Topic: BNP yay or nay

[adamhartnett]

personally i will vote against them when i get the chance all of the time because they are too close at getting into power where i am and to be honest i would be ashamed to stay in the place that voted BNP

i recently heard that BNP said that rape isn't actually rape its just sex... now when i heard this i thought what a stupid thing to say and how can anyone actually believe this.

i have fallen out with a lot of my mates because of the BNP argument because of several reasons
1. one of their points was that benefits should be stopped to people who don't work, well my mam can't work as i have a sister who needs almost constant help so we wouldn't be able to survive.
2. its a racist party as they want all none English citizens taken out of this country, but i stand by my original view that if that happened we would have a very bad health system as we would have a very low portion of doctors
3. they were trying to get us out of the EU. now i personally think that this is a very ... unwise ... move as our farming industry would collapse or the prices for certain products would be so high that our economy would break even further as farmers are paid subsidies by the EU on surplus grain

now i don't know if were not allowed to talk about this or if it has already been mentioned but please comment and pass your own opinions

[Full Metal Geneticist]

personally i will vote against them when i get the chance all of the time because they are too close at getting into power where i am and to be honest i would be ashamed to stay in the place that voted BNP

The problem with the BNP is that they are making the same kind of promises that put Hitler into power. Its a seductive concept, if we "take away the stuff of group X then we in group Y can have a better life". Its actual state sponsored robbery what they are advocating except to a group who we can easily hate. AKA Muslims, whose high profile terrorism really does not win them any favours and allows for grandiose claims.

i recently heard that BNP said that rape isn't actually rape its just sex... now when i heard this i thought what a stupid thing to say and how can anyone actually believe this.

Unlikely they want rape to be a capital crime. Which is a problem since rape is a serious case but one that has to be analysed heavily and evidence taken into account. There will actually be FEWER rape rulings because judges will throw out a lot more circumstantial evidence. That and I am against the death penalty on moral grounds and indeed realistic grounds.

1. one of their points was that benefits should be stopped to people who don't work, well my mam can't work as i have a sister who needs almost constant help so we wouldn't be able to survive.

They mean more work dodgers rather than people who cannot work. And indeed dole is vital to run such as society as we do just because some people will always be between work and rather than let them starve its better to give them some money. Remember they don't actually have a grasp of any economics and indeed populations.

2. its a racist party as they want all none English citizens taken out of this country, but i stand by my original view that if that happened we would have a very bad health system as we would have a very low portion of doctors

Its worse. It wants to take ethnically non english citizens out of the country as well (AKA no darkies). The argument they are using is that muslim asians are a drain on the economy since they are amongst the poorest ethnic groups in the UK. Removing them will reduce the drain on the economy. The downside is that it is assuming that all asians are the same. The "muslim" asians mainly came in as refugees from a genocide in Bangladesh and or Africa. They were generally uneducated and fleeing horrific conditions and so came with nothing. The Indian asians mainly came in as immigrants with high skilled jobs and/or a work ethic that in the UK was unheard of (AKA willingness to work 7 days a week and late in their shops) and so ended up being a rich group. Indian asians tend to not stick together since they are often competing in businesses so don't form large visible groups unlike the muslim asians despite having similar population sizes. So they would be throwing out the most productive group in the UK (since they had to divide it since it made no sense to keep them separate since they themselves regarded each other as either non traditional or backwards) with the most productive (since per capita the indian asians have the lowest dole, highest education and highest income in the UK)

3. they were trying to get us out of the EU. now i personally think that this is a very ... unwise ... move as our farming industry would collapse or the prices for certain products would be so high that our economy would break even further as farmers are paid subsidies by the EU on surplus grain

Well the first thing we would lose is our ability to sell people things. Our goods would become more expensive since we would have to pay higher tariffs for raw materials. Fuel would be hard to come by very quickly since the EU collectively bargains for oil (oh sure they want to tap all of the North Sea and reopen the coal mines but I am pretty sure they assume they will live away from all the dirty cities...). Our currency will fall since no one wants to invest in a bunch of lunatics who have absolutely nothing in the way of resources since the UK is a financial power much like Hong Kong or Taiwan or UAE rather than a manufacturing one since the UK's loss of empire lost its massive influx of cheap materials.

