a story of patriotism... [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Skybird

01-30-10, 06:13 PM

Jaja. Another bad example of how Europe gets destroyed. Another example in a long list of example that does not stop.

I'm currently reading a good, a very good book, "Kritik der reinen Toleranz", which is nothing but a fully loaded broadside against the Political Correctness brigade. It is polemic in tone, but is loaded from top to bottom with materiual and examples illustrating how our societies get destroyed by home-made insanity and determination to be weak and meaningless. The argument and the sharp thinking behind the aggressive polemic tone shows that the polemic is not serving a self-purpose to earn some laughter, but ist just this: a desperate attempt to get heared in this European cacophony of insanity and madman's yelling. Reason, and better argument, even the obvious example itself - in today's discussion will not get listend to anymore.

For readers in German langauge, highly recommended. But you will not make yourself any friends by showing the cover anywhere.

Hope your Dad is well, and tell him he should spit out and hold his head up high when he is released.

http://www.amazon.de/Kritik-reinen-Toleranz-Henryk-Broder/dp/3570550893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264892424&sr=8-1

"In einer Gesellschaft, in der ein Regierender Bürgermeister" - he means the gay mayor of Berlin, Klaus Wowereit - "die Teilnehmer einer SM-Fete persönlich in der Stadt willkommen heißt; in einer Gesellschaft, in der ein rechtskräftig verurteilter Kindermörder Prozeßkostenhilfe bekommt, um einen Prozeß gegen die Bundesrepublik zu führen zu können, weil er noch nach Jahren darunter leidet, daß ihm bei der Vernehmung Ohrfeigen angedroht wurden;" - in order to save the abducted child's life that then was still alive, but imprisoned at an unknown location - "in einer Gesellschaft, in der jeder frei darüber entscheiden kann, ob er seine Ferien im club Med oder in einem ausbildungslager für Terroristen verbringen möchte," - in German law, seeking training as a terrorist in terror camps cannot be punished or prohibited, only the use of the won knowledge for terror attacks is illegal :88) - "in einer solchen Gesellschaft kann von einem Mangel an Toleranz keine Rede sein.

Dermaßen praktiziert ist Toleranz die Anleitung zum Selbstmord. Und Intoleranz eine Tugend, die mit Nachdruck vertreten werden muß.

On the issue of islam and more mosques - instead of the Saudi money these mosques will cost being invested into integration efforts for Muhammeddans and projects to educate their criminal and asocial youth population - I must not say anything anymore. You all know how much I despise Islam, and Islamic migration to europe.

Skybird

01-30-10, 06:21 PM

Opening speech of Geert Wilder's trial over banning free speech and independent thinking in Holland:
Mister Speaker, judges of the court, I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.
Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.
I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.
I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.
I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.
Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.
Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:
It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.
In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.
This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.

But today, defending freedom and free speech, criticising islam, standing up for europe's own grown, historical cultural identity and values, earns you a label of being "right-winged", a "hate-criminal", an "islamophobe", "intolerant" (my favourite!) .

The wiser head gives in, they say. That's the reason why the stupid and ignorrant rule the world today.

Snestorm

01-30-10, 06:52 PM

Boneheads (read: Neonazis) are pretty strong in numbers even in the Netherlands, let alone places further east. Would have looked pretty strange if only one cop had tried to do it and then gotten surrounded by several neonazis from the crowd.

To raise one's own national flag, in one's own country is neo-nazi?!

Are you for real?

Task Force

01-30-10, 07:02 PM

I think that is abit overboard for a old man... Seriously, one guy escorting him out would be good enough...

Is it just me, or have I heard of alot of mosque being built over there...

Snestorm

01-30-10, 07:07 PM

T-shirts!
A good way to show the flag, is on T-shirts.
I personaly dislike to wear a hat, but that also works well.

The ultimate is face painting.

Hope your dad is doing well now.

DarkFish

01-30-10, 07:25 PM

Boneheads (read: Neonazis) are pretty strong in numbers even in the Netherlands, let alone places further east. Would have looked pretty strange if only one cop had tried to do it and then gotten surrounded by several neonazis from the crowd.this is exactly what our government likes to think: everyone raising the national flag or speaking up is a nazi. Neonazis are crazy, but it's equally mad to see nazis where there aren't any.
It's like hearing voices in your head. No matter how twisted you are, not every single voice you hear is a fake one. Sometimes there are some genuine people talking to you.
Similarly, not everyone not supporting the build of a huge mosque in a residential area is a nazi.
In fact, 99% aren't.

From lots of your posts I can see you're quite left-wing.
I can't blame you, I'm a socialist myself, but I do think left-extremists are much too easy in calling someone a nazi. Everyone not left-wing is labeled as such nowadays, with all the consequences.
Talk about discrimination. Left wing extremists are equally hard discriminating everyone who doesn't agree with them as right-wing extremists discriminate foreigners/jews/you name it.
To quote one of my favorite bands:
Indoctrinated minds so very often
Contain sick thoughts
And commit most of the evil they preach against

Skybird

01-30-10, 07:33 PM

this is exactly what our government likes to think:
Not just your government, it'S all european governments, and most people, the all-to-totalitarian consensus-society that enforces your agreement and voluntary tolerance all too willingly, not to mention that it is the most favourite hobby of the pro-Islamic Gutmenschen, and of the the PC-brigade, and that it is almost official EU policy.

Defend your identity, your culture, your laws and values and ethical standards, defend what makes euope actually europe, forget just ojne time when you say somethign that whatever yu say the opposite of what you say also is true and valid and precious, and that everything that is different than what you defend, or is hostile to what you defend nevertheless is of equal value and on the same cultural eye level with your own culture - and you get called a radical, a Nazi, a xyz--phobe immediately. Verdammte Gleichmacherei! No qualitative distinctions are being made anymore, anything and everything gets deneid in the name of featureless, non-hierarchical equality of just EVERYTHING. We live in the total tolerance society, and we have to tolerate everything as long as it is not ourselves, and have to be intolerant to those who remind us of ourselves. And that is for a reason:

We oversee that tolerance NEVER is shown by the weaker in the face of the stronger. Tolerance always gets shown by the strong one towards the weak one, with a haughty, condescending attitude he snips some breadcrumbs from the table and thinks he is so great when doing so, but it is sheer arrogance, sheer power. The weak, on the other hand, never is tolerant when he think he is - acutally, he just is weak and suffers what he has to suffer from the hand of the stronger. Only suffering from Stockholm syndrome may turn the weak into a believer of his own tolerance. Be punishing those of us not being "tolerant", we supress every hint that maybe in the challenges and conflicts that are brought upon us we are not on the strong side, but that we are the weak ones - the loosers in this clash. If we are tolerant, we assume to be strong.
But our voluntary tolerance is enfor4ced, actually we are weak and helpless. All europe is in the grip of a collective Stockholm syndrome.

Tolerance is the continuation of helplessness by other means.

Tolerance is the determination to be powerless.

Tolerance is the escape into enforced voluntariness.

And we - we tolerate ourselves to death.

OneToughHerring

01-30-10, 08:25 PM

To raise one's own national flag, in one's own country is neo-nazi?!

Are you for real?

Read what Highbury and Dan D above wrote. So to answer your question, yes I am for real. My question is, are you for real or are you just play acting on the Internets?

DarkFish,

I think your dad should stop breaking the law. Jail/prison isn't a nice place for someone his age.

Also, to wave a flag isn't patriotism. If it was then every chump in a football match should be called one. With the obvious difference to your dad that they are doing it legally.

DarkFish

01-30-10, 08:43 PM

I think your dad should stop breaking the law.well that's the problem, it isn't illegal.And *I* think maybe you should read the thread before you post?:shifty:

Also, to wave a flag isn't patriotism. If it was then every chump in a football match should be called one.yes, that too is an act of patriotism. But since there are no mosques involved in a football match nobody gives a damn. But the moment somebody shouts the word "muslim" everybody puts down his flags in fear of being called a nazi.
The few who don't - well, look at my dad...

OneToughHerring

01-30-10, 08:49 PM

And *I* think maybe you should read the thread before you post?:shifty:

To disturb a council meeting is against the law where I come from, it's also very bad manners which should be clear to anyone with any kind of upbringing.

yes, that too is an act of patriotism. But since there are no mosques involved in a football match nobody gives a damn. But the moment somebody shouts the word "muslim" everybody puts down his flags in fear of being called a nazi.
The few who don't - well, look at my dad...

Yea exactly like the US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan who are killing and torturing, oh that's right, muslims.

Stealth Hunter

01-30-10, 08:53 PM

It seems odd to me that there's nothing in the news about this. Really- I mean there's nothing on Google's news search feature. Nothing at all...

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=netherlands+muslim

If this really did happen, someone would be outraged by it. And by someone, I mean some sort of political/idealist group. Because this kind of stuff is always big news, let alone a big motivator for their agendas- and I won't pass speculation on what they may be.

So why haven't we seen anything on it yet?:hmmm:

Snestorm

01-30-10, 10:30 PM

Read what Highbury and Dan D above wrote. So to answer your question, yes I am for real. My question is, are you for real or are you just play acting on the Internets?

I went back and read the posts of both Highbury, and Dan.
Neither had anything to do with the question I asked you.

Let us try the question again.
You think raising one's own flag, in one's own country, is neo-nazi?

Ishmael

01-31-10, 02:42 AM

It seems the Netherlands has lost it's way since the days of the Pilgrims asylum there. My first subversive thoughts were to open up a real Southern Bar-B-Que joint selling pork spare ribs or a Church of Scientology across the street from the proposed mosque. Then I thought your dad should sue for false arrest and imprisonment for denying him his free speech rights.

Then I thought a more productive avenue for you and your Dad would be to become activists in the movement to prevent and vigorously prosecute honor killings.

http://www.feminist.com/news/vaw26.html

DarkFish

01-31-10, 07:15 AM

To disturb a council meeting is against the law where I come from, it's also very bad manners which should be clear to anyone with any kind of upbringing.where I come from it's called disturbance when you start shouting and such. Visitors hold up banners all the time, no problem. You can raise any flag you want, nobody cares. Maybe these things are "very bad manners" where you come from, but here it's nothing special.
Problem is, once you raise the Dutch flag when discussing a mosque, everyone jumps up and calls you a racist (look at yourself, it's exactly what you are doing)
Yea exactly like the US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan who are killing and torturing, oh that's right, muslims.what the heck does Iraq have to do with this?:-? Nobody mentioned anything about Iraq, if you want to discuss Iraq why don't you go here (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99880&highlight=iraq+war)for example

It seems odd to me that there's nothing in the news about this. Really- I mean there's nothing on Google's news search feature. Nothing at all...heh. The Dutch press are too afraid to publish things like this cause they know that they'll be called racists themselves the minute they start defending my dad. Things like this have happened before, the press knows they shouldn't publish such things by now. Racismophobia goes far here:nope:
The only place where I could find anything on this is on right-extremist sites, who've got nothing to lose since they're racists already.
And these sites use it only as a means of propaganda for their cause:nope:
anyway, here's an article on one of those sites (in Dutch):
http://www.hetvrijevolk.com/index.php?pagina=10499
google translation (mind you, it's in the usual google-translate-english:O:):
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hetvrijevolk.com%2Findex.php%3F pagina%3D10499&sl=nl&tl=en

OneToughHerring

01-31-10, 07:33 AM

where I come from it's called disturbance when you start shouting and such. Visitors hold up banners all the time, no problem. You can raise any flag you want, nobody cares. Maybe these things are "very bad manners" where you come from, but here it's nothing special.

Nothing special? What a strange country you live in. But then again the Netherlands is pretty, you know, out there. I know, I've been there.

what the heck does Iraq have to do with this?:-? Nobody mentioned anything about Iraq, if you want to discuss Iraq why don't you go here (http://subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99880&highlight=iraq+war)for exampleYou said that people somehow give muslims some special status. I think they don't even have similar human rights considering how their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't led to any kind of condemnation in the west. They've had the equivalent of a 9/11 of deaths each month for years and years and the west is completely silent about it.

DarkFish

01-31-10, 08:19 AM

Nothing special? What a strange country you live in.strange country? maybe. But at least here it is still allowed for people to speak up for your beliefs.
But then again the Netherlands is pretty, you know, out there. I know, I've been there.No, I don't know.:-? Feel free to say what you want to say about the Netherlands, It's not like I'll smack you if I don't like what I hear;)
You said that people somehow give muslims some special status.Oh? did I? Can you point me to any post in this thread where I said such thing? You're not a good listener, are you?
I think they don't even have similar human rights considering how their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't led to any kind of condemnation in the west. They've had the equivalent of a 9/11 of deaths each month for years and years and the west is completely silent about it.listen, I'm as much against what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan as you are. But this is not the thread to discuss that. Iraq/Afghanistan and here have nothing to do with each other.

August

01-31-10, 08:40 AM

Don't feed the troll Darkfish. Hope everything works out for your father.

HunterICX

01-31-10, 09:38 AM

Darkfish,

Uwe vader is een rasechte Nederlander :salute:
Hij stond teminste op voor zijn land wat meerdere eens moeten gaan doen.

HunterICX

Dowly

01-31-10, 09:42 AM

Darkfish,

Uwe vader is een rasechte Nederlander :salute:
Hij stond teminste op voor zijn land wat meerdere eens moeten gaan doen.

HunterICX

Signs of demonic possession:

4 The person speaks in tongues

:hmmm:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/25/128774245437631397.jpg

Schroeder

01-31-10, 09:56 AM

Signs of demonic possession:

4 The person speaks in tongues

:hmmm:

Damn it, I could understand most of it (calls an exorcist).:damn:

OneToughHerring

01-31-10, 10:51 AM

strange country? maybe. But at least here it is still allowed for people to speak up for your beliefs.

Freedom of speech has always had limits, it has never been absolute anywhere in the world and Netherlands is no exeption. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with your nations laws and statues so you'll know better when you break laws and good customs.

No, I don't know.:-? Feel free to say what you want to say about the Netherlands, It's not like I'll smack you if I don't like what I hear;)Your prostitution situation is bit messed up to say the least. Human trade from eastern Europe and from around the world has gone on for a long time and a lot of criminal activity is involved in it. Plus your drug politics have created not only a haven for the so called mild drugs such as cannabis but strong drugs as well.

But hey if you wanna fight me mano a mano I'm cool with that as well. You wouldn't be the first bonehead I clash with IRL.

Oh? did I? Can you point me to any post in this thread where I said such thing? You're not a good listener, are you?Listener? I'm sure you mean reader?

As for the part about muslim's and their status, read below.

listen, I'm as much against what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan as you are. But this is not the thread to discuss that. Iraq/Afghanistan and here have nothing to do with each other.It has to do with the fact that you don't seem to give muslims the same human rights and value as westeners. It's all very familiar from modern racism that no longer focuses on race but on cultural factors.

