. etc.s

Maybe, the "Logic" Machine needs a tune up????

One last thing: you have no views about France; those are called "misinformation" and "gossip" - that you were fed with. Let's call a cat a cat. If you have views, then let's discussed them.

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse,
This conversation seems to have exhausted almost all its substance.
Considering nothing new was said in your post, my reply will be, mainly, a repetition of what I've already said.

Meaning, you are admitting that all you have done is state tautologies.

No, I call a cat a cat. Yes, the quality and essence of your posts and comments justify the expressions "cheap shot" and "gossip."

Like I said before, you may call it a cheap shot because you don't like it. It's simply a reflection of your murmuring.

Please pay attention. I have even said:
" fortunately - France, like many other European countries, believes in and has integrated Socialistic values."
I simply
That obviously indicates that I don't have a problem. However, you seem to have a problem recognizing how narrow minded and embryonic is your understanding of Socialism, the history of Socialism and how its influence on modern societies.

Who cares what you have said? I certainly don't. This was supposedly on what I said, which you were originally harping on, or did you forget. What this has to do with socialism is beyond me. My point was France was socialistic. That was all. It has nothing to do with socialism. You dragged the latter into the discussion highlighting perhaps your own misunderstanding of the what I said, or what it means.

It may not please you, but it is true that your views on the subject are a bit obsolete and narrow minded.
Also, I simply said:
"I had enough occasions to read your posts during the last year or so - and, as we all know, that means many many posts."
That, in no way, implies that I have read all your views, nor all your post. However, enough to make a reasonable assessment.
What's wrong with the "Logical" Machine? Malfunctioning?

Siamanto you are picking up the pace with the ad hominems. I suppose if that sort of thing reinforces your views on this, that's all that matters, right?

I could state the same about you. It is true your views on the subject are obsolete and narrow-minded. It's simply an assertion without having to show how that is. Speaking of logic, how logical is it to base views as you say, with limited understanding, in this case about me? Or, how logical is it, to claim that only having been to France would then qualify one to discuss about France? Not very logical. In fact, most of your assertions have been fallacious and full of assumptions.

No, my statement does imply that you
"prescribe to the U.S. governments ideas of what are or are not proper, and what is defined as socialism."
Please pay attention! Read again.
What's wrong with the "Logical" Machine? Malfunctioning?

Which is what I was alluding to. At least you do not deny it now. All this sideswiping that you have brought doesn't add much to the discussion (perhaps that was your goal from the start?), and merely shows you engage in the same thing you accuse others of. Hardly the hallmark of an omniscient being. Perhaps your self-absorbed elitism contributes to this myopia.

It is a different situation and requires different approaches. Please, read my reply to axel. Deal with your ignorance and many misconception on the subject and try to go beyond your "thin" and bookish knowledge.
The debate between direct and indirect knowledge is many thousand years old.

It is not a different situation, only the halflings and self-absorbed pseudo- intellectuals like yourself pretend they are. I have already explained how your rule is silly if applied as a general rule to every thing. Perhaps before you learn to use witty references to logic, you should actually learn some logic. So therefore, someone who has not travelled, is therefore, according to the omniscient Siamanto's views, ignorant. What is more telling in this discussion is how subtly the requirement just changed to the vague "travelling", whereas earlier the omniscient Siamanto adamantly chose to make a distinction between travelling to learn and mere tourism (showing that he looks down upon it), as it will not contribute to the "required exposure/knowledge" the omniscient Siamanto deems fit.

Those imaginary scenarios, based on simplistic models and incomplete and/or of poor quality data, belong to the realm of speculation, not knowledge. In my professional life, I deal with such issues on a daily basis; that is my expertise.
Also, if you recall, bell-the-cat once replied - to the same or similar question - with something like:
"Great, in 100 years we will become what the US is already as of now."
Do you consider the US as a horrible experience?