That and their willingness to "expand the army" via conscription (a stupid idea from the start) is very very troublesome.

now i don't know if were not allowed to talk about this or if it has already been mentioned but please comment and pass your own opinions

You totally can wail on them. They are a bunch of ingrates who did not understand what "foreigners" have done for their country. They would happily burn multiculturalism to the ground just so that they can have their sexy parties.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/hope-not-hate/2009/06/02/fake-bnp-leaflet-shows-there-is-no-lie-too-big-for-the-bnp-115875-21408640/

To show the level of idiocy they have. My personal favourite is the Spitfire... (One of my neighbours fought for the british in one and he is czech)

[Seren Nos]

personally i will vote against them when i get the chance all of the time because they are too close at getting into power where i am and to be honest i would be ashamed to stay in the place that voted BNP

The British people are truly disgruntled with the current government. A PM not elected to the position, the financial crisis, 'war on terror', MP expenses fiasco just to name a few things. The recent EU parliamentary elections showed this where parties like UKIP and the BNP gained seats. Looking back at the last 10 years of Labour, is the average person any better off? I know that I, my family and friends, all from working class backgrounds are not.

I have lived within ethnic minority communities, and purposefully without eloborating further, from my experience they just have no wish to integrate with British society. If anyone has looked to emmigrate to New Zealand, a points system like theirs would benefit this country. However as we are part of the EU it will probably never change. I agree with some of the BNP priciples, they offer to change things that I want changed, but also they come across as being far too intolerant and extemist in their views.

Hopefully the recent gains made by the more extremist parties were more of a protest vote aimed towards the mainstream parties to say 'hey, look, we're really fed up of the way you treat us. We want things to change'

[IainC]

The British people are truly disgruntled with the current government. A PM not elected to the position,

The electorate doesn't elect any PM, you elect your MP and the party with the most MPs chooses its leader.

the financial crisis, 'war on terror', MP expenses fiasco just to name a few things. The recent EU parliamentary elections showed this where parties like UKIP and the BNP gained seats. Looking back at the last 10 years of Labour, is the average person any better off? I know that I, my family and friends, all from working class backgrounds are not.

And how many of those specific things are actually the fault of the government? The only one that I can see is Britain's involvement in the war on terror as Tony Blair threw in his lot with GW Bush. I'll agree that was a mistake but I can see why it happened and I don't think a conservative government would have done differently. The MPs expenses scandal has hit all parties, government and opposition while the financial crisis originated in America, not sure how any government outside the US could be held responsible for that. I'd say that the average person would have been better off however when the world economy goes down the toilet, that's going to wipe out all the progress made. In general Britain was doing quite well until everything went bang.

As for your point about minorities 'not wanting to integrate' well that's quite the generalisation there.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

The British people are truly disgruntled with the current government. A PM not elected to the position, the financial crisis, 'war on terror', MP expenses fiasco just to name a few things. The recent EU parliamentary elections showed this where parties like UKIP and the BNP gained seats. Looking back at the last 10 years of Labour, is the average person any better off? I know that I, my family and friends, all from working class backgrounds are not.

1. Gordon Brown took over as PM by the rules of the UK law system. Its happened before and no one whined.
2. The Financial Crisis is a knock on effect of the US's economic policy. This can directly be pointed at Thatcherite economics and its deregulation rather than Labour as to why the backlash was so bad.
3. War on Terror will apparently be solved by the BNP by rounding up all the people who the BNP thinks are muslim (AKA me) and shipping us off to our "original countries" and making me a second class citizen at best in my own country.
4. Looking back at 10 years of labour rule yes the average person is better off. Standard of living consistently rose. Work safety consistently rose. Minimum wage increased. People lost a lot of jobs due to the GLOBAL economic downturn. No kidding. Now the way the average person wants to be better off is not doing work and getting things he wants not needs. Of course that is not going to change. And the best bit is the people whining about the lack of change, if you asked them what they would do, do not have an answer.

I have lived within ethnic minority communities, and purposefully without eloborating further, from my experience they just have no wish to integrate with British society. If anyone has looked to emmigrate to New Zealand, a points system like theirs would benefit this country. However as we are part of the EU it will probably never change. I agree with some of the BNP priciples, they offer to change things that I want changed, but also they come across as being far too intolerant and extemist in their views.