DarkFish

01-31-10, 11:20 AM

Freedom of speech has always had limits, it has never been absolute anywhere in the world and Netherlands is no exeption. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with your nations laws and statues so you'll know better when you break laws and good customs.oh? I didn't know you were an expert on the subject of Dutch law and customs.
I would guess that a native Dutchman would know a little more about the Dutch law/customs than a Fin.
Your prostitution situation is bit messed up to say the least. Human trade from eastern Europe and from around the world has gone on for a long time and a lot of criminal activity is involved in it. Plus your drug politics have created not only a haven for the so called mild drugs such as cannabis but strong drugs as well.Again you change the subject and give examples that have NOTHING to do with what we're taking about:roll:
As for the matter of drugs, why don't you read this report (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67)and educate yourself a bit on the matter of how well the Dutch drug policy actually works.
But hey if you wanna fight me mano a mano I'm cool with that as well. You wouldn't be the first bonehead I clash with IRL.Oh, so now suddenly I am a bonehead? And being threatened as well?
Can you point me to ANY place on the web where I said anything racistic?
No, you can't but that doesn't matter a thing for you, does it?
Listener? I'm sure you mean reader? yes, I meant reader:shifty: Are you happy now?
It has to do with the fact that you don't seem to give muslims the same human rights and value as westeners.once again:
Can you point me to ANY place on the web where I said such thing?

You accuse me of being a racist without any proof to support that. Because there isn't any proof cause I am not a racist.

I believe they've got a nice word for people like you, its
TROLL

DarkFish

01-31-10, 11:24 AM

Signs of demonic possession:

4 The person speaks in tongues

:hmmm::har:

OneToughHerring

01-31-10, 11:27 AM

its
TROLL

Oh, ad hominem. That ought to get you banned.

DarkFish

01-31-10, 12:09 PM

Oh, ad hominem. That ought to get you banned.http://www.shroomery.org/forums/thumbs/09-21/274241869-thumb_troll1.gif
Don't feed the troll Darkfish. Hope everything works out for your father.I guess I'll take your advice from now on August. BTW thanks for your concern:salute:

Now, OneToughHerring, why don't you be a nice troll and move along to some Lord of the Rings forum, which is where trolls belong?

Morts

01-31-10, 01:12 PM

Oh, ad hominem. That ought to get you banned.
troll

OneToughHerring

01-31-10, 01:20 PM

troll

And more bans.

Btw Neal, the board's hickuping again, hope you get it sorted out.

Morts

01-31-10, 01:30 PM

http://www.untwistedvortex.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/dontfeedthetroll.jpg

DarkFish

01-31-10, 01:45 PM

And more bans.

Btw Neal, the board's hickuping again, hope you get it sorted out.:har::har::har::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::haha:: haha::haha:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_35L759gCLTI/Sfk7rJpnw8I/AAAAAAAAAnQ/mit5PBlzS0A/S187/No-Troll.png

Happy Times

01-31-10, 02:03 PM

Boneheads (read: Neonazis) are pretty strong in numbers even in the Netherlands, let alone places further east. Would have looked pretty strange if only one cop had tried to do it and then gotten surrounded by several neonazis from the crowd.

Im reading the continuing signs and guessing that its your fantasy to be surrounded by Nazis?:hmmm:

OneToughHerring

01-31-10, 02:32 PM

Im reading the continuing signs and guessing that its your fantasy to be surrounded by Nazis?:hmmm:

Why don't you go and wave the Finnish flag in a Finnish counsil meeting and see what happens. Actually, tell me when you're going to do it, I'd like to be there to witness it. :haha:

DarkFish

01-31-10, 03:06 PM

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/thumbs/09-21/274241869-thumb_troll1.gif

Back on topic for the minute (at least until a certain troll shows up again and tries to derail this thread once more):
Today my dad was fined with €100.
I don't know yet if he will pay it or take legal actions.

NeonSamurai

01-31-10, 09:16 PM

Oh, ad hominem. That ought to get you banned.

If that were entirely true, you would have been banned ages ago for calling everyone who doesn't think like you do or agree with you a racist.

Now then, I suggest everyone play nice. No more trolling, threats, or name calling if you do not mind.

Tribesman

02-02-10, 11:15 AM

He was in the wrong, simple as that.
He wasn't arrested for exercising his right to protest, neither was he arrested for waving his flag.
He was arrested because he chose to sit in the public section of a meeting but choosing to not follow the rules that come with that choice. In fact as he was arrested for not following the rules after he had been warned that he was breaking the rules it means he was actively seeking the outcome that he got which Darkside finds so outrageous.

So the claim of.....What in the devils name will become of this country if we can't even raise our national flag anymore?!....is complete rubbish.

Now compare this with the US, rarely do I see any pic without the US flag showing up someplace.

Try waving a flag in a public gallery of a political meeting in the US where there are bans on unauthorised demonstrations in chamber.
Try doing it after you have been told to stop.:rotfl2:

Today my dad was fined with €100.
I don't know yet if he will pay it or take legal actions.
Legal actions for what?
He broke the law.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 12:38 PM

He was in the wrong, simple as that.
He wasn't arrested for exercising his right to protest, neither was he arrested for waving his flag.
He was arrested because he chose to sit in the public section of a meeting but choosing to not follow the rules that come with that choice. In fact as he was arrested for not following the rules after he had been warned that he was breaking the rules it means he was actively seeking the outcome that he got which Darkside finds so outrageous.

So the claim of.........is complete rubbish.

Try waving a flag in a public gallery of a political meeting in the US where there are bans on unauthorised demonstrations in chamber.
Try doing it after you have been told to stop.:rotfl2:

Legal actions for what?
He broke the law.

True on all of the above. But, kicking his arse (8 police)? Come on man, was resisting the removal from the building? I suspect not.

Tribesman

02-02-10, 01:13 PM

But, kicking his arse (8 police)? Come on man, was resisting the removal from the building? I suspect not.
Well we only have the OP to go on and thats already been demonstrated as rather light on actual accurate factual content. But lets work on it.

Well its claimed in the OP that he was waving a stick and disrupting a meeting. How many police would you consider appropriate considering of course that Darkfish said a large number had gone to protest?
Resisting removal? He would have been told to shut up or leave , since he did neither voluntarily what were the chances of him just leaving when the police asked?
Now if he had been protesting in a country not quite as relaxed as the Netherlands then perhaps Darkfish might have been treating us to a video of his dad getting tazered or gassed or just beaten with a nightstick.

DarkFish

02-02-10, 02:17 PM

Well we only have the OP to go on and thats already been demonstrated as rather light on actual accurate factual content.I admit my first post was not really heavy on factual content, but I did write down some more facts, and also gave a link to an article on a Dutch site. You may have missed it?
In case you have, here it is: original version (Dutch) (http://www.hetvrijevolk.com/index.php?pagina=10499)
google translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hetvrijevolk.com%2Findex.php%3F pagina%3D10499&sl=nl&tl=en)
warning: the above site is "semi-racist" (not just yet neo-nazi but definitely right-wing) so the article is also written as such. It's all I could find on the subject however.

If you want any more facts, don't hesitate to ask:)
He was arrested because he chose to sit in the public section of a meeting but choosing to not follow the rules that come with that choice. In fact as he was arrested for not following the rules after he had been warned that he was breaking the rules it means he was actively seeking the outcome that he got which Darkside finds so outrageous.Not true.
Fact is, he wasn't breaking any rules at all. It's allowed to sit in the public section of the meeting holding up banners and flags and such. Both by law and by custom.
To quote from the above article: "On a previous debate the room was densely filled with banners" He simply wasn't doing anything against the law.

Legal actions for what?
He broke the law.He did not. As you can read from the above, actually the ones who broke the law were the muncipal officials and the police. The town hall is a public building where you can demonstrate all you want, as long as you don't start any trouble (shouting, fighting etc.). He didn't do any of those so he shouldn't have been asked to leave.

August

02-02-10, 02:57 PM

Darkfish vs Tribesman
http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/owned029.jpg

Tribesman

02-02-10, 03:44 PM

Not true.
Fact is, he wasn't breaking any rules at all. It's allowed to sit in the public section of the meeting holding up banners and flags and such. Both by law and by custom.
To quote from the above article: "On a previous debate the room was densely filled with banners" He simply wasn't doing anything against the law.

By law and by custom the chair has the say in what is permitted.

The town hall is a public building where you can demonstrate all you want, as long as you don't start any trouble (shouting, fighting etc.). He didn't do any of those so he shouldn't have been asked to leave.
Because it is a public building then it is the public officials holding the meeting who decide what constitutes a disturbance to their meeting and they who decide if the people causing the disturbance should leave.
The funny thing is you say he wasn't causing trouble or shouting yet all that you have posted both from yourself and from that semi-nazi rag your dad got quoted in shows that its exactly what he was doing.

If you want any more facts, don't hesitate to ask
Facts would be a start, but failing that just carry on posting more stuff where you manage to flatly contradict your claims.

AVGWarhawk

02-02-10, 04:01 PM

Darkfish vs Tribesman
http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/owned029.jpg

That is awesome! :up: :har:

DarkFish

02-02-10, 04:10 PM

By law and by custom the chair has the say in what is permitted.maybe in Ireland. But here in the Netherlands the law has the say in that. The chair cannot simply throw out everyone he doesn't like.

The funny thing is you say he wasn't causing trouble or shouting yet all that you have posted both from yourself and from that semi-nazi rag your dad got quoted in shows that its exactly what he was doing.Then I suppose you have also read that he only started shouting and causing trouble after he got arrested. Which is exactly what I said in one of my posts: "all he did was raising our flag and refusing to lower it when asked. [...] He did resist the officers, but only after he was arrested and cuffed. Most of the 'disturbance' was done by the other people protesting against him being arrested."

I must admit though the exact moment the police turned up is a bit lost in translation, making it look like the police turned up only after the "Outside the hall again following a struggle, ...", where in fact the police turns up at: "...search agents ready!" (Google translate, what do you expect:O:)
Facts would be a start, but failing that just carry on posting more stuff ...Well if you told me what facts you want to know...
There are too many facts to sum them all up, please ask for something more specific than just "facts" (e.g. "tell me something more about [...]").

... where you manage to flatly contradict your claims.As you can read above I don't contradict any of my claims

Tribesman

02-02-10, 04:27 PM

maybe in Ireland. But here in the Netherlands the law has the say in that. The chair cannot simply throw out everyone he doesn't like.

Its dutch law your father was arrested under, dutch law he was charged with and dutch law he was convicted through. Because thats the laws of the land and thats what he broke.

Then I suppose you have also read that he only started shouting and causing trouble after he got arrested.
No that piece of causing trouble came after that "pesky usher" had already told him to stop or leave. That failure alone merits arrest as under the law as that pesky usher is charged with maintaining order in the municipal meeting on the direction of the chair. To then continue after the police arrive could actually merit another charge.

As you can read above I don't contradict any of my claims
Oh but you do, and you demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.

So for entertainment value can you enlighten people as to exactly which paragraph and article of the Criminal code in your country your father was convicted of breaking.....then explain how it isn't the law in your country and how he didn't break it.

Jimbuna

02-02-10, 04:37 PM

Darkfish vs Tribesman
http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/owned029.jpg

http://www.blognow.com.au/uploads/l/LIZZYFOREAL/64560.gif

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6942/popcorncowtx0.gif

DarkFish

02-02-10, 05:32 PM

No that piece of causing trouble came after that "pesky usher" had already told him to stop or leave. That failure alone merits arrest as under the law as that pesky usher is charged with maintaining order in the municipal meeting on the direction of the chair. To then continue after the police arrive could actually merit another charge.The making trouble only started after the police came. Maybe something else got a bit lost in translation so please cite the 1st sentence where my dad is shouting/causing trouble according to you.
you demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.I think I understand the Dutch law a lot better than you. I see you come from Ireland, you may know all the Irish law by heart but this isn't Ireland and we Dutchmen have got other laws.

So for entertainment value can you enlighten people as to exactly which paragraph and article of the Criminal code in your country your father was convicted of breaking.....then explain how it isn't the law in your country and how he didn't break it.As you wish:D
now THAT's something more specific than just a "fact" and something I can actually help you with:yeah:

OK, this is the Dutch law concerning the article my father was accused of breaking (art. 429bis-442a) (http://www.wetboek-online.nl/wet/Wetboek%20van%20Strafrecht.html#2598)
The articles say the following: (allow me for leaving out some obscure articles like "you may not falsely use the name of the Red Cross" and such)
You may not:

commit blasphemy
when in function: discriminate because of race, beliefs, gender or sexual orientation
be on a prohibited place without permission
photograph/draw any military installations, without permission
be naked on public places, unless indicated otherwise
disturb the nightly peace
claim a royal/noble/etc. title
etc etc etc

You can read it for yourself, my dad did none of these things.

Tribesman

02-02-10, 06:15 PM

The making trouble only started after the police came.
No the making trouble began when he refused to follow the instructions of the official.

I think I understand the Dutch law a lot better than you. I see you come from Ireland, you may know all the Irish law by heart but this isn't Ireland and we Dutchmen have got other laws.

You demonstrate otherwise.
In fact you make it very easy.
So under the big set of laws you list can you detail the specific ones for which your father can be prosecuted?
Have a clue, the common term is trespass.
It means being somewhere you are not allowed to be ....like remaining in a council meeting after you have been told to behave or leave.
Disturbing the peace....that means the annoyance of others when you are not allowed to

Tribesman

02-02-10, 06:41 PM

Now it gets stranger.
You claim your dad was charged under one article , yet he appear to have posted on your link that he was charged under another article of trespass.
So just to check which of you is correct can you just name the policeman and council official on the writ? As either you are making things up or someone is posing as your dad on that blog

FIREWALL

02-02-10, 06:53 PM

DarkFish... Was your father convicted ?

Or has he even been to trail.

DarkFish

02-02-10, 06:56 PM

No the making trouble began when he refused to follow the instructions of the official.refusing to follow instructions of an official is not called "disturbing the peace" or anything. As I said, if he were shouting/fighting or something it would have been a different story. But that was not the case.
Besides, the official wasn't even in his right to instruct my dad to leave, as even you acknowledge he didn't cause any trouble before that.

So under the big set of laws you list can you detail the specific ones for which your father can be prosecuted?
Have a clue, the common term is trespass.
It means being somewhere you are not allowed to be ....like remaining in a council meeting after you have been told to behave or leave.aaargh! please don't make me sum up every single article of the Dutch law! I've got other things to do than copy-translate-pasting it all onto subsim!:damn:
But if you insist - http://wetboek.net/20090819/Sr/80ter.html?n=1
"a 'prohibited place' is any place that's indicated as prohibited under the Law for Protection of State Secrets"
I admit I don't know how many state secrets are in the public area of our local town hall, but I don't think it are many.

Disturbing the peace....that means the annoyance of others when you are not allowed toI fully agree on that one.
But:
1) I fail to see how anyone can possibly be annoyed by seeing a flag
2) As I have said (and repeated until the end of ages it seems:shifty: to me) it is completely legal to display any flags/banners and stuff. So even if anyone somehow felt annoyed by the flag, my dad was allowed to display it.