I forgot that when we enter in the realm of the post-modern, nothing means anything and all is relative. How is it simplistic, and how is it poor quality data? Because you don't like it and it doesn't appeal to your egalitarian and post-modern bias? The fact of the matter is, you can call it "imaginitive", or "simplistic" because you deal with numbers all day, to reinforce and appeal to your egalitarian bias, the trends are already there. Whether it is by 2100, or 2103, or 2099 makes no difference. Statistics are never precise anyway. As far as bell-the-cats response and what the U.S. is now, the U.S. is not anywhere near there. The U.S. will be there by 2050.

Pay attention please. Read again. I hope that, this time, the "Logic" Machine function properly.
I said:
"How can someone so arrogantly, confidently and repeatedly express such an ignorance? Please stop ridiculing yourself. You've probably never have been to Paris or France. Where do you get what you think is factual information?"
That does not imply - nor suggest - that you have claimed that you've been to Paris.

In every bracket you are intent on asking me to pay attention but apparently you seem to forget that all of this is because you initially did not pay attention, which is why I called you on it. By stating that "You've probably never have been to Paris or France." you are simply indicating that you are not paying attention. It's not even a matter of probabilities since I already stated I have never been there and amazingly that was the whole issue which raises you on the saintly clouds of omniscience.

Of course, calling a cat a cat would seem as a "pitiful performance" for someone who wants to call it a mouse!
Deal with your ignorance and get over it!

Deal with your ignorance and get over it! Such simple statements are only the reflection of simple minds who in their haze forget that everyone is to a degree ignorant, since no one can claim a monopoly on knowing everything, unless of course, that person is Siamanto. Self-absorbed elitism, take 2.

LOL My favorite part!

You can put in any way you please; the fact remains that it was a P.S. and was not a reply to initial statement. For the third time - I hope that you will pay attention this time - the sequence was:

Either way, if you want to claim that African influence enriched Europe, that in itself is a matter of opinion. Pay attention omniscient Siamanto. I figure if you're omniscient I shouldn't have to remind you so much to pay attention, but then again I guess we all have a design flaw. The point was whether multicultural societies enrich Europe or anyone else for that matter.

Maybe, the "Logic" Machine needs a tune up????

One last thing: you have no views about France; those are called "misinformation" and "gossip" - that you were fed with. Let's call a cat a cat. If you have views, then let's discussed them.

Tautologies, and the same old murmuring from the omniscient Siamanto. I was surprised how you in your infinite wisdom just now realized that you had not even discussed anything with me. Before we could even discuss, you, being the self-absorbed elitist that you are, immediately tried to shut me off with the dismissive tone of "You dont know anything you are ignorant you have never been to France, etc., etc."

Here is my take on France. France has a multicultural and multiracial society, just like a bunch of others like UK, and US, etc. It is heavily socialistic in that the government provides alot of services in turn for heavy taxation. If you mean the "values" of socialism such as charity, etc., well those are not a value of anything, whether socialism or capitalism. Societies that encourange socialistic elements encourage people to grow lazy and dependent on the government. The recent issue of privatization of the national ferry service in France which prompted strikes indicates this socialistic texture within its people, people want to live off the government trough. I understand that between the 1950s thru the 1970s it had labor shortages and therefore brought in all these immigrants to compensate for it, as well those those loyalists who were fleeing Algeria. If this is gossip please correct me oh wise and infallible Siamanto.

Those elements have not, cannot and will not assimilate contrary to the wishful thinking of egalitarian post-modernists such as yourself.
Increasing hostile elements in a national body creates dissenssion and is a recipe for the breakdown of nations. Societies that embrace multicultural or multiracial nomenclature eventually break down and become stagnant. You don't have to like it. But that is the way it is.

[Siamanto]

You seem to have regressed, intellectually and morally, to a level that is faithfully reflected by your avatar and what it personifies i.e. self-indulging ignorance.
You seem to have regressed to a point where you don't even remember what "tautology" means.

[Anonymouse]

Since all you did was display your self-absorbed elitism and murmuring I'm surprised you talk about someone else's shortcomings. In fact, your whole presence here was the equivalent of the schit spewing out of a heavily used colostomy bag with a hole in it.