What does integrate with "british society" have to do with this? I hear this phrase often. No one can quite tell me what it means without coming off as a raging racist. There is no correlation with your statement which is "those guys are not behaving british which is an arbitrary qualification which no one can quite define" and "NZ has a points based system that lets skilled migrants in".

And I am not classed as a skilled migrant despite being a geneticist and a doctor due to the fact I have a pre existing health condition which means routine health checkups (metal implant in hand and knee replacement) which is pure idiocy on the system's part since my checkups are paid since both are electives. I would have to send a special letter rather than use their forms. Its a flawed system in itself because what is "useful" is extremely vague. Stephen Hawkings would not get in solely on the basis of being disabled and would have to send a special letter asking to work. Its a protectionist system that cannot work in the EU since its a two way street.

And the UK has a similar system for non EU migrants. You need to be in the UK for 3 years to get an unlimited leave to remain while working constantly. After 5 years you get your full citizenship if you had work for all 5 years or were a minor of someone who was working. But the job is open because sometimes foreigners can do your job better than you can and actually restricting the pool damages the job.

Hopefully the recent gains made by the more extremist parties were more of a protest vote aimed towards the mainstream parties to say 'hey, look, we're really fed up of the way you treat us. We want things to change'

It is an unacceptable excuse. Protesting is voting for the men with stupid hats and plans to fine people for not smiling. Not the men who want to bring back hanging and round up people based on the colour of their skin.

[Space Merlyn]

personally i will vote against them when i get the chance all of the time because they are too close at getting into power where i am and to be honest i would be ashamed to stay in the place that voted BNP

Hopefully the recent gains made by the more extremist parties were more of a protest vote aimed towards the mainstream parties to say 'hey, look, we're really fed up of the way you treat us. We want things to change'

The problem with the first statement is that you cannot vote against a party, you can only have your support noted.
Secondly, the BNP gained two seats due to apathy amongst voters for other parties - chiefly the traditional Labour supporters. The number of votes for BNP decreased, but because the number of other votes decreased even further, they represented a greater percentage - that's the beauty of proportional representation...

[A.CHAP2]

I never realised such interesting non warhammer discussion took place here.

Yay for the BNP getting seats (WTF?!?). If we dont represent all of the view points in society its not a democracy.

The problem is with the racist attitude of brits not the fact that they are being represented.

Many in the media have commented that we shouldnt think the BNPs ~6% share of votes mean 6% of brits are racist, but rather that people vote for them as a protest vote.

The sad fact is that the proportion of brits who are at least partially racist is closer to 60% of the population not 6.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

Yay for the BNP getting seats (WTF?!?). If we dont represent all of the view points in society its not a democracy.

This is not even close to being true, and even if it were, "representing a view" is not the same as "giving them seats in the House of Commons".

The problem is with the racist attitude of brits not the fact that they are being represented.

I take issue with your suggestion. I don't think most british people are racist, I think most british people are moderates (like most people in most countries are, generally speaking), who get drowned out by the incessant ranting of the far-out crazies (on both sides mind you).

The sad fact is that the proportion of brits who are at least partially racist is closer to 60% of the population not 6.

Back it up with stats please, cause that's a hell of a statement.

[Seren Nos]

I'm quite new to the whole internet forum thing. Its quite difficult to post in a discussion like this knowing whatever you say will be dissected by more educated people.

So the less you say the better.

In case it wasn't clear in my earlier post, BNP - Nay

[A.CHAP2]

This is not even close to being true, and even if it were, "representing a view" is not the same as "giving them seats in the House of Commons

".

They havent got seats in the commons AFAIK. The purpose of MPs is to represent the views of the people.

I take issue with your suggestion. I don't think most british people are racist, I think most british people are moderates (like most people in most countries are, generally speaking), who get drowned out by the incessant ranting of the far-out crazies (on both sides mind you).

I dont mean full on white hoods racist here but from my experience most people in this country are at least a little racist often without realising it and most would not admit to it.

A good example being when gordon brown used the classic line "british jobs for british people" and most people find this a favorable idea. Its flat out racist; this group of people will get preferential treatment based on their race.

Back it up with stats please, cause that's a hell of a statement.

There arent and never will be any reliable stats for this, my comment is based on the people i have met in my life and this of course varies from area to area. When i was at uni with lots of inteligent young middle class people there werent to many with racist attitudes. At work in the west midlands with older more working class people the 60% figure seems about right even if many dont accept that they are racist.