OneToughHerring

02-02-10, 07:03 PM

Tribesman

02-02-10, 07:10 PM

Besides, the official wasn't even in his right to instruct my dad to leave
Yes he was.
Thats his job, keeping order in meetings.

refusing to follow instructions of an official is not called "disturbing the peace" or anything.
Of course it is.

aaargh! please don't make me sum up every single article of the Dutch law! I've got other things to do than copy-translate-pasting it all onto subsim!
Its easy, the person claiming to be your father posted the writ on that blog you linked to. The specific crime is listed at the bottom.

"a 'prohibited place' is any place that's indicated as prohibited under the Law for Protection of State Secrets"

A prohibited place is any place covered by laws and by-laws....like a government building, though even a public park or road can be a prohibited place.

I fully agree on that one.
But:
1) I fail to see how anyone can possibly be annoyed by seeing a flag

You keep on going on about "the flag". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the flag, it is entirely about his conduct.
2) As I have said (and repeated until the end of ages it seems:shifty: to me) it is completely legal to display any flags/banners and stuff. So even if anyone somehow felt annoyed by the flag, my dad was allowed to display it.
Again, it has nothing to do with the flag.

DarkFish

02-02-10, 07:12 PM

DarkFish... Was your father convicted ?

Or has he even been to trail.Not yet. As I said, he was fined €100,-. If he pays the fine, no trial. If he doesn't, there will be one.

Now it gets stranger.
You claim your dad was charged under one article , yet he appear to have posted on your link that he was charged under another article of trespass.It is not an article of trespass. All these articles are part of "Disturbance of the peace". Trespassing is an entirely different part of the law.
Also, check my previous post (which you may not have read yet by now), the 'trespassing' described is not the 'normal' trespassing but a special case.

can you just name the policeman and council official on the writ? yeah sure, 1st thing my dad told me when I last saw him was the name of the council official:shifty:
Come on, are you serious? My dad probably doesn't even know their names himself.

So just to check which of you is correct [...] As either you are making things up or someone is posing as your dad on that blogwhich one of who is correct? Am i missing something here?:-?
why would I make those things up? wouldn't I have gone to immense troubles in that case, writing that lengthy article and posting it on several different sites?
And although I don't have really great contact with my dad, I speak him often enough to know that all that's written on that site is true. So no one is posing as my dad either.

Torvald Von Mansee

02-02-10, 07:23 PM

It's funny how Americans support the European fringe right wingers in some way. I think they'd be surprised if they found out what the same people have in store for America and Americans. And no, those ideas didn't die off with that little incident called World War 2.

...

I guess u haven't been paying attention. Americans don't exactly have some hive mind. Just look at any thread about the tea partiers, American health care reform, Obama, Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.

DarkFish

02-02-10, 07:34 PM

Yes he was.
Thats his job, keeping order in meetings.He cannot simply throw out anyone he doesn't like. He must have a good reason first to do so. which he didn't have cause all my dad was doing was holding up a flag.
refusing to follow instructions of an official is not called "disturbing the peace" or anything. Of course it is.Well, "of course" isn't exactly a good argument, is it? where I come up with laws and such to prove my point, everything you can think of in response is "of course".
Its easy, the person claiming to be your father posted the writ on that blog you linked to. The specific crime is listed at the bottom.Erm, the specific crime is only listed once, in the center of the article. Namely: "ordeverstoring", translated as simply "disruption".
I don't know what you read at the bottom of the page, but it wasn't the "specific crime".

A prohibited place is any place covered by laws and by-laws....like a government building, though even a public park or road can be a prohibited place.didn't I just show you the article that shows it isn't? "verboden plaats"="prohibited place"=what I just described.
Nothing more. A place with a "do not enter - private property" sign is not called a "verboden plaats".
It might be in the Irish law, but in the Dutch law there's a difference.
You keep on going on about "the flag". It has nothing whatsoever to do with the flag, it is entirely about his conduct.That's what it MUST be about cause that's all my dad was doing at the time, holding up a flag. He wasn't shouting, he wasn't fighting, he wasn't doing anything but holding up that flag. How can you possibly maintain the flag had nothing to do with it?

PS - as a "friendly reminder": let's keep this thread civil and not start name-calling as has happened when I had a similar discussion with OneToughHerring. So far everything's fine so let's keep it that way;)

Tribesman

02-03-10, 02:17 AM

It is not an article of trespass. All these articles are part of "Disturbance of the peace". Trespassing is an entirely different part of the law.
Also, check my previous post (which you may not have read yet by now), the 'trespassing' described is not the 'normal' trespassing but a special case.

"A special place" like in a council meeting after being told to leave:up:
So unlawful presence in a room dedicated to the public service....with a doubled up charge possible as he not only remained after the representaive of the council asked him to leave, he remained after the representative of the police commisioner asked him

Well, "of course" isn't exactly a good argument, is it?
When the point is so basic then "of course" is entirely sufficient.

where I come up with laws and such to prove my point, everything you can think of in response is "of course".
There lies one problem, you are claiming its one of a long set of laws, the person claiming to be your father in your link says it is one specific law which is not on your list.

Erm, the specific crime is only listed once, in the center of the article. Namely: "ordeverstoring", translated as simply "disruption".
I don't know what you read at the bottom of the page, but it wasn't the "specific crime".

Sorry you have to go to the follow up story where the person claiming to be your father posts the two letters he recieved from the public prosecutor
The first deals with the basic prosecution and the option of paying the fine. It contains a summary of the charge and the article of law it is under.
The second is the summons with the date of the court appearance and the specific details of the charge.

didn't I just show you the article that shows it isn't? "verboden plaats"="prohibited place"=what I just described.
Nothing more. A place with a "do not enter - private property" sign is not called a "verboden plaats".
It might be in the Irish law, but in the Dutch law there's a difference.

See above.

That's what it MUST be about cause that's all my dad was doing at the time, holding up a flag. He wasn't shouting, he wasn't fighting, he wasn't doing anything but holding up that flag. How can you possibly maintain the flag had nothing to do with it?

Because the flag is only incidental, the prosecution has nothing to do with the flag, it is entirely to do with a failure to comply with the law and procedure.

OneToughHerring

02-03-10, 06:26 AM

...

I guess u haven't been paying attention. Americans don't exactly have some hive mind. Just look at any thread about the tea partiers, American health care reform, Obama, Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.

How exactly is anyone in the US doing anything about the extreme right-wingers of your country and the support they give to similar minded people abroad? Where are the torture & wars against them? The US has generated several extreme right-wing organisations that are now global, many are very active in the huge US prison system.

So I'd say there's a pretty clear link between the world's extreme right-wing organisations and the States.

DarkFish

02-03-10, 03:30 PM

When the point is so basic then "of course" is entirely sufficient.If the point were so basic, then why didn't you come up with some articles from the Dutch law, like I did?
Because there are no articles that state such a thing.

Sorry you have to go to the follow up story where the person claiming to be your father posts the two letters he recieved from the public prosecutor
The first deals with the basic prosecution and the option of paying the fine. It contains a summary of the charge and the article of law it is under.
The second is the summons with the date of the court appearance and the specific details of the charge.ah thanks. I was not aware of this, they must have charged him with something else than they initially planned to do then.

So let's forget about the disruption of the peace then.

"A special place" like in a council meeting after being told to leave:up:nope, not that kind of "special place". But since it appears he's been charged with something else after all let's forget about this.

So unlawful presence in a room dedicated to the public service....with a doubled up charge possible as he not only remained after the representaive of the council asked him to leave, he remained after the representative of the police commisioner asked himAs I said, the representative of the council shouldn't have asked him to leave as he was doing nothing wrong.
It would have been 'smarter' to comply, yes, but my dad did nothing wrong and so had every right to be there. You can blame him for his stubbornness but nothing more.
If this ever gets to court, I'll be eager to know how the prosecutor wants to claim my dad was rightfully thrown out of the town hall.
Because the flag is only incidental, the prosecution has nothing to do with the flag, it is entirely to do with a failure to comply with the law and procedure.The prosecution in itself has nothing to do with a flag, no, but my dad had every right to be there. Raising the flag was the event that eventually caused all the trouble. And raising a flag is no good reason to remove someone from the town hall.

Tribesman

02-03-10, 04:34 PM

If the point were so basic, then why didn't you come up with some articles from the Dutch law, like I did?
Because there are no articles that state such a thing.

I asked you to state the article, the crime you thought it was is covered by disturbing the peace....because its a catch all charge that covers many things. Like not doing what an official tells you to do is an action likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace......continuing to not do what you were told is an actual disturbance of the peace.
They could have had him on both grounds and he is equally guilty of both according to what he says on that blog and what you have written here.

ah thanks. I was not aware of this, they must have charged him with something else than they initially planned to do then.

yes its basicly illegal trespass on municipal property....because the public gallery has rules and he wouldn't follow them so he lost his legal right to be there.
nope, not that kind of "special place". But since it appears he's been charged with something else after all let's forget about this.

See above.
As I said, the representative of the council shouldn't have asked him to leave as he was doing nothing wrong.

The person whose descision it is thinks otherwise. So did the police. so does the public prosecutor

It would have been 'smarter' to comply, yes, but my dad did nothing wrong and so had every right to be there.
but my dad did nothing wrong and so had every right to be there
but my dad had every right to be there.
A whole series.
Can you understand the rules concerning public meetings?
Can you understand the laws covering the rules?
It appears not.
But as an experiment, if your father doesn't have a decent lawyer for advice and so decides to go to court and tries to avoid the consequences of his actions can you stand up in the public gallery of the court and repeat his actions and see which laws they throw at you?
Because in that case they can throw not only the trespass and the breach of peace they can also hit you with a charge of contempt.

Platapus

02-03-10, 05:04 PM

Tribesman, how about letting it go?

Darkfish has already admitted to not including all the facts in his original posting. This is his father we are discussing. Of course Darkfish will be on the side of his father, what kind of son would not back up his father?

He is emotionally involved in this case (as he should).

This constant back and forth between you two is not solving anything. Neither one of you appears to be willing to change your opinions (nor should you).

Why don't we just wish Darkfish's father well and hope that the judicial system there works and justice is served?

Just a suggestion. :)

DarkFish

02-03-10, 05:19 PM

I asked you to state the article, the crime you thought it was is covered by disturbing the peace....because its a catch all charge that covers many things. Like not doing what an official tells you to do is an action likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace......continuing to not do what you were told is an actual disturbance of the peace.
They could have had him on both grounds and he is equally guilty of both according to what he says on that blog and what you have written here.do you still maintain he's guilty of disturbance of the peace? I posted the Dutch law concerning that matter, did you read it or not?
yes its basicly illegal trespass on municipal property....because the public gallery has rules and he wouldn't follow them so he lost his legal right to be there.even if he would have been legally removed, it would have been a different law he broke.
In the case you mention, you could be charged with TRESPASSING. Not with disturbance.

Let me write it down clearly one more time for you:
if someone is on a place he shouldn't be, he's TRESPASSING.
you are ONLY 'disturbing the peace' if you are at a place where some STATE-SECRETS are. It's in the LAW, LITERALLY, exactly like that, so please don't tell me this isn't true.
See above.See above.
And my previous post.
And the post before my previous post.
And the post before that.
And even one more post before that.
The person whose descision it is thinks otherwise. So did the police. so does the public prosecutorThe person whose decision it was did indeed think otherwise, that's the point. But whatever he thought, he was not in his right to remove my dad. See below. The police are just called like "hey, there's someone here who doesn't want to leave, take him!". They do their job and take him out. It's not their responsibility to ask why exactly the person in question gets thrown out.

Can you understand the rules concerning public meetings?
Can you understand the laws covering the rules?yes, I can, and I do.
You clearly don't even know these laws, at least not the Dutch laws concerning public meetings.

This is another thing I've said many, many and even manier times before. It is legal and widely accepted in the Netherlands to wave banners, flags, anything you want as long as it isn't anything offensive.
In my dad's case, if he had hold up a banner saying "death to all muslims" or something, it would have been rightful to remove him.
A flag can hardly be seen as offensive however. I can't remember the last time I were offended by seeing the Dutch flag, but it sure is a hell of a long time ago.
But as an experiment, if your father doesn't have a decent lawyer for advice and so decides to go to court and tries to avoid the consequences of his actions can you stand up in the public gallery of the court and repeat his actions and see which laws they throw at you?Of course not. It wasn't exactly a smart thing to do from my dad, refusing to leave, so of course I ain't gonna do that.

If your dad jumps off the roof of his house, will you do the same and follow him?
Same thing, a stupid and potentially harmful decision.

DarkFish

02-03-10, 05:28 PM

Tribesman, how about letting it go? [...] This constant back and forth between you two is not solving anything. Neither one of you appears to be willing to change your opinions (nor should you).

Why don't we just wish Darkfish's father well and hope that the judicial system there works and justice is served?Agree with that:up:
We're not getting anywhere so let's call it a day.
Of course Darkfish will be on the side of his father, what kind of son would not back up his father?hah. You would be surprised to find out how bad the relationship between me and my dad actually is:dead:
That said, I truly believe in him being right on this one. I admit it wasn't smart to disobey the council representative and the police, but he was definitely in his right waving a flag.

Tribesman

02-03-10, 06:37 PM

Tribesman, how about letting it go?

You have a point , after all he is only repeatedly demonstrating that he doesn't understand the law and will not understand the law.
All he has to do is read the charge his father posted to see how wrong he has been all along.
For anyone interested in the charge its under article SR139 para1

Arnhem, 28 januari 2010
De officier van justitie,
Aan bovenbedoelde gedagvaarde persoon wordt tenlastegelegd dat
hij op of omstreeks 25 januari 2010 te Arnhem, wederrechtelijk vertoevende in een voor de openbare dienst bestemd lokaal, te weten de raadszaal van het gemeentehuis, zich niet op de vordering van de (door of namens de) bevoegde ambtenaar H. Th. van Haarlem (hoofdinspecteur van politie) en/of H. F. G. Bergefurt (beveiliger, belast met toezicht op de openbare orde in de raadszaal) aanstonds heeft verwijderd;
art 139 lid 1 Wetboek van Strafrecht

DarkFish

02-03-10, 07:21 PM

you can't just let it go, can you? very well then, here we go again:yawn:
after all he is only repeatedly demonstrating that he doesn't understand the law and will not understand the law.excuse me? I'm the only one who actually came up with some articles from the Dutch law. All YOU give as argument is "Of course it is". Now *I* am the one who doesn't understand the law?

If you did understand the law yourself so very well, it surely wouldn't have been too hard to come up with some articles to prove me wrong.

All he has to do is read the charge his father posted to see how wrong he has been all along.I admit the fact that I have been wrong about what he was charged with. Which is not my fault, because as you can see from the date my dad posted the final charge, I had already started this thread before that. I only had the information available at the time, and at that time my dad was initially charged with something else.