I havent met a large enough sample of the whole uk to give a proper estimate but I am confident that it closer to 60% than 6%.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

This is not even close to being true, and even if it were, "representing a view" is not the same as "giving them seats in the House of Commons

".

They havent got seats in the commons AFAIK. The purpose of MPs is to represent the views of the people.

Yes, but that doesn't mean MPs are the only means of representing the views of the people, and MPs are not a requirement for democracy.

I take issue with your suggestion. I don't think most british people are racist, I think most british people are moderates (like most people in most countries are, generally speaking), who get drowned out by the incessant ranting of the far-out crazies (on both sides mind you).

I dont mean full on white hoods racist here but from my experience most people in this country are at least a little racist often without realising it and most would not admit to it.

A good example being when gordon brown used the classic line "british jobs for british people" and most people find this a favorable idea. Its flat out racist; this group of people will get preferential treatment based on their race.

No, that's a terrible example, because "British" isn't a race, it's a nationality dur. This group of people will get preferential treatment because they are british and live in britain. Giving anyone preferential treatment isn't great, by and large, but it's not racism.

Back it up with stats please, cause that's a hell of a statement.

There arent and never will be any reliable stats for this, my comment is based on the people i have met in my life and this of course varies from area to area. When i was at uni with lots of inteligent young middle class people there werent to many with racist attitudes. At work in the west midlands with older more working class people the 60% figure seems about right even if many dont accept that they are racist.

I havent met a large enough sample of the whole uk to give a proper estimate but I am confident that it closer to 60% than 6%.

So you're making a blanket statement about a nation of some 60 million people based on a tiny sampling of anecdotal evidence then? Excuse me while I go and gather my own statistical sampling from the renowned thinktank, the University of Some Bloke I Met In The Pub.

[A.CHAP2]

Yes, but that doesn't mean MPs are the only means of representing the views of the people, and MPs are not a requirement for democracy.

This is true but im not sure i see your point. If there are racists in a democracy then their opinions must be represented. Who is to decide which views are worthy of MP representation? If we leave it to you then the BNP are not worthy. Left to the people the BNP are worthy of representation (evidently). Which is the more domocratic approach?

No, that's a terrible example, because "British" isn't a race, it's a nationality dur. This group of people will get preferential treatment because they are british and live in britain. Giving anyone preferential treatment isn't great, by and large, but it's not racism.

This is one of many examples which highlights the inherently racist attitude of many Brits. Your splitting hairs with race/nationaltiy here and "dur" is a little pathetic.
Further examples of the British attitude towards foreigners can be seen in the marketing of many products being "british" products. Supermarkets shelves are full of products bearing union jacks because it sells. Why does it sell? Is it because after sampling the produce of various contries consumers have decided that British stuff is better? No its not. This marketing strategy plays on the inherent racism of Brits.

So you're making a blanket statement about a nation of some 60 million people based on a tiny sampling of anecdotal evidence then? Excuse me while I go and gather my own statistical sampling from the renowned thinktank, the University of Some Bloke I Met In The Pub.

Yes thats exactly what i am doing as i said. I didnt say this proves anything i gave my opinion based on my experience and stated that I have not met a large enough sample to give a proper estimate. Why you have chosen to attack that statement is beyond me.
I would be interested in other peoples estimates of the percentages but obviously they dont prove anything.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

Yes, but that doesn't mean MPs are the only means of representing the views of the people, and MPs are not a requirement for democracy.

This is true but im not sure i see your point. If there are racists in a democracy then their opinions must be represented. Who is to decide which views are worthy of MP representation? If we leave it to you then the BNP are not worthy. Left to the people the BNP are worthy of representation (evidently). Which is the more domocratic approach?

I was taking issue with your statement here:

Yay for the BNP getting seats (WTF?!?). If we dont represent all of the view points in society its not a democracy.

I would also like to point out that not all viewpoints are valid. Racism is not an acceptable viewpoint, and saying "it's not a democracy unless we listen to everyone" is a flawed viewpoint that can lead to the tyranny of the majority, something famous democratic thinkers like Rousseau and J.S Mill were very much against.

No, that's a terrible example, because "British" isn't a race, it's a nationality dur. This group of people will get preferential treatment because they are british and live in britain. Giving anyone preferential treatment isn't great, by and large, but it's not racism.

This is one of many examples which highlights the inherently racist attitude of many Brits. Your splitting hairs with race/nationaltiy here and "dur" is a little pathetic.
Further examples of the British attitude towards foreigners can be seen in the marketing of many products being "british" products. Supermarkets shelves are full of products bearing union jacks because it sells. Why does it sell? Is it because after sampling the produce of various contries consumers have decided that British stuff is better? No its not. This marketing strategy plays on the inherent racism of Brits.

Distinguishing between race and nationality is not splitting hairs, nor is it pathetic (I'll cop to the "dur" thing, it was meant to be light-hearted).

If we look at Wikipedia, we get "The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics". Meanwhile, nationality comes up as "the relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty". There is not a lot in the way of overlap there.

Looking at the attitude of British marketing towards British people tells you nothing whatsoever about the attitude of the British towards foreigners. Pride in one's nation, no matter how misplaced (can't wait for Sheepz to catch wind of this topic, should be good reading), is not indicative of one's attitude to another nation. By way of illustration: I like dark chocolate. That doesn't mean I dislike white chocolate or milk chocolate, I just like dark chocolate. Whether my reasons for that decision are good or not has nothing to do with how I feel about other flavours of chocolate. You are doing a lot of inferencing here with no reasoning behind it.

So you're making a blanket statement about a nation of some 60 million people based on a tiny sampling of anecdotal evidence then? Excuse me while I go and gather my own statistical sampling from the renowned thinktank, the University of Some Bloke I Met In The Pub.

Yes thats exactly what i am doing as i said. I didnt say this proves anything i gave my opinion based on my experience and stated that I have not met a large enough sample to give a proper estimate. Why you have chosen to attack that statement is beyond me.
I would be interested in other peoples estimates of the percentages but obviously they dont prove anything.

The phrase: "The sad fact is" is not a statement of opinion, no matter what you think.

The sad fact is that the proportion of brits who are at least partially racist is closer to 60% of the population not 6.

Read that sentence you wrote again, and tell me how that is anything but an attempt to state a fact (incorrectly). I have attacked your statement because it's bizarre, based on nothing I would trust to advise me to buy a newspaper let alone vote for someone, and is generally indicative of your entire argument, which is, if I may bring in some levity for a second, batamphetamine parrot beslubbering crazy.

[A.CHAP2]

I would also like to point out that not all viewpoints are valid. Racism is not an acceptable viewpoint

Stop right there Mr Dictator. You speak of the Tyranny of the majority in the same sentence that you call for it.

Distinguishing between race and nationality is not splitting hairs,

They are different words with different meanings yes, but again i am failing to see your point outside of nitpicking at somantics. Are you suggesting that discriminating against someone because of their nationality is fine but if its because of their race its not? I dont see an important distinction here and the average joe racist is unlikley to either.

Looking at the attitude of British marketing towards British people tells you nothing whatsoever about the attitude of the British towards foreigners. Pride in one's nation, no matter how misplaced (can't wait for Sheepz to catch wind of this topic, should be good reading), is not indicative of one's attitude to another nation. By way of illustration: I like dark chocolate. That doesn't mean I dislike white chocolate or milk chocolate, I just like dark chocolate. Whether my reasons for that decision are good or not has nothing to do with how I feel about other flavours of chocolate. You are doing a lot of inferencing here with no reasoning behind it.

"Like " and "dislike" are relative terms, to say you like dark chocolate means that by comparison you dont like other chocolate as much.
The same can be said for liking one nation and its people over others, relative to the prefered nation you have a dislike of all others.

Heres a comment sure to inspire outrage and a tiresome squable over somantics; patriotism is racism viewed from a nicer angle.

The phrase: "The sad fact is" is not a statement of opinion, no matter what you think.

I will conceed that the word fact should not have been used here, I hope from my other posts you can see that I understand what value can be placed in individual experience.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

This is true but im not sure i see your point. If there are racists in a democracy then their opinions must be represented. Who is to decide which views are worthy of MP representation? If we leave it to you then the BNP are not worthy. Left to the people the BNP are worthy of representation (evidently). Which is the more domocratic approach?