However, my main point is not, and has never been, the fact that he resisted arrest. My main point has always been that he did nothing to be rightfully removed from the town hall.
To counter my main point, you consistently say "It's against Dutch law and customs" but fail to produce ANY evidence for that. Is it very irreasonable to expect a native Dutchman to know more about the Dutch law and customs than an Irishman?
So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't? You do the maths.

August

02-03-10, 08:18 PM

To counter my main point, you consistently say "It's against Dutch law and customs" but fail to produce ANY evidence for that. Is it very irreasonable to expect a native Dutchman to know more about the Dutch law and customs than an Irishman?
So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't? You do the maths.

You'll find that Tribesman is a self proclaimed expert in all kinds of national legal systems but never provides anything of substance to back those claims up.

My advice to you is the same as for the other guy. Don't feed the troll.

Your father sounds like a true Dutch patriot. Good luck to him.

Tribesman

02-04-10, 04:24 AM

You'll find that Tribesman is a self proclaimed expert in all kinds of national legal systems but never provides anything of substance to back those claims up.

So his fathers summons detailing the charge and naming the law it is being brought under is of no substance.
It is you who is being the troll August. In fact you often troll by entering a debate where you know nothing of the subject and demonstrate that you have no intention of ever knowing anything about it.

excuse me? I'm the only one who actually came up with some articles from the Dutch law.
You came up with a long pile of laws that your father is not being charged with.:rotfl2:
That happens to count for nothing, though it could be taken that you were attempting to deliberately mislead.

I admit the fact that I have been wrong about what he was charged with. Which is not my fault, because as you can see from the date my dad posted the final charge, I had already started this thread before that. I only had the information available at the time, and at that time my dad was initially charged with something else.

Irelevant. I asked you about what your father had posted and why it was not in line with your claims.
I asked you about the specific law.
You then claimed it was a diferent law and again repeated that I don't understand and was wrong.
The problem Darkfish is that you have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on just about every legal aspect of the case yet are insisting that you are still correct and its others who don't understand the law.

Is it very irreasonable to expect a native Dutchman to know more about the Dutch law and customs than an Irishman?

Results say otherwise.
So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't? You do the maths.
Your maths was clearly faulty.
It appears that you were simply trying a bluff.

BTW ever heard of a loaded question?
Its very popular in certain circles.
Its very handy when you want an answer to something that you already know.
When the person questioned is unable to answer or comes up with a different answer it means one of two things.
Either they don't actually know what they are talking about or they are deliberately making stuff up.:hmmm:

DarkFish

02-04-10, 05:56 AM

You came up with a long pile of laws that your father is not being charged with.:rotfl2:that was what he was initially being charged with, and what I thought the charge still was when I posted.
The current charge has nothing to do with the reason why he was removed from the town hall. The current charge is, put simply, resisting arrest/removal. I have never ever denied that he did resist arrest/refused to leave.
My whole point is that he was unrightfully removed.
Irelevant. I asked you about what your father had posted and why it was not in line with your claims.
I asked you about the specific law.
You then claimed it was a diferent law and again repeated that I don't understand and was wrong.I did only once claim it was a different law, and that is when I became aware of the final charge instead of the initial one, after YOU posted the final charge. So YOU are the one that claimed it was a different law (though you were right on that)
I don't claim, and never have, you're being wrong on the matter of the final charge, after all he did resist arrest.

What I do claim you to be wrong on, is on the matter of if he was RIGHTFULLY removed.
The problem Darkfish is that you have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on just about every legal aspect of the case yet are insisting that you are still correct and its others who don't understand the law.shown? what do you mean "shown"? All you have shown is your great argument of "of course".
Is it very irreasonable to expect a native Dutchman to know more about the Dutch law and customs than an Irishman? Results say otherwise.So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't? You do the maths.Your maths was clearly faulty.And again, you randomly throw around accusations without producing a shred of evidence. "Clearly" isn't exactly a good reason.:roll:
:nope:
When the person questioned is unable to answer or comes up with a different answer it means one of two things.
Either they don't actually know what they are talking about or they are deliberately making stuff up.:hmmm:I asked you "So who is more likely to be right here? Someone who has lived in the Netherlands his entire life, or someone who hasn't?". You were unable to come up with the right answer, so it means one of the following two things:
Either you don't actually know what you're talking about or you're deliberately trolling.:hmmm:

CaptainHaplo

02-04-10, 09:38 AM

Ach - your quoting tribesman - and then ask if he is deliberately trolling.

Its tribesman - so the answer is an automatic yes. He has been challenged by numerous forum members to provide links/references on his various inane claims - and still fails utterly to do so. His theme is "I say this, so it must be so, and if you don't agree, I will ignore every point you make and hearken to some earlier arguement where I can take you out of context or ignore the reality that you might be researching an opposing view, all for the purpose of trying to discredit you."

Good advice that - Dont feed the troll. Iggy button is a great tool.

Tribesman

02-05-10, 03:58 AM

What a surprise , Haplo the troll popped up with nothing to say about the topic in question.

Darkside.
It really is a simple issue.
You keep going on about rights, that shows you donn't understand the law.
Your father had issues with the opinion of the council official, that shows he doesn't understand the law.

When you choose to go into a council meeting the only rights you have there are those the council says you have.
The only opinion on what is acceptable conduct in that meeting is the person whose job under law is to decide what is acceptable conduct.

The whole issue is that your father didn'tunderstand the law and didn't realise that the word of that "pesky official" is the only word that counts.

That is why he was arrested and charged with trespass(unlawful presence in a municipal building to be specific).
He gave up his right to freely wave his flag and to say what he likes the moment he walked into the meeting.....
It really is that simple, its very basic law.
From the moment that your father refused to do what the official told him he was commiting an offence.
Under Dutch law the official (who has no powers of arrest) is then obliged to call the police.

HunterICX

02-05-10, 04:57 AM

@Tribesman, unless you actually live in the Netherlands you don't have a clue how it works there.

the law in the Netherlands is so double-edged that the Criminal has more rights then it's victims.

HunterICX

Tribesman

02-05-10, 07:34 AM

@Tribesman, unless you actually live in the Netherlands you don't have a clue how it works there.

Hunter, you are missing a vital word there.
Its a vital word that puts the kybosh onto Darfish's gamble on probability and maths.

the law in the Netherlands is so double-edged that the Criminal has more rights then it's victims.

No, but it can sometimes seem that way.

I am glad you used that word ....."criminal". Its criminal law, it ceased being civil law once he refused to obey the official.
Better tell darkfish as his "local expertise" has had him claiming irrelevant laws as proof.:up:

So I suppose one final question for darkfish, he should by now have realised that his father is guilty as charged and has no realistic defence.

If he now chooses to not pay the fine how long can he be sent to jail for?
I will even give you multiple choice to make it easier.
1 day
28 days
3 months
6 months
1 year
10 years
Hint(the answer is in the criminal code not the civil code)

DarkFish

02-05-10, 08:10 PM

You keep going on about rights, that shows you donn't understand the law.
Your father had issues with the opinion of the council official, that shows he doesn't understand the law.ah yes, and of course you as a foreigner do know everything about the dutch law:yeah:

You claim to be an expert on the Dutch law, but all you can produce as evidence for your case is "of course it is", "irrelevant" and "I think you know nothing about the Dutch law so you don't understand the law"
while in fact you know nothing about it at all.
He gave up his right to freely wave his flag and to say what he likes the moment he walked into the meeting.....If this doesn't show how little in fact you know about the Dutch law, nothing does.
Here in the Netherlands we DO have the right to freely wave flags and banners:http://denhaag.sp.nl/include/afd/afd_pickies/tippelactie2.jpg
http://www.capelleaandenijssel.nl/afbeeldingen/Gemeenteraad/Raad_2009/Gemeenteraadsvergadering%2014%20december%202009.jp g
http://www.stophostelsdenbosch.nl/images/fakkeltocht22sep09/stophostelsdenbosch-fakkeltocht-22sep09-6-s2.jpg
From the moment that your father refused to do what the official told him he was commiting an offence.
Under Dutch law the official (who has no powers of arrest) is then obliged to call the police. I really, really do not want to repeat things I've said a thousand times already.
Read this post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1257759&postcount=78), 1st line of the last paragraph.

Better tell darkfish as his "local expertise" has had him claiming irrelevant laws as proof.:up:this post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1257759&postcount=78), next to last paragraph.

One final question for you: do you even read my posts? There are things I've mentioned more than 5 times now, and it still seems you have never read them.
Have you got reading problems? or are you deliberately "forgetting" everything you don't like to read?

Dowly

02-05-10, 08:38 PM

Daaamn, you two still going? :DL

Tribesman

02-05-10, 08:44 PM

ah yes, and of course you as a foreigner do know everything about the dutch law
Once again you make the obvious mistake.
Two simple questions.
How many countries have you lived in and how many different legal
and politcal processes in how many countries have you had to deal with?
The wonderful thing about being a foriegner is the amount of ****e you have to learn if you want to do business when living in foriegn countries.

You claim to be an expert on the Dutch law, but all you can produce as evidence for your case is "of course it is",
Thats because its so obvious, your inability to understand your own laws(or even identify them) has been repeatedly proven by yourself.
Every time I push a question you fail.

If this doesn't show how little in fact you know about the Dutch law, nothing does.
Here in the Netherlands we DO have the right to freely wave flags and banners:
You did it again.
Can you provide a picture of someone waving a banner after the "pesky clerk" has told them to stop or leave?

Read the law , it on your dads sheet. its also written plainly in the dutchcriminal code, its covered under Arnhems own municipal regs.

BTW the jail term can be 3 months .
Am I to assume you couldn't get the multiple choice question because you
don't know the law?
The maths on that one going by known knowns would suggest the probability is so high it is a dead cert.

One final question for you: do you even read my posts? There are things I've mentioned more than 5 times now, and it still seems you have never read them.
Have you got reading problems? or are you deliberately "forgetting" everything you don't like to read?
The problem there is you keep on repeating things which demonstrate that you don't know the law.
Instead of just repeating them why don't you consider dropping the assumptions you have had from the moment your father was arrested and actually check properly.

DarkFish

02-05-10, 10:26 PM

You know what? to show the stupidity of your comments i'll just use YOUR answers this time:yeah:

Two simple questions.
How many countries have you lived in and how many different legal
and politcal processes in how many countries have you had to deal with?
The wonderful thing about being a foriegner is the amount of ****e you have to learn if you want to do business when living in foriegn countries.Irrelevant:rotfl2:

Thats because its so obvious, your inability to understand your own laws(or even identify them) has been repeatedly proven by yourself.
Every time I push a question you fail.The problem Tribesman is that you have repeatedly been shown to be wrong on just about every legal aspect of the case yet are insisting that you are still correct and its others who don't understand the law.:har:It appears that you were simply trying a bluff.Of course not. And when the point is so basic then "of course" is entirely sufficient.:D

You did it again.
Can you provide a picture of someone waving a banner after the "pesky clerk" has told them to stop or leave?You demonstrate that you don't understand the laws or the rights concerning protest.:haha:

Read the law , it on your dads sheet. its also written plainly in the dutchcriminal code, its covered under Arnhems own municipal regs.It appears that you were simply trying a bluff.:har:
Can you understand the rules concerning public meetings?
Can you understand the laws covering the rules?
It appears not.

BTW the jail term can be 3 months .
Am I to assume you couldn't get the multiple choice question because you
don't know the law?
The maths on that one going by known knowns would suggest the probability is so high it is a dead cert.Your maths was clearly faulty. :yeah:

The problem there is you keep on repeating things ...You have a point, after all I am only repeatedly demonstrating that you don't understand the law and will not understand the law.:D... which demonstrate that you don't know the law. Once again you make the obvious mistake.
There lies one problem, your inability to understand Dutch laws(or even identify them) has been repeatedly proven by yourself.
It really is a simple issue that shows you don't understand the law.:har:

Instead of just repeating them why don't you consider dropping the assumptions you have had from the moment your father was arrested and actually check properly.That happens to count for nothing, though it could be taken that you were attempting to deliberately troll.:rotfl2:

oh and of course you're gonna sue me for plagiarism now:yeah:

Rilder

02-05-10, 10:27 PM

T-shirts!
A good way to show the flag, is on T-shirts.
I personaly dislike to wear a hat, but that also works well.

The ultimate is face painting.

Hope your dad is doing well now.

But my face is already painted! I am a Juggalo after all. ;)

DarkFish

02-05-10, 10:28 PM

Daaamn, you two still going? :DLDarkfish vs Tribesman
http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/owned029.jpghttp://cache.hyves-static.net/images/smilies/default/smiley_boxing.gif

Tribesman

02-06-10, 03:38 AM

You know what? to show the stupidity of your comments i'll just use YOUR answers this time
That doesn't work as you don't know what you are talking about.

One last time.
You can show a million pictures of people waving flags in meetings.
It means nothing.
There is only one thing that matters, there is only one thing that has ever mattered about the incident.
It really is so simple.
So simple indeed that many people spotted it straight away.

Your father carried on doing something after he was told to stop.
That choice he made makes him guilty of a crime.
The only legal opinion on what is acceptable behavior in the meeting is that of the person your father didn't obey.

As for those pictures, you are the pile of bones.
Actually so is your father as the rabbit is the pesky official and the rants about blacks muslims communists elections and flags are entirely irrelevant to a meeting concerning valid legal objections under local planning codes.

Stealth Hunter

02-06-10, 04:40 AM

That doesn't work as you don't know what you are talking about.

One last time.
You can show a million pictures of people waving flags in meetings.
It means nothing.
There is only one thing that matters, there is only one thing that has ever mattered about the incident.
It really is so simple.
So simple indeed that many people spotted it straight away.

Your father carried on doing something after he was told to stop.
That choice he made makes him guilty of a crime.
The only legal opinion on what is acceptable behavior in the meeting is that of the person your father didn't obey.

As for those pictures, you are the pile of bones.
Actually so is your father as the rabbit is the pesky official and the rants about blacks muslims communists elections and flags are entirely irrelevant to a meeting concerning valid legal objections under local planning codes.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2nsc2yv.jpg

Morts

02-06-10, 05:28 AM

Tribesman

02-06-10, 06:54 AM

failtroll is fail

Well thats novel.

One great suggestion for Darkfish and his father, don't consult a lawyer, don't pay the fine, go to court and claim innocence as you really know the law and you know you can do whatever you like in a government building and there certainly ain't no government employee who has the legal right to tell you to stop.

Though I would suggest that Darkfish keeps very quiet and does nothing in the public gallery of the court as their rules are far more stringent than those in a council office and the punishment is more severe.....which of course he know as he know the law:rotfl2:

Onkel Neal

02-06-10, 07:22 AM

...or rather quite the opposite

yesterday my dad, 64 and heart patient, was brutally arrested and, with only few clothes on him, literally thrown into an ice-cold cell. This all because of one terrible crime...
...he raised the Dutch flag while on the visitors bench in a city council's meeting.

The city counsil was discussing a plan for placing a giant mosque in our neighbourhood. To be the biggest mosque in all the province. Room for 500 mosque-goers, from all over the country, and that while there's already much too less room to park all residents cars, let alone a few hundred more. Not to mention the minarettes and the loud calling for prayers.
Needless to say pretty much all the neighbourhood was against those plans, and a large number of us went to the city council's meeting to protest, and at least see what the outcome would be.
There, my dad put the Dutch flag on his walking stick, and raised it. He was immediately summoned to lower our national flag, which he refused. Within a matter of minutes EIGHT police officers (bit overdone, 8 VS one 64 year old man with bad health:shifty:) stormed the buiding and dragged my dad straight out, under loud protest of all present.
Luckily eventually the counsil decided against the mosque after all.

Now compare this with the US, rarely do I see any pic without the US flag showing up someplace.

What in the devils name will become of this country if we can't even raise our national flag anymore?!:damn:

(PS sorry for this rant:oops: but I just want to remind you that how overexaggerated it might look at times, you US citizens should be lucky to still be allowed a little patriotism:up:)

Your father simply raised the flag and was not being disruptive? (No threats, shouting, etc?) :o

Was he asked to leave and refused?

DarkFish

02-06-10, 09:22 AM

:yawn: failtroll is failand obvious troll is obvious
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fail-blue-screen.jpg

You know what? to show the stupidity of your comments i'll just use YOUR answers this timeThat doesn't work as you don't know what you are talking about.You finally admit your own answers don't work AND you admit that they show you don't know what you're talking about?! Even better than what I hoped for:yeah:

DarkFish

02-06-10, 09:28 AM

Your father simply raised the flag and was not being disruptive? (No threats, shouting, etc?) :o

Was he asked to leave and refused?that pretty much sums it up yeah.
He raised the flag and did not shout, threaten or did anything else disruptive.

He was asked to leave and refused.

My point is not that he was arrested because he refused to leave. My point is WHY he was asked to leave. He was asked to leave while he didn't do anything disruptive.

I've been telling that the whole time, but someone here has not been able to grasp that yet:yawn:

Skybird

02-06-10, 09:47 AM

I've been telling that the whole time, but someone here has not been able to grasp that yet:yawn:

Oh I assume he is perfectly able to grasp that. It's just that he is not willing. Telling by repeated bad experience, I recommend you stop wasting your breath. It's not for no reason that many people have switched him to "ignore". You can tell him whatever you want, and repeat it as often as you want, it will never matter.

Nothing better to do with your time? ;) :)

Tribesman

02-06-10, 02:08 PM

He raised the flag and did not shout, threaten or did anything else disruptive.

Irrelevant, your opinion om what counts as disruptive or threatening behavior anythinbgn cv ounts for nothing......that is the law in your country
One persons opinion counts and that person is named on your fathers writ.
that simple fact demonstrates thyt you don't understand Dutch law.

Oh I assume he is perfectly able to grasp that.
Skybird should be able to grasp that .
After all how often has he complained that his legitimate complaints under German law have been screwed over by the actions of idiots(can I say that Sky has had problems with neo nazis sharing his platform?) in council meetings who don't understand laws.

Nothing better to do with your time?
Exactly, I got outbid last week. That was in Jims land.It don't affect my finances though
Down your way there ain't no market so why would bother unless it was the selling to myuself of something I already had????
Someone relate to Skybird what the hell us dumb Micks have been doingfor the past years while our domnestic crooks have been trying to line thier pockets...as of courser mhe can't read it himself as his arrogance on the global conspiracy and his supreme wisdom has left him blind.

Its the Muslims Skybird , no matter what the subject is , they are all out to get you...its I:har:SLAM:yeah:they breed like rabbits we need a wonder wea[pon to stop the demographic myth before Jedis rule the world.

Or back to topic , does anyone want to explain to Darkfish how his fathers rights become resricted the moment he enters the council building?

Its set out in dutch law if you didn't realise....the same law that got him arrested.

DarkFish

02-06-10, 02:40 PM

Irrelevant, your opinion om what counts as disruptive or threatening behavior anythinbgn cv ounts for nothing......that is the law in your country
One persons opinion counts and that person is named on your fathers writ.
that simple fact demonstrates thyt you don't understand Dutch law.
There you go again. Everything you don't like is labeled "Irrelevant".
Very easy way to 'prove' your right: "I have got no evidence for my case whatsoever, but if I label all your evidence as 'irrelevant' you haven't got any either":yeah:

Oh I assume he is perfectly able to grasp that. It's just that he is not willing. Telling by repeated bad experience, I recommend you stop wasting your breath. It's not for no reason that many people have switched him to "ignore". You can tell him whatever you want, and repeat it as often as you want, it will never matter.yeah it seems so. He refuses to read my posts, forcing me to repeat everything a thousand times. Meanwhile he's drifting away from my point, ignoring everything I say and attacking me on newly made up topics I never talked about. He's both accusing me of having said things I've never said, and purposely ignoring relevant things I *have* said.
Nothing better to do with your time? ;) :)yes actually I have. As his repeatedly asking already answered questions shows, Tribesman proves unable to read my posts. So what's the point in answering more of his questions if he doesn't read them anyway?

Tribesman

02-06-10, 04:33 PM

There you go again. Everything you don't like is labeled "Irrelevant"
For gods sake Darkfish why can't you understand?
There is only one thing that is relevant.
You must know what it is
Its on your fathers charge sheet.

One thing matters , that is the law.
The only thing that matters is the opinion of the person who decides what is acceptable.
Its in national law , its in municiple law , he is apponted by the municipality under their laws reinforced with national laws.
On a cartoon scale that peskiy clerk is Judge Dread...as far as meeting go that ar e under his remit "his word is law"

As said before , if you doubt me on some basis of Dutch law then tell your father to not pay the fine.

The ball is in your court.
Similar to what your father was told .
put up or shut up:yeah:

But hey you had enough opertunities for that and chose to do neither, since every question I ask you about Dutch law you fail, to answer or give an answer that is irrelevant under Dutch law.
(for those in doubt can you compare civil law with criminal law) (in the netherlands of course as some of you may never have lived there)

As his repeatedly asking already answered questions shows
if your answer does not answer the question it is irrelevant.
If I ask you under which law you have the right to wave a flag in a meetinfg about planning permission and your answer is ...the law is "child protection" it "clearly " demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about.
When you insist that your selection of laws that are not applicable in the situation(in the main, not by even a huge stretch of the imagination) are the laws you knowe and the lkaws that are applicable then you demonstrate that you don't know the law.

I could have said "clearly" without any further comment.
Butr every time you hasve chosen to make "clearly" that much clearer for anyone whom is willing to look.

Can I ask again....... as it is a long time since you and your father specificly talked about the prospect......Have you talke to a lawyer ye as us damn foriegn micks(of my generation) being a nation of people who go outr foriegn don't understand foriegn laws.

But come on Darkfish , you want probabilities and Maths , on specifics how many council meetings in how many countries all with their own process have I had to go through?

Yeah you have lived where you live all your life and appear to have done very little.
Can I make a guess (just for the purpoose of demonstration)on how many meetings of you local council you have attended?
Can I make a guess on how many planning meetings you have attended?
Is it none?
None before your dad got into trouble?
None whatsoever?
None in the slightest?
OK I went to one but knew that what the nasty little "official" said was law?

Interesting questions ain't they.
But its Ok I expect your normal answer.
I don't know your laws because "currently" I live in Ireland
(notice a word there Hunter:har:)
I don't know your laws because I ain't been applying for and objecting to developments across the continent and into other continents in the slightest for many many years.
I just bin sitting here in backwards Ireland working for nothing but taxing and waiting to die
But on a european range avoid Spain both parts of former Czechlands, don't go any where near N. Cyprus even as a tax scheme and be very very careful where there is the possibility of Russian involvement(as in the latter the law don't count for bugger all)(which is a warning for any of you Brits who think you may make a penny on the olympics)(or Poles with the Soccer...but I think most of them Poles with a chance of competing got suckered out to Europes second miracle...iceland.

Still , one last chance.
Ain't I a gem. Generous to a fault:har:
There you go again. Everything you don't like is labeled "Irrelevant".

Darkfish, my likes and dislikes of Dutch law concerning municipal meetings on the subject of planning permission are not even mentioned, they have not come into play once in the slightest.
You are the one that is letting personal emotion cloud the issue
I do not give a flying Dutchman about your fathers views on planning.
I do not give a fig about the crazy turk nationalists who want the project(don't tell skybird though as you know what his fetish is like).
The only issue here is Dutch law , dutch law concerning conduct in municpal buildings.

The only opinion that matters in this respect is the opinion of the official that told your father to shut up or leave.
He is the law period, at that instant he is the be all and end all as far as legal beghavior is concerned.
Ignore the law at your peril as ignorance of the law is no defence.
So either your father knew the law and ignored it.....which means he is guilty
Or he didn't know the law but wrongly thought he knew the law better tnan the legal fella whose job is the law...which means he is guilty.

Now you may maintain that the law is wrong(which you havn't as you maintain that the law isn't the law)
You could take it toi parliament, you could take it to your queen.....but if you go in their buildings and to do anything after the offiacial tells you not to do it then you id buggered(ubntil you change the law...dutch law that is ...the law of the Netherlands...where I don't live anymore as I is errrrrrr....Irish who don't be knowing nothing so we don't because we currently reside in errrrrr...Ireland....:rotfl2:)

He refuses to read my posts, forcing me to repeat everything a thousand times
BTW Darkfish if what you write has already been addressed then you don't have to repeat it , repeatingf it just shows that you don't understand why what you wrote is wrong.
If you repeat it 5 times it shows that you really don't understand.
When you repeat it even after it is simply explained you are showing a real problem .
As a sample look at breach of the peace.
Such a catch all wide ranging charge that covers both the civil code and criminal code in about 4 dozen instances.

What did you say about that single piece of legislation again and again?

Onkel Neal

02-06-10, 04:52 PM

It's awesome how much time people have to discuss the important topics of the day.

DarkFish

02-06-10, 06:14 PM

Listen, I ain't stupid enough to keep answering people that refuse to even look at my answers so the next two are the last ones that you'll get from me.
You can keep on trolling this thread to oblivion but I don't see any point in continuing answering your posts if you keep on trying to derail this thread.
BTW Darkfish if what you write has already been addressed then you don't have to repeat it , repeatingf it just shows that you don't understand why what you wrote is wrong.
If you repeat it 5 times it shows that you really don't understand.and this answer shows you haven't read any of my posts, as what I've been repeating all the time is NOT ABOUT LAWS but about WHAT MY MAIN POINT IS, so it's something I CANNOT be wrong about.

You keep on addressing the issue of "What's on your fathers charge sheet", while that's NOTHING I have EVER denied, or EVER claimed the police to be wrong about.

To quote myself here for a minute: "Meanwhile he's drifting away from my point, ignoring everything I say and attacking me on newly made up topics I never talked about. He's both accusing me of having said things I've never said, and purposely ignoring relevant things I *have* said."
Yeah you have lived where you live all your life and appear to have done very little.
Can I make a guess (just for the purpoose of demonstration)on how many meetings of you local council you have attended?
Can I make a guess on how many planning meetings you have attended?
Is it none?
None before your dad got into trouble?
None whatsoever?
None in the slightest?wrong on all your assumptions.

Now.. see ya!http://www.kattensite.be/forum/images/smilies/icon_wave.gif

Tribesman

02-07-10, 07:33 AM

wrong on all your assumptions.

Ah , so those you listed off my list were wrong off, which leaves the last one.
It was your first time, I hope you enjoyed it.

and this answer shows you haven't read any of my posts, as what I've been repeating all the time is NOT ABOUT LAWS

Is that why you insist your father could wave a flag under law?
From the very start and consistantly throughout the topic you have insisted your father had the legal right to do what he was doing.
Its Dutch law:rotfl2:

WHAT MY MAIN POINT IS, so it's something I CANNOT be wrong about
Your main point is that your father is allowed to wave a flag as its his right so he did nothing wrong.
Which is where you are wrong as that comes down to a matter of law.

An interesting side note though.
There was a topic the other week about someone being bailed.
It that case it meant they was released from police custody at hte time they had to be released from police custody
When your dad got released from Police custody after 20 hours how on earth did you think that meant they had nothing and the charges would be dropped?

Snestorm

02-08-10, 07:51 AM

Irrelevant, your opinion om what counts as disruptive or threatening behavior anythinbgn cv ounts for nothing......that is the law in your country
One persons opinion counts and that person is named on your fathers writ.
that simple fact demonstrates thyt you don't understand Dutch law.

Skybird should be able to grasp that .
After all how often has he complained that his legitimate complaints under German law have been screwed over by the actions of idiots(can I say that Sky has had problems with neo nazis sharing his platform?) in council meetings who don't understand laws.

Exactly, I got outbid last week. That was in Jims land.It don't affect my finances though
Down your way there ain't no market so why would bother unless it was the selling to myuself of something I already had????
Someone relate to Skybird what the hell us dumb Micks have been doingfor the past years while our domnestic crooks have been trying to line thier pockets...as of courser mhe can't read it himself as his arrogance on the global conspiracy and his supreme wisdom has left him blind.

Its the Muslims Skybird , no matter what the subject is , they are all out to get you...its I:har:SLAM:yeah:they breed like rabbits we need a wonder wea[pon to stop the demographic myth before Jedis rule the world.

Or back to topic , does anyone want to explain to Darkfish how his fathers rights become resricted the moment he enters the council building?

Its set out in dutch law if you didn't realise....the same law that got him arrested.

Are you related to OTH?

DarkFish

02-08-10, 02:20 PM

Are you related to OTH?:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

probably not but they're certainly good friends:yeah:

Tribesman

02-08-10, 06:17 PM

Has he seen a lawyer yet Darkfish:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Snestorm, hows your long discredited 1930s form of nationalist patriotism going?
Did you get excited when someone mentioned waving flags?

NeonSamurai

02-08-10, 07:08 PM

I am not going to have to step in here again am I?

Snestorm

02-08-10, 11:17 PM

Has he seen a lawyer yet Darkfish:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Snestorm, hows your long discredited 1930s form of nationalist patriotism going?
Did you get excited when someone mentioned waving flags?

This one is super exciting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWxJHVGIIc8

DarkFish

05-19-10, 02:38 PM

small update, got a call from my mom today, it appears my dad has brought the case to court, and has WON THE CASE!!!:woot:

He doesn't have to pay the fine. He is on a short probation however for disobeying the council official.
Next time he's ordered to do this or that he'd better listen:)
It does show however he was in his right to wave the flag, and the council official should not have ordered him to lower it.

Justice has been served!:yeah:

Now what's with a certain member of my ignore list who proclaimed to know the Dutch muncipal laws all too well?