Actually sane and sensible people are. The BNP are dangerous, their supporters are not discussing you being rounded up and carted off so they seem less harmful than they really are. Your argument is the same as teaching Homoeopathy alongside Medicine as EQUAL subjects when they are blatantly not.

This is one of many examples which highlights the inherently racist attitude of many Brits. Your splitting hairs with race/nationaltiy here and "dur" is a little pathetic.

The BNP's british and chuckles definition of british are very different. I am british in passport. To the BNP I am not.

Further examples of the British attitude towards foreigners can be seen in the marketing of many products being "british" products. Supermarkets shelves are full of products bearing union jacks because it sells. Why does it sell? Is it because after sampling the produce of various contries consumers have decided that British stuff is better? No its not. This marketing strategy plays on the inherent racism of Brits.

No because its buying local. Its a strategy for reducing carbon footprints and indeed encouraging people locally to produce goods. Its not "racist" since it does not matter if the product is made by people of different races. Its a sign that the money being spent goes into the local economy rather than into another country.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

I would also like to point out that not all viewpoints are valid. Racism is not an acceptable viewpoint

Stop right there Mr Dictator. You speak of the Tyranny of the majority in the same sentence that you call for it.

Nope, that's not what I was saying. I never "called for" anything, I'm simply pointing out that some of the earliest democratic thinkers disagree with your belief that any viewpoint should be represented.

Distinguishing between race and nationality is not splitting hairs,

They are different words with different meanings yes, but again i am failing to see your point outside of nitpicking at somantics. Are you suggesting that discriminating against someone because of their nationality is fine but if its because of their race its not? I dont see an important distinction here and the average joe racist is unlikley to either.

First of all, semantics means "the meaning of words", so any attempt at dismissing an argument by saying "that's just semantics" is a nonsense: if a word means something different that clearly matters.

Again, not suggesting that, but claiming that discrimination in favour of British people within Britain (which I have said in previous posts I do not approve of) is racism is just plain wrong, and when you've got a term as charged as "racist" it's not a good idea to go flinging it around willynilly. Since one's nationality can easily be changed, but one's race cannot, discrimination based on nationality and discrimination based on race are clearly not equal in terms of their negative impact.

Looking at the attitude of British marketing towards British people tells you nothing whatsoever about the attitude of the British towards foreigners. Pride in one's nation, no matter how misplaced (can't wait for Sheepz to catch wind of this topic, should be good reading), is not indicative of one's attitude to another nation. By way of illustration: I like dark chocolate. That doesn't mean I dislike white chocolate or milk chocolate, I just like dark chocolate. Whether my reasons for that decision are good or not has nothing to do with how I feel about other flavours of chocolate. You are doing a lot of inferencing here with no reasoning behind it.

"Like " and "dislike" are relative terms, to say you like dark chocolate means that by comparison you dont like other chocolate as much.
The same can be said for liking one nation and its people over others, relative to the prefered nation you have a dislike of all others.

Heres a comment sure to inspire outrage and a tiresome squable over somantics; patriotism is racism viewed from a nicer angle.

Now who's nitpicking? I may indeed dislike white chocolate compared to dark, in the same way that compared to AIDS, I like herpes simplex A, because I dislike it less. But fairly obviously that's a ridiculous attempt to pervert my thinking on an issue by moving the goalposts.

The phrase: "The sad fact is" is not a statement of opinion, no matter what you think.

I will conceed that the word fact should not have been used here, I hope from my other posts you can see that I understand what value can be placed in individual experience.

Not really, you seem to place a lot of emphasis on anecdotal evidence, otherwise known as "stuff everybody knows". A lot of the things "everybody" has "known" has been dead wrong; 60% of Britons are subconsciously racist, for instance.

[A.CHAP2]

Actually sane and sensible people are. The BNP are dangerous, their supporters are not discussing you being rounded up and carted off so they seem less harmful than they really are. Your argument is the same as teaching Homoeopathy alongside Medicine as EQUAL subjects when they are blatantly not.

I dont fully understanding this but you seem to be suggesting that anyone who voted BNP is not sane or sensible, how do you know this? I dont see the relevence in your medicine/ homeopathy comment.

No because its buying local. Its a strategy for reducing carbon footprints and indeed encouraging people locally to produce goods. Its not "racist" since it does not matter if the product is made by people of different races. Its a sign that the money being spent goes into the local economy rather than into another country.