Schroeder

05-19-10, 02:44 PM

I don't get it, how can he be on probation if what the council official asked him to do had no legal background?:06:

DarkFish

05-19-10, 02:53 PM

I don't get it, how can he be on probation if what the council official asked him to do had no legal background?:06:Well, he's on probation for disobeying the council officer/police. Even though it had no legal background, he should have obeyed the officer, especially so when the police came to assist.

How it is that he gets a probation, while still winning the case - don't ask me, I'm no judge:88)

August

05-19-10, 03:00 PM

Now what's with a certain member of my ignore list who proclaimed to know the Dutch muncipal laws all too well?

I think he's pretty much on everyone's ignore list by now... :DL

Jimbuna

05-19-10, 03:06 PM

Congratulations to your old man :up:

I think he's pretty much on everyone's ignore list by now... :DL

LOL :DL

Snestorm

05-19-10, 03:26 PM

Thanks for sharing the good news.
I'm happy for both him, and your country.

Tribesman

05-19-10, 05:12 PM

small update, got a call from my mom today, it appears my dad has brought the case to court, and has WON THE CASE!!!
Caps Lock strikes again.:har:
Since he was charged for not obeying the council official and is now on probation for not obeying the council official then he didn't win the case.

How it is that he gets a probation, while still winning the case - don't ask me, I'm no judge
He didn't win the case, thats why he got probation:har:

Even though it had no legal background, he should have obeyed the officer,
The legal background is the law your father was charged with and convicted of which says the court clerk must be obeyed on matters of public order in council meetings.

Now what's with a certain member of my ignore list who proclaimed to know the Dutch muncipal laws all too well?
:rotfl2:
You display your ignorance of the law, he was found guilty.

Still, congratulation on him "winning" the smaller penalty of probation for being guilty of breaking the law rather than the option of the fixed fine for being guilty of breaking the law.

DarkFish

05-19-10, 05:35 PM

I see that a certain member from my ignore list just posted here.
Without reading his post, I guess that he's simply denying all I've said, probably saying my dad is guilty after all, proclaiming he knows better what happened in the trial than I do, and probably something more about me supposedly not knowing Dutch laws and customs.

Am I right?:DL

Tribesman

05-19-10, 05:40 PM

Without reading his post, I guess that he's simply denying all I've said, probably saying my dad is guilty after all, proclaiming he knows better what happened in the trial than I do, and probably something more about me supposedly not knowing Dutch laws and customs.

Perfect:yeah: He makes it so easy
After all you cannot get a court to sentence you to probation unless you are found guilty:rotfl2:

Snestorm

05-19-10, 05:43 PM

Am I right?:DL

This is the price of having an ignore list, and the reason why I don't have one.

TLAM Strike

05-19-10, 06:09 PM

Be glad he didn't start singing the national anthem too, he could have sent to the Dutch version of Gitmo for that! :doh:

Did he consider saying he was trying to raise the French flag and simply was holding it wrong? :DL

I think your city council needs to relax a little, maybe get them some weed (or a prostitute). I have heard there is some available in your country. :up:

BTW I think the western world need a few more DarkFish Seniors in it. :salute:

DarkFish

05-19-10, 06:47 PM

Did he consider saying he was trying to raise the French flag and simply was holding it wrong? :DL:har:
I think your city council needs to relax a little, maybe get them some weed (or a prostitute). I have heard there is some available in your country. :up:Never had either of them, but there's plenty:DL

Anyway, since the court ruled against their case, I hope the city council will have a more relaxed attitude on the matter in the future:)

Tribesman

05-20-10, 12:54 AM

Anyway, since the court ruled against their case
:har:
Though there does remain one issue.
As he was found guilty as charged did he have to pay the prosecutios costs? Did he also have to pay for representation himself?
Would these costs amount to more than the fixed penalty option he was offered?

Schroeder

05-20-10, 05:53 AM

This is the price of having an ignore list, and the reason why I don't have one.
You can still view posts of people on your ignore list if you want to.:03:

Tribesman

05-20-10, 07:18 AM

You can still view posts of people on your ignore list if you want to.
Don't confuse him further, leave him in the strange land where getting convicted in court on the charges you faced actually means being found innocent of that charge. :rotfl2:
It just goes to show that ignorance is bliss:yeah:

August

05-20-10, 07:22 AM

You can still view posts of people on your ignore list if you want to.:03:

That's like saying you can still stab yourself in the eye. Why would you?

DarkFish

05-20-10, 07:30 AM

You can still view posts of people on your ignore list if you want to.:03:true. i can't say i really have the desire though.

now, tribesman, since i don't read your posts anyway, why don't you just give up and go troll some other thread?:shifty:

btw, if someone thinks tribesman has raised a good question for a change, feel free to repeat that question. i will answer to all posts except for tribesman's, even if the question originally was his (i don't have a problem with the questions he asks, i just have a problem with the way he continuously fails to read my answers, and proclaims his own supposed expertise above my first hand accounts of what's really happening).

Tribesman

05-20-10, 08:00 AM

now, tribesman, since i don't read your posts anyway, why don't you just give up and go troll some other thread?
I will give up on this topic when Darkfish stops posting claims that are so obviously blatantly untrue.

and proclaims his own supposed expertise above my first hand accounts of what's really happening
Like claiming someone has won a case and is innocent when the case was lost and a conviction ruled?

That first hand account is so reliable:rotfl2:, perhaps it might be more reliable if Darkfish were not so emotionaly attatched to the issue as it has completely blinded him to the facts of the case.

Thee truth of the matter is that Darkfish doesn't have to read what I write to see the answer.
The point was raised by Scroeder
I don't get it, how can he be on probation if what the council official asked him to do had no legal background?
At which point Darkfish came in with his local legal expertise....
How it is that he gets a probation, while still winning the case - don't ask me, I'm no judge

And as anyone with an iota of common sense should know, you don't need to be a judge to understand that you can only be given any sentence for a charge if you are found guilty of that charge.

One question I would like answered though, did "winning" the conviction in court cost his dad more than the fixed penalty of 100 euros?

Kapitan

05-21-10, 05:21 PM

...or rather quite the opposite

yesterday my dad, 64 and heart patient, was brutally arrested and, with only few clothes on him, literally thrown into an ice-cold cell. This all because of one terrible crime...
...he raised the Dutch flag while on the visitors bench in a city council's meeting.

The city counsil was discussing a plan for placing a giant mosque in our neighbourhood. To be the biggest mosque in all the province. Room for 500 mosque-goers, from all over the country, and that while there's already much too less room to park all residents cars, let alone a few hundred more. Not to mention the minarettes and the loud calling for prayers.
Needless to say pretty much all the neighbourhood was against those plans, and a large number of us went to the city council's meeting to protest, and at least see what the outcome would be.
There, my dad put the Dutch flag on his walking stick, and raised it. He was immediately summoned to lower our national flag, which he refused. Within a matter of minutes EIGHT police officers (bit overdone, 8 VS one 64 year old man with bad health:shifty:) stormed the buiding and dragged my dad straight out, under loud protest of all present.
Luckily eventually the counsil decided against the mosque after all.

Now compare this with the US, rarely do I see any pic without the US flag showing up someplace.

What in the devils name will become of this country if we can't even raise our national flag anymore?!:damn:

(PS sorry for this rant:oops: but I just want to remind you that how overexaggerated it might look at times, you US citizens should be lucky to still be allowed a little patriotism:up:)

Its not just the dutch that have these issues us brits have it too, our pub got a letter from the counsel stating they were not to put any england flgas up during the world cup incase it offended people.
I bet they wouldnt even bat an eye lid if we raised a nazi flag.

DarkFish

05-21-10, 06:19 PM

Its not just the dutch that have these issues us brits have it too, our pub got a letter from the counsel stating they were not to put any england flgas up during the world cup incase it offended people.
I bet they wouldnt even bat an eye lid if we raised a nazi flag.During the world cup?!:o are they nuts?
important international soccer matches are about the only case here where raising our flag is widely accepted. Along with a select few national holidays (like queen's day for example)

Kissaki

05-21-10, 06:57 PM

I don't see why a Dutch flag is supposed to be a sign of protest against building a mosque.

Indeed. The above is quoted from page one of this thread, and I find it strange that I didn't find similar arguments repeated in the subsequent pages.

It would make just as much sense to wave a Dutch flag as a sign of protest FOR mosques. Unless, of course, one thinks there's something fundamentally un-Islamic about the Dutch flag and what it stands for, in which case waving it can only be interpreted as being opposed to religious freedom. Which is why people associate nationalist symbols in this context with right wing extremists.

Now, as for what happened back then, it is disingenuous to say that he was arrested for waving a flag. He was arrested for refusing to follow police instructions. If the extent of those police instructions was simply to lower his flag, then it was a stupid order on behalf of the police. But things are rarely that simple, and I find it hard to believe that him simply holding a flag was what caught their attention. Was he the only one with a flag? Surely he must have done something that other flag-carriers - who were left alone - weren't doing. If he was waving the flag in the policemen's faces, for example, then that would be disrespectful and a very bad idea.

Kapitan

05-22-10, 05:45 AM

Indeed. The above is quoted from page one of this thread, and I find it strange that I didn't find similar arguments repeated in the subsequent pages.

It would make just as much sense to wave a Dutch flag as a sign of protest FOR mosques. Unless, of course, one thinks there's something fundamentally un-Islamic about the Dutch flag and what it stands for, in which case waving it can only be interpreted as being opposed to religious freedom. Which is why people associate nationalist symbols in this context with right wing extremists.

Now, as for what happened back then, it is disingenuous to say that he was arrested for waving a flag. He was arrested for refusing to follow police instructions. If the extent of those police instructions was simply to lower his flag, then it was a stupid order on behalf of the police. But things are rarely that simple, and I find it hard to believe that him simply holding a flag was what caught their attention. Was he the only one with a flag? Surely he must have done something that other flag-carriers - who were left alone - weren't doing. If he was waving the flag in the policemen's faces, for example, then that would be disrespectful and a very bad idea.

Should have raised a swastika that might draw some attention, it really does eff me off, a friend of mine has just said to me "i think hitler got it wrong gassing the jews he should have done it to the muslims" <<< not from me but there is a facebook group called lets draw mohammed day.

DarkFish

05-22-10, 08:21 AM

Now, as for what happened back then, it is disingenuous to say that he was arrested for waving a flag. He was arrested for refusing to follow police instructions. If the extent of those police instructions was simply to lower his flag, then it was a stupid order on behalf of the police....which is exactly my point.

But things are rarely that simple, and I find it hard to believe that him simply holding a flag was what caught their attention. Was he the only one with a flag? Surely he must have done something that other flag-carriers - who were left alone - weren't doing. If he was waving the flag in the policemen's faces, for example, then that would be disrespectful and a very bad idea.He was the only one with a flag. He wasn't doing anything else (shouting, swearing, you name it, he wasn't doing it). Nor doing something with the flag, like waving it in someones face.

Should have raised a swastika that might draw some attention, it really does eff me off, a friend of mine has just said to me "i think hitler got it wrong gassing the jews he should have done it to the muslims" <<< not from me but there is a facebook group called lets draw mohammed day.huh?:hmmm:

Kissaki

05-22-10, 09:55 AM

Should have raised a swastika that might draw some attention, it really does eff me off, a friend of mine has just said to me "i think hitler got it wrong gassing the jews he should have done it to the muslims" <<< not from me but there is a facebook group called lets draw mohammed day.
"Draw Mohammed Day" is an interesting concept that I actually find worthwhile. I am no Islamophobe, and as an atheist I do not view Islam in any different light than Christianity. I actually have a certain fondness for both of them.

Some use Draw Mohammed Day as a way of mocking Islam, but this is petty and a waste of an excellent opportunity to make an actual statement of value, and that is a statement of tolerance. I very much agree with youtuber AronRa on this, as the protest is against violence, not the faith:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEsX9rj4w-0

It's from 06:33 that the video is relevant to this particular topic, though the whole video is good.

I don't mind mosques being built, and I don't mind churches being built. If, in 100 years, the dominant religion in Europe is Islam, I really couldn't care less. But what I do care about is this: the newcomer must adapt to the establishment, not the other way around. If Islam wants to be accepted in Europe, Islam must conform to European culture. Christianity has a headstart in this, having grown up in Europe. The changes have been gradual enough that the Church has been able to cope.

For Islam it is going to be more difficult, but necessary all the same. Islam is no different than Christianity: Christianity has been (and someplaces still is) like Islam most places today. So has Judaism. If Christianity and Judaism, and pretty much all other religions of the world could outgrow that, there is no reason to assume that Islam can't do the same.

...which is exactly my point.
But with a little bit of foresight he should have anticipated that once the police issued the order, they weren't going to back down from it. They would have to enforce it or lose face. Perhaps the grown-up thing would be for them to admit, "yeah, you're right, we were overreacting there", but especially when dealing with protesters, who is going to expect them to admit to mistakes? It might be construed as weakness, and their authority might be seen as impotent. This is why refusing to do what the police tells you to do can be very dangerous, even if they're in the wrong. I'm not saying you should just take it, but if you're going to oppose it, think it through.

DarkFish

05-22-10, 11:13 AM

But with a little bit of foresight he should have anticipated that once the police issued the order, they weren't going to back down from it. They would have to enforce it or lose face. Perhaps the grown-up thing would be for them to admit, "yeah, you're right, we were overreacting there", but especially when dealing with protesters, who is going to expect them to admit to mistakes? It might be construed as weakness, and their authority might be seen as impotent. This is why refusing to do what the police tells you to do can be very dangerous, even if they're in the wrong. I'm not saying you should just take it, but if you're going to oppose it, think it through.It wasn't the police at first. They only came into the picture later on;)

Anyway, I understand how the police didn't want to back down once they started, but fact is they knew what was going on before they even appeared.
I can see why they arrested my dad, my point is that he shouldn't have been ordered to lower the flag.
The direct reason for being arrested was indeed not following up the council official's instructions, but eventually the cause was clearly waving the flag.
If he hadn't waved the flag, he wouldn't have been arrested.

DarkFish

05-22-10, 11:31 AM

But what I do care about is this: the newcomer must adapt to the establishment, not the other way around. If Islam wants to be accepted in Europe, Islam must conform to European culture.:sign_yeah:
I don't mind about Islam itself. I do mind about the fact that most muslims here do not want to confirm to European culture. If you move to another country, you must adapt to it.
If they come here, they can believe what they want. But they must adapt to our establishment, and not demand of us natives to adapt to theirs.

Which is why the plans for the mosque were met with a considerable amount of resistance from the neighbourhood. We don't want minarets, we don't want calls of prayers. And we certainly don't want all parking spots in the neighbourhood to be taken by mosque goers while there's not enough room now already.

Kissaki

05-22-10, 12:26 PM

:sign_yeah:
I don't mind about Islam itself. I do mind about the fact that most muslims here do not want to confirm to European culture. If you move to another country, you must adapt to it.
If they come here, they can believe what they want. But they must adapt to our establishment, and not demand of us natives to adapt to theirs.

Which is why the plans for the mosque were met with a considerable amount of resistance from the neighbourhood. We don't want minarets, we don't want calls of prayers. And we certainly don't want all parking spots in the neighbourhood to be taken by mosque goers while there's not enough room now already.
I don't see how minarets or calls to prayer go against culture, though. In this context, by "culture" I mean moral values, social norms. I am not talking about architecture, music or visual arts. Sure, a mosque or minaret is going to stand out in a non-Muslim environment at first, but only because it's different. Minarets aren't meant for you, and you're not forced to go. And so they do not interfere with your life unless you let it. Sure, we are more used to church bells than Islamic calls to prayer, but this is purely a cosmetic difference, and only a question of familiarity.

DarkFish

05-22-10, 12:48 PM

I don't see how minarets or calls to prayer go against culture, though. In this context, by "culture" I mean moral values, social norms. I am not talking about architecture, music or visual arts. Sure, a mosque or minaret is going to stand out in a non-Muslim environment at first, but only because it's different. Minarets aren't meant for you, and you're not forced to go. And so they do not interfere with your life unless you let it. Sure, we are more used to church bells than Islamic calls to prayer, but this is purely a cosmetic difference, and only a question of familiarity.I see culture as more than just moral values and norms. I see culture as the whole collection of things that differentiates one people from another. For example, that differentiates us Dutchmen from you Norwegians. While our values and norms are probably pretty similar, our cultures still differ. It's because we've got other architecture, other food, another history, other music, you name it. All these things, both material and immaterial in nature, define a culture.

It very well is a question of familiarity, but that is simply because culture in itself is a question of familiarity.

Kissaki

05-22-10, 06:17 PM

I see culture as more than just moral values and norms. I see culture as the whole collection of things that differentiates one people from another. For example, that differentiates us Dutchmen from you Norwegians. While our values and norms are probably pretty similar, our cultures still differ. It's because we've got other architecture, other food, another history, other music, you name it. All these things, both material and immaterial in nature, define a culture.

It very well is a question of familiarity, but that is simply because culture in itself is a question of familiarity.
Well, in that sort of context I do, too, which is one of the things I enjoy about going abroad, to experience different cultures in the sense you are talking about. And naturally I have a sense of what is "Norwegian" culture in this respect, too. But this is pure romanticism, and of no actual consequence beyond that. And this aspect of culture, too, must inevitably change. Neither of our countries have the same cultural flavours they did 100 or even 50 years ago, and it would be an unhealthy sign if they did. And the previous generations would no more like to live in our society than we would like to live in any future society.

Cultural "flavour" is something that gradually changes with each generation, and changes quite a bit with immigration. This is neither dangerous nor even lamentable. I'm quite the nostalgic myself, and am sad to see things of my childhood change. My late grandparents' house has been demolished and a new house is in its place, and another house where the barn was. My father recently sold half of the real estate their house is on, and with it a great, big willow tree as well as several berry bushes (red currant, black currant, raspberries, gooseberries...). All gone, now, and a new house in their place. My childhood neighbourhood looks radically different from when I grew up, but although it makes me sad I can't say that it's bad. It's simply change.

Same thing with mosques, minarets and the like. There is no way you can say that it's bad change, it's simply change you personally don't like.

ivank

05-22-10, 08:57 PM

...or rather quite the opposite

yesterday my dad, 64 and heart patient, was brutally arrested and, with only few clothes on him, literally thrown into an ice-cold cell. This all because of one terrible crime...
...he raised the Dutch flag while on the visitors bench in a city council's meeting.

The city counsil was discussing a plan for placing a giant mosque in our neighbourhood. To be the biggest mosque in all the province. Room for 500 mosque-goers, from all over the country, and that while there's already much too less room to park all residents cars, let alone a few hundred more. Not to mention the minarettes and the loud calling for prayers.
Needless to say pretty much all the neighbourhood was against those plans, and a large number of us went to the city council's meeting to protest, and at least see what the outcome would be.
There, my dad put the Dutch flag on his walking stick, and raised it. He was immediately summoned to lower our national flag, which he refused. Within a matter of minutes EIGHT police officers (bit overdone, 8 VS one 64 year old man with bad health:shifty:) stormed the buiding and dragged my dad straight out, under loud protest of all present.
Luckily eventually the counsil decided against the mosque after all.

Now compare this with the US, rarely do I see any pic without the US flag showing up someplace.

What in the devils name will become of this country if we can't even raise our national flag anymore?!:damn:

(PS sorry for this rant:oops: but I just want to remind you that how overexaggerated it might look at times, you US citizens should be lucky to still be allowed a little patriotism:up:)

that is disgusting.(what they did) btw your dad is my hero

TLAM Strike

05-22-10, 09:03 PM

It would make just as much sense to wave a Dutch flag as a sign of protest FOR mosques. Unless, of course, one thinks there's something fundamentally un-Islamic about the Dutch flag and what it stands for, in which case waving it can only be interpreted as being opposed to religious freedom. Which is why people associate nationalist symbols in this context with right wing extremists.

Slightly off topic but what does the Dutch flag stand for? What is the symbolism? Like the US flag represents the 13 original colonies and the 50 current states, or the UK flag represents the union of England, Scotland and Ireland. But what does the Dutch flag symbolize?

Wikipedia didn't say anything on this so I hope some of our Dutch subsimmers could fill me in.

Kissaki

05-22-10, 09:30 PM

Slightly off topic but what does the Dutch flag stand for? What is the symbolism? Like the US flag represents the 13 original colonies and the 50 current states, or the UK flag represents the union of England, Scotland and Ireland. But what does the Dutch flag symbolize?

Wikipedia didn't say anything on this so I hope some of our Dutch subsimmers could fill me in.
I wouldn't know what the three stripes stand for specifically, but a nation's flag will in any event stand for the nation itself and the values of its people.

Jimbuna

05-23-10, 06:10 AM

Slightly off topic but what does the Dutch flag stand for? What is the symbolism? Like the US flag represents the 13 original colonies and the 50 current states, or the UK flag represents the union of England, Scotland and Ireland. But what does the Dutch flag symbolize?

Wikipedia didn't say anything on this so I hope some of our Dutch subsimmers could fill me in.

Jeebus.....don't forget Wales :o

Wouldn't want to upset the noodle miners now, would we. :DL

Jimbuna

05-23-10, 06:10 AM

I wouldn't know what the three stripes stand for specifically, but a nation's flag will in any event stand for the nation itself and the values of its people.

http://media.worldflags101.com/i/flags/netherlands.gif

The red stripe which was originally orange, along with the white and blue stripes, are based on the heraldic colors (coat of arms) of Prince William of Orange, who led the fight for Dutch independence.

raymond6751

05-23-10, 06:21 AM

This should be a front-page story in the papers. You should make sure that all of Netherlands, the UN, the world know what happened.

If they are suitably embarassed, this might not happen again. Your Father deserves an official apology.

Write it up on a brochure and put it in the neighbourhood mailboxes, on posts, everywhere.

The Dutch people fought for that flag and should do so again! :nope: :nope: :nope:

Kissaki

05-23-10, 07:18 AM

TLAM Strike

05-23-10, 07:57 AM

http://media.worldflags101.com/i/flags/netherlands.gif

The red stripe which was originally orange, along with the white and blue stripes, are based on the heraldic colors (coat of arms) of Prince William of Orange, who led the fight for Dutch independence. Ah so it is just a extension of the coat of arms and has no deeper significance. I would say that the lack of a deeper significance is interesting in of its self, and it shows how highly regarded Prince William of Orange is in the Netherlands. :hmmm:

Jeebus.....don't forget Wales :o

Wouldn't want to upset the noodle miners now, would we. :DL

Wales is not represented on the Union Jack. The Welsh flag is a Red dragon. :yep:

August

05-23-10, 08:14 AM

Why the change from orange to red?

DarkFish

05-23-10, 09:11 AM

Ah so it is just a extension of the coat of arms and has no deeper significance. I would say that the lack of a deeper significance is interesting in of its self, and it shows how highly regarded Prince William of Orange is in the Netherlands. :hmmm:Hmm, a quick search suggests the Orange does indeed stand for the Orange family, the white stands for the government, and blue for the Nassau duchy. It doesn't seem to be "just" an extension of the coat of arms.

That said, William of Orange is indeed deeply respected here. He is the founder of our country after all.
It's also interesting to note that the Netherlands were founded as a republic of independent states (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands), much like the USA. Only after Napoleon was defeated in 1815 (after he conquered our country in 1795) did we become a monarchy.
Also see the first lines of our anthem:
Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ik van Duitsen bloed, den vaderland getrouwe blijf ik tot in den dood. Een prinse van Oranje ben ik, vrij onverveerd, den Koning van Hispanje heb ik altijd geëerd.
(William of Nassau am I from German blood, loyal to the fatherland I will remain until death. A prince of Orange am I, rather undaunted, the King of Spain I have always honoured.)

Why the orange changed to red is not entirely clear. It might be because of a lack of orange pigments, it might be for better visibility or for any of a number of reasons.

DarkFish

05-23-10, 09:40 AM

Well, in that sort of context I do, too, which is one of the things I enjoy about going abroad, to experience different cultures in the sense you are talking about. And naturally I have a sense of what is "Norwegian" culture in this respect, too. But this is pure romanticism, and of no actual consequence beyond that. And this aspect of culture, too, must inevitably change. Neither of our countries have the same cultural flavours they did 100 or even 50 years ago, and it would be an unhealthy sign if they did. And the previous generations would no more like to live in our society than we would like to live in any future society.Culture does change through time. These changes have always been relatively slow, up until the industrial revolution. But even in that time period, I dare say our culture did evolve on its own and was often not directly influenced by other cultures (foreign technology, surely, but not cultures). Our "modern" culture (19th century onwards) still differs very much from other cultures, even though there has been extensive contact with many foreign cultures throughout the years.

And I truly believe that, should immigration be limited to a minimum, our culture will continue to differ from other western European cultures.

Cultural "flavour" is something that gradually changes with each generation, and changes quite a bit with immigration. This is neither dangerous nor even lamentable. I'm quite the nostalgic myself, and am sad to see things of my childhood change. My late grandparents' house has been demolished and a new house is in its place, and another house where the barn was. My father recently sold half of the real estate their house is on, and with it a great, big willow tree as well as several berry bushes (red currant, black currant, raspberries, gooseberries...). All gone, now, and a new house in their place. My childhood neighbourhood looks radically different from when I grew up, but although it makes me sad I can't say that it's bad. It's simply change.

Same thing with mosques, minarets and the like. There is no way you can say that it's bad change, it's simply change you personally don't like.But a house been broken down or a tree cut isn't a change in culture. It's very understandable that it makes you sad, but for me it's a quite different change. The destruction of your childhood memories does not change your identity as a Norwegian.
If you do or don't mind these changes is indeed a personal matter I guess.

Personally I really love cultural differences, if I'm in another country I always try to soak up as much of the local culture as I can. I always want to try the local dishes, no matter how many creepy disgusting organ meat it contains. I admire the local architecture. I observe the local way of life. I listen to the language.
Wouldn't it be a terrible shame if this all is gone? If no matter what country you go to, you see minarets, you eat halal food, you hear Arabic speech?

I don't think it will go that far, eventually someone will interfere, but as of now, that's what we're heading.
It isn't a question of Islam per se, I know muslims that are perfectly integrated into Dutch society, and of which you wouldn't even know they were immigrants, if not for their looks. But in private, they are very well muslims.
Similarly, I also know non-muslims that completely did not integrate into our society and behave like they would do in their home country. They often do not even speak Dutch.
I prefer the first category by far.

BTW, interesting discussion IMO:up:

TLAM Strike

05-23-10, 10:20 AM

Hmm, a quick search suggests the Orange does indeed stand for the Orange family, the white stands for the government, and blue for the Nassau duchy. It doesn't seem to be "just" an extension of the coat of arms.

That said, William of Orange is indeed deeply respected here. He is the founder of our country after all.
It's also interesting to note that the Netherlands were founded as a republic of independent states (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands), much like the USA. Only after Napoleon was defeated in 1815 (after he conquered our country in 1795) did we become a monarchy.
Also see the first lines of our anthem:
Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ik van Duitsen bloed, den vaderland getrouwe blijf ik tot in den dood. Een prinse van Oranje ben ik, vrij onverveerd, den Koning van Hispanje heb ik altijd geëerd.
(William of Nassau am I from German blood, loyal to the fatherland I will remain until death. A prince of Orange am I, rather undaunted, the King of Spain I have always honoured.)

Why the orange changed to red is not entirely clear. It might be because of a lack of orange pigments, it might be for better visibility or for any of a number of reasons.

No wonder no one wants to show the flag, its a symbol of tyranny! Let see it represents: The dude in charge (William of Orange), his minions (The Government), his seat of power (Nassau duchy).

Just Kidding.

IIRC Orange is a mix of Red and Green, meaning someone making a flag would have to mix those colors in a dye, while Red and Blue are two of the primary colors and thus easy to make. White is of course an absence of color.

Jimbuna

05-23-10, 10:46 AM

Wales is not represented on the Union Jack. The Welsh flag is a Red dragon. :yep:

You are quite correct...my apologies. Wales was already united to England when the first version of the Union Flag was designed in 1606. :oops:

http://www.know-britain.com/general/union_jack.html

Kissaki

05-23-10, 02:01 PM

But a house been broken down or a tree cut isn't a change in culture. It's very understandable that it makes you sad, but for me it's a quite different change. The destruction of your childhood memories does not change your identity as a Norwegian.
Nor does the building of churches, nor does the building of mosques. If there's another mosque built, how will that affect my identity as a Norwegian? How will it affect your identity as Dutch?

Personally I really love cultural differences, if I'm in another country I always try to soak up as much of the local culture as I can. I always want to try the local dishes, no matter how many creepy disgusting organ meat it contains. I admire the local architecture. I observe the local way of life. I listen to the language.
Wouldn't it be a terrible shame if this all is gone? If no matter what country you go to, you see minarets, you eat halal food, you hear Arabic speech?
Not really. Everywhere you go you get McDonald's and Burger King, and various taco and kebab shops. The halal and kebab stands are no more detrimental to any culture than McDonalds, Burger King or KFC. Or 7-11, for pete's sake. They're everywhere, but there's much more to culture than that.

As for mosques, it's more or less the same thing: there are churches all over Europe (all over the world, in fact), but the churches are all different. Though I'm an atheist, I love visiting churches when I'm abroad, as long as they have some antiquity to them. The architecture of the great cathedrals is really breathtaking, and I love history. The Moors also left many traces of their presence in Spain, and isn't that just a good thing? I think it is good for people to leave their mark behind. And so long as there is religious freedom in the Netherlands, there can be nothing anti-Dutch about churches, mosques, Buddhist temples or whatever. The only difference is that you are used to churches and the sound of church bells - you are not used to minarets and sounds of Muslim prayer. It's a new flavour to you, and maybe you don't like the flavour, but as long as the new flavour conforms to local morals and laws, why let it rub you the wrong way?