Some people may by local for green reasons but not all and that is not what the marketing i refer to is about. If the reason it worked was because of the green issue then that would be made clear in the marketing.
Why does the local economy deserve the investment more than another country? we live in a very wealthy country so our need is not the greatest. This is what i am talking about, people who dont consider themselves racist want to see there money go to a british farmer rather than another nationalities regardless of whos is the greater need.

Now who's nitpicking? I may indeed dislike white chocolate compared to dark, in the same way that compared to AIDS, I like herpes simplex A, because I dislike it less. But fairly obviously that's a ridiculous attempt to pervert my thinking on an issue by moving the goalposts.

Not nitpicing at all. You cant use relative terms such as "like" without suggesting a dislike for what you are comparing it to, the words are meaningless otherwise.

First of all, semantics means "the meaning of words", so any attempt at dismissing an argument by saying "that's just semantics" is a nonsense: if a word means something different that clearly matters.

Again, not suggesting that, but claiming that discrimination in favour of British people within Britain (which I have said in previous posts I do not approve of) is racism is just plain wrong, and when you've got a term as charged as "racist" it's not a good idea to go flinging it around willynilly. Since one's nationality can easily be changed, but one's race cannot, discrimination based on nationality and discrimination based on race are clearly not equal in terms of their negative impact.

I dislike him because he is black.
I dislike him because he is not British.

Which of these statments is worse? Neither in my opinion. If one is technically racist and the other is not it matters little IMO they are sentiments that go hand in hand for the types of people who vote BNP.

Nope, that's not what I was saying. I never "called for" anything, I'm simply pointing out that some of the earliest democratic thinkers disagree with your belief that any viewpoint should be represented.

How are you to decide whos viewpoint is deserving of representation? It dosnt matter who thought what you cant just write off the opinions of those you dont agree with. Thats not democratic.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

Now who's nitpicking? I may indeed dislike white chocolate compared to dark, in the same way that compared to AIDS, I like herpes simplex A, because I dislike it less. But fairly obviously that's a ridiculous attempt to pervert my thinking on an issue by moving the goalposts.

Not nitpicing at all. You cant use relative terms such as "like" without suggesting a dislike for what you are comparing it to, the words are meaningless otherwise.

No, you're right, you aren't nitpicking, you're altering my argument for me. Of course I can use "like" without suggesting a dislike for something to which I am comparing it. I like free speech more than I like ice cream but to use that statement to suggest that I dislike ice cream is MADNESS

First of all, semantics means "the meaning of words", so any attempt at dismissing an argument by saying "that's just semantics" is a nonsense: if a word means something different that clearly matters.

Again, not suggesting that, but claiming that discrimination in favour of British people within Britain (which I have said in previous posts I do not approve of) is racism is just plain wrong, and when you've got a term as charged as "racist" it's not a good idea to go flinging it around willynilly. Since one's nationality can easily be changed, but one's race cannot, discrimination based on nationality and discrimination based on race are clearly not equal in terms of their negative impact.

I dislike him because he is black.
I dislike him because he is not British.

Which of these statments is worse? Neither in my opinion. If one is technically racist and the other is not it matters little IMO they are sentiments that go hand in hand for the types of people who vote BNP.

You're moving the goalposts again. You've gone from "British people are racist" to "racist, biased towards nationalism, it's all the same thing". Are you saying you agree that it's not racist, which is really all I was gunning for?

Nope, that's not what I was saying. I never "called for" anything, I'm simply pointing out that some of the earliest democratic thinkers disagree with your belief that any viewpoint should be represented.

How are you to decide whos viewpoint is deserving of representation? It dosnt matter who thought what you cant just write off the opinions of those you dont agree with. Thats not democratic.

Well this is of course where things get tricky, and I'm aware of that, but I think on the subject of blatant racism we can all agree that anyone who advocates in favour of it should be ignored and possibly given a sweetie containing some happy pills? Are we really at the stage of society where we can be argued into listening to racism in order to be nice to everybody? Are we seriously incapable of getting together and agreeing that things which are rampantly wrong by our present moral standards like slavery, racism and misogyny should be outlawed, and anyone who advocates in favour of them should be told to shut up, possibly forcibly?

And you need to stop going "democratic" or "undemocratic" in lieu of making actual arguments. Why is being democratic a good thing? Why is being undemocratic a bad one? Just saying "it's not democratic" isn't much of an argument.

[Idaho]

I know this post isn't in direct response to the immediate posts above but I think this is something that is not brought up enough:

I have met loads of people and winessed hundreds others in my life who share similar viewpoints that BNP set out, but are not racist and because of that they are afraid to express their discontent. Additionally, these people are so disenfranchised with our political system and their areas not having any candidates for political parties other than the "big three" means they don't bother to vote.

I would say BNP are actually a problem for common sense and decent people in this country not because of their racism, but because people are afraid to stand up and say what they think is right for fear of being labelled a racist.

An example of this is the media demonising the BNP to the extent they portray anyone who shares even a single idea with them as an ignorant bigot.

Another problem linked to this is the fact the only people standing up for common values are the likes of the BNP (and adding in their own ideas with them) which means the more BNP get in the press the more people are turned off as they have no one to stand up for them without looking like a bigot.

A common mis-conception is the voting public represent the actual population, which is incorrect. Left wing members of society, particularly students, are a fraction of the total population yet make up a large amount of the voting population. This gives the illusion that the common student opinion for example is represenative of the people.

In reality, the majority of the population is made up with the factory workers, the trades men and labourers, the call centre workers, the shop assistants, the inhabitants of council estates etc. These people largely do not vote and yet will often agree that imigration is not satisfactory, that they are fed up with the large amounts of foreigners who are coming into the country, the fact there is a distinct lack of integration with muslims into our society yet they are keen to critisize and take from that same society etc etc.

Likely there are many people out there who are reading this thinking I am completely wrong, and that's fine. Just take a look at your social circles, and really think, are they representive of the community or just a group of people and family members who share a common view.

There is insufficient political parties out there to stand up for many of the population, and I believe this is because of the BNP scaring off people from real issues due to labelling.

[A.CHAP2]

No, you're right, you aren't nitpicking, you're altering my argument for me. Of course I can use "like" without suggesting a dislike for something to which I am comparing it. I like free speech more than I like ice cream but to use that statement to suggest that I dislike ice cream is MADNESS

I dont know if you like ice cream as you havent said.

I like free speech more than I like ice cream

This would make sence wether you like ice cream or not. Im guessing you like it in which case you could say "I like ice cream but i like free speech more". So this shows that you do like ice cream but also shows that there must be things that you dislike in order for "like" to have any meaning.

So liking race A does not mean you automatically dislike race B. You might like race A and B but if the only other race is race C then you have a relative dislike for race C.

Why am I having to explain how relative terms like these are used? Im in no way qualified.

You're moving the goalposts again. You've gone from "British people are racist" to "racist, biased towards nationalism, it's all the same thing". Are you saying you agree that it's not racist, which is really all I was gunning for?

"british people are racist" is not an acurate summary of what I have been saying. That would make me racist. If racism is not the right word to discribe discriminating against someone because of their nationality then provide me with the correct term and I will congratulate you on your ability to correct my Eniglish. If someone discriminates against a person because they are not british I would probably label them a racist. Is this wrong? If so is there a significant difference? Ask a BNP supporter "do you dislike foreigner X because of his race or his nationality?" will they see a significant difference? Semantics aside both seem relavent to the thread.

can all agree that anyone who advocates in favour of it [racism] should be ignored and possibly given a sweetie containing some happy pills?

No, we cant. Not resonable objective people anyway. I understand you feel strongly about racism but that is your opinion and, since you claim to like free speech, it seems odd that you wish to deny other people there opinion.

wrong by our present moral standards

Morality varies between different people. Nobodies morality is any more correct than anyone elses. The only way to argue that one morality is correct is to say that God said so, and evidence to support such arguments are impossible to find. Morality is a product of our evolution and enables us to function together as a group. It is NOT something which can be proven correct by objective, logical reasoning. Essentially its just crap we make up.

And you need to stop going "democratic" or "undemocratic" in lieu of making actual arguments. Why is being democratic a good thing? Why is being undemocratic a bad one? Just saying "it's not democratic" isn't much of an argument.

Im not making any judgments about good and bad here, I try not to soil myself too much with moral opinion. I was asuming that being democratic was a good thing to you. If its not then Im not going to try to justify democracy with a moral argument, you can find that in

our present moral standards