BTW, interesting discussion IMO:up:
Seconded :yep:

CaptainHaplo

05-23-10, 03:26 PM

DarkFish

05-23-10, 05:04 PM

Xtianity historically was known for doing the same - until it figured out that it needed to adapt as well as cause adaptation of its surrounding society.Christianity has adapted itself beyond beliefs. For example, to win more pagan souls the Christians "invented" lots of holidays that just "coïncidentally" happened to match pagan holidays.
Or rather, just gave the already existing pagan holidays a Christian meaning.
They literally copied an astounding amount of symbology from heathen festivities.

For example, Christmas is no more than simply the winter solstice. The Christmas Tree being taken from the Germanic use of holding the Winter Solstice activities around a large tree.
The "Santa Clause" part of Christmas comes from the Dutch holiday of Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas' holiday). That in itself is largely copied from Germanic Yule festivities.
Note this typical picture of Sinterklaas:
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3117/dak2vz5.jpg
Sinterklaas (=Odin) with a grey beard (literally copied from Odin) and a staff (=Gungnir) in his hand on his gray horse (=Sleipnir) that can climb roofs (Sleipnir could fly) throws presents (=gifts/candy, just like nowadays) down the chimney, in exchange for small gifts (=offerings) in the form of carrots, straw etc. (literally copied from Pagan customs) for Sinterklaas' horse.

To say that Christianity adapted to the Germanic society would be an understatement. They almost made themselves immerse into Germanic society instead to convert us "from within".

DarkFish

05-23-10, 05:45 PM

Nor does the building of churches, nor does the building of mosques. If there's another mosque built, how will that affect my identity as a Norwegian? How will it affect your identity as Dutch?It will affect my identity as a Dutchman because it changes our culture. It brings large, instantly recognizable aspects of a foreign culture into ours.
Many mosques with no minarets or calls to prayer would hardly matter. One mosque with minarets and calls to prayer would hardly matter. In both cases it doesn't influence the Dutch culture significantly.
But when you build many mosques with minarets and calls to prayer, you are bringing Arabic influences into our culture on a large scale.
Thus changing the Dutch culture.
Thus changing my identity as a Dutchman.

Not really. Everywhere you go you get McDonald's and Burger King, and various taco and kebab shops. The halal and kebab stands are no more detrimental to any culture than McDonalds, Burger King or KFC. Or 7-11, for pete's sake. They're everywhere, but there's much more to culture than that.That kebab shops are not very detrimental to our culture is simply because the foreign cultural influences remain relatively contained inside the kebab stands. Whenever I enter a kebab shop, a Chinese restaurant or an Italian pizza shack, I immediately notice the foreign cultures. I smell the food. I see foreign ornaments and decorations. I hear the Turkish, Chinese or Italian music. But the moment I set one step out the door, I'm back in the Netherlands again.

Minarets and calls to prayer however are easily visible/audible from well outside the enclosed environment of the Mosque.

As for mosques, it's more or less the same thing: there are churches all over Europe (all over the world, in fact), but the churches are all different. Though I'm an atheist, I love visiting churches when I'm abroad, as long as they have some antiquity to them. The architecture of the great cathedrals is really breathtaking, and I love history.And also these differences in churches around Europe are a sign of differencing cultures. Our Dutch churches look very different from e.g. Breton churches (just picking a region I've regularly visited) or Norwegian churches (Urnes stave church, wooow!:o Definitely on my list of places I want to visit in my life:up:)

The Moors also left many traces of their presence in Spain, and isn't that just a good thing?I don't know if the Moorish influences are a good thing. I know too little of the historical Spanish and Moorish culture and especially about the differences between the two to say anything useful about it.
And besides, it would be just a matter of opinion anyway.

Fact is that the Spanish culture is already "contaminated" by the muslims (Moors) while the Dutch culture hasn't been yet.
Also, Moorish influence in Spain is quite logical. They were neighbouring people, there are always mutual influences in those cases.

I think it is good for people to leave their mark behind. And so long as there is religious freedom in the Netherlands, there can be nothing anti-Dutch about churches, mosques, Buddhist temples or whatever. The only difference is that you are used to churches and the sound of church bells - you are not used to minarets and sounds of Muslim prayer. It's a new flavour to you, and maybe you don't like the flavour, but as long as the new flavour conforms to local morals and laws, why let it rub you the wrong way?There's nothing anti-Dutch about mosques in itself.
The thing I find anti-Dutch are the minarets and calls to prayer, because they change the Dutch culture, and thus are automatically "anti".

CaptainHaplo

05-23-10, 08:56 PM

Darkfish - your absolutely right on with Xmas. The fact that Jesus was obviously not born in the middle of winter seems to escape alot of people LOL. Still - you see Islam doing anything like that?

Kissaki

05-24-10, 11:18 AM

Kissaki - the biggest concern is exactly what you bring up - the non-conformity. Islam has overwhelmingly agitated for ITS way to be followed - regardless of the morals or customs of the area. Everything from insisting women be "fully covered" to demands that Sharia Law be put into place.

Its important to note that Islam isn't the only religion ever to do this - Xtianity historically was known for doing the same - until it figured out that it needed to adapt as well as cause adaptation of its surrounding society. The issue is that Islam - and its followers, are not willing to do so. Sure - that is a "blanket generalization" - but look at all the riots in france for example as examples of muslims who are unwilling to respect any but their own views.....
Like I said before, Christianity had the benefit of growing up alongside our culture, which is why it is familiar and "safe" for us. The Age of Enlightenment did wonders for secularism in Europe, but overall the Church is now as it has always been, just as stubborn as Islam. The various denominations don't want to be changed by outside influences, and neither does Islam. The only thing we can reasonably demand of immigrants is that they follow the laws of the land. As long as they do that, we don't have a right to criticize them for their ways.

Also, if you look at the riots in France, you'll find that the rioters were mostly kids, not Muslims. Same as football hooligans, who will jump at any opportunity to wreak havoc: football is just an excuse.

Kissaki

05-24-10, 11:26 AM

It will affect my identity as a Dutchman because it changes our culture. It brings large, instantly recognizable aspects of a foreign culture into ours.
Many mosques with no minarets or calls to prayer would hardly matter. One mosque with minarets and calls to prayer would hardly matter. In both cases it doesn't influence the Dutch culture significantly.
But when you build many mosques with minarets and calls to prayer, you are bringing Arabic influences into our culture on a large scale.
Thus changing the Dutch culture.
Thus changing my identity as a Dutchman.
How? If it doesn't make you Muslim, how does it affect your identity?

That kebab shops are not very detrimental to our culture is simply because the foreign cultural influences remain relatively contained inside the kebab stands. Whenever I enter a kebab shop, a Chinese restaurant or an Italian pizza shack, I immediately notice the foreign cultures. I smell the food. I see foreign ornaments and decorations. I hear the Turkish, Chinese or Italian music. But the moment I set one step out the door, I'm back in the Netherlands again.
Yet on the outside you can still see the shops and smell the food. It's not like you only notice the foreign element once you go inside. And why should that even matter? What you define as "Dutch", how "Dutch" would that be to Dutchmen 100 years ago? And someone immigrating to the Netherlands, and whose children become Dutch citizens, are they not allowed to decide on what is "Dutch" every bit as much as you?

Minarets and calls to prayer however are easily visible/audible from well outside the enclosed environment of the Mosque.
I really don't see the problem with that.

And also these differences in churches around Europe are a sign of differencing cultures. Our Dutch churches look very different from e.g. Breton churches (just picking a region I've regularly visited) or Norwegian churches (Urnes stave church, wooow!:o Definitely on my list of places I want to visit in my life:up:)
And that's exactly what I am saying: there are Dutch churches, so why not Dutch minarets? Christianity was just as alien to that region once as Islam is today.

I don't know if the Moorish influences are a good thing. I know too little of the historical Spanish and Moorish culture and especially about the differences between the two to say anything useful about it.
And besides, it would be just a matter of opinion anyway.

Fact is that the Spanish culture is already "contaminated" by the muslims (Moors) while the Dutch culture hasn't been yet.
Also, Moorish influence in Spain is quite logical. They were neighbouring people, there are always mutual influences in those cases.
Why "contaminated"? Tomorrow's generation of Dutchmen may be accustomed to minarets, seeing them as being just as Dutch as church towers. Why would that be a bad thing?

There's nothing anti-Dutch about mosques in itself.
The thing I find anti-Dutch are the minarets and calls to prayer, because they change the Dutch culture, and thus are automatically "anti".
Again I have to ask, how?

DarkFish

05-24-10, 01:19 PM

How? If it doesn't make you Muslim, how does it affect your identity?Making or not making me muslim doesn't have much to do with it, it changes my identity as a Dutch by changing the Dutch culture. By changing the culture, it changes what I am as a Dutchman, what being Dutch stands for, and thus changes my identity as a Dutchman.

Yet on the outside you can still see the shops and smell the food. It's not like you only notice the foreign element once you go inside.You can notice foreign elements when you're outside, but not nearly as good as when you're inside, and only when you're right in front of the shop. Minarets and calls to prayer are much more prominent elements that you can see from much, much farther away.

And why should that even matter? What you define as "Dutch", how "Dutch" would that be to Dutchmen 100 years ago?I never said culture doesn't change.
There's a difference though between culture changes caused by advances in technology, and changes caused by foreign elements extensively brought into a culture.

And someone immigrating to the Netherlands, and whose children become Dutch citizens, are they not allowed to decide on what is "Dutch" every bit as much as you?That's the same as saying that a country has to adapt to its immigrants, instead of the immigrants to the country. Until an immigrant has adapted to the culture of his host country, I really don't see why he should be allowed to decide on what defines the host country's culture.

I really don't see the problem with that.And that's where our opinions differ, I really do see the problem with that.

And that's exactly what I am saying: there are Dutch churches, so why not Dutch minarets? Christianity was just as alien to that region once as Islam is today.You are confusing religion with culture. Churches/mosques are part of religion, while (the architecture of) church towers/minarets are an aspect of culture.

Why "contaminated"?In this context, with contaminated I don't necessarily mean a bad thing. Just that the old 'pure' Spanish culture was 'contaminated' by Moorish culture to form the modern Spanish culture.

Tomorrow's generation of Dutchmen may be accustomed to minarets, seeing them as being just as Dutch as church towers. Why would that be a bad thing?I could ask you just as well how that would not be a bad thing. 'Bad' is subjective.

Besides, they can never be as Dutch as church towers. As you pointed out yourself, churches all over Europe are very different. Dutch churches look completely different from French, Norwegian or British churches. But "Dutch" minarets look exactly the same as [random Islamic country] minarets.

Again I have to ask, how?You mean, "how do they change culture?"
I already answered that:
"It brings large, instantly recognizable aspects of a foreign culture into ours.
Many mosques with no minarets or calls to prayer would hardly matter. One mosque with minarets and calls to prayer would hardly matter. In both cases it doesn't influence the Dutch culture significantly.
But when you build many mosques with minarets and calls to prayer, you are bringing Arabic influences into our culture on a large scale."

DarkFish

05-24-10, 01:31 PM

Also, if you look at the riots in France, you'll find that the rioters were mostly kids, not Muslims. Same as football hooligans, who will jump at any opportunity to wreak havoc: football is just an excuse.The kids were mostly Muslim kids. Not Catholic kids or Buddhist kids or Hindu kids. All those other kids didn't "jump at the opportunity to wreak havoc", so simply saying it are just "kids" that did it isn't right. A large difference between the rioting kids and the non-rioting kids is that the rioting kids were mostly muslim.

I won't say that being muslim was the sole (if any) reason for those kids to riot.
But you are saying that being muslim was "just an excuse" to riot, while being kids was the cause.

DarkFish

05-24-10, 01:38 PM

Darkfish - your absolutely right on with Xmas. The fact that Jesus was obviously not born in the middle of winter seems to escape alot of people LOL. Still - you see Islam doing anything like that?I must admit, I have yet to see Islam make any adaption to western society.

But note that I'm talking about Islam and not about muslims. I have seen many muslims who have adapted to western society, which proves that Islam could do it if they wanted.

To make a generalization here, most muslims seem to want Dutch society to adapt to theirs, instead of the other way around.

Schroeder

05-24-10, 01:42 PM

To make a generalization here, most muslims seem to want Dutch society to adapt to theirs, instead of the other way around.
To keep that generalization, it's the pretty much the same here in Germany too.

Kissaki

05-24-10, 03:32 PM

Making or not making me muslim doesn't have much to do with it, it changes my identity as a Dutch by changing the Dutch culture. By changing the culture, it changes what I am as a Dutchman, what being Dutch stands for, and thus changes my identity as a Dutchman.
That doesn't answer my question. In what way does it change? The cultural flavour of the country changes, yes, but I do not see how that affects your identity in the slightest. Don't just say that it does change, be a bit more specific as to what the differences between the new DarkFish identity and the old Darkfish identity would be. I certainly don't feel any change to my Norwegian identity just because of immigration, or the flavour they bring to Norway.

You can notice foreign elements when you're outside, but not nearly as good as when you're inside, and only when you're right in front of the shop. Minarets and calls to prayer are much more prominent elements that you can see from much, much farther away.
How is it any different from church bells?

I never said culture doesn't change.
There's a difference though between culture changes caused by advances in technology, and changes caused by foreign elements extensively brought into a culture.
Are those the only things that can change culture? Technology hasn't even been touched on so far, by the way.

But be that as it may: what makes one sort of change ok, and the other not ok? Isn't it just reasonable that if 30% of a nation's population is Muslim, that the nation's culture should reflect this? The greater the Muslim part of the community, the greater the Muslim part of the cultural flavour. I really don't see anything objectionable about this.

That's the same as saying that a country has to adapt to its immigrants, instead of the immigrants to the country. Until an immigrant has adapted to the culture of his host country, I really don't see why he should be allowed to decide on what defines the host country's culture.
A country is defined by its people. Culture is defined by its people. It is unreasonable to expect, let alone demand, that someone should abandon their entire identity and create a brand new one just because they move to another country. It is also unreasonable to demand that second generation immigrants ignore their own heritage and embrace a new historical identity from their new country.

And that's where our opinions differ, I really do see the problem with that.
Then if you would be so kind as to explain it to me, because I don't get it.

You are confusing religion with culture. Churches/mosques are part of religion, while (the architecture of) church towers/minarets are an aspect of culture.
Exactly. And given enough time, the architecture of mosques and minarets in the Netherlands will adopt their own particular Dutch twist, just like the churches have.

In this context, with contaminated I don't necessarily mean a bad thing. Just that the old 'pure' Spanish culture was 'contaminated' by Moorish culture to form the modern Spanish culture.
And at one point, the Germannic tribes of what is now the Netherlands were "contaminated" by Roman culture, and "contaminated" by Christianity. Do you object to that "contamination" as well?

I could ask you just as well how that would not be a bad thing. 'Bad' is subjective.
No, you actually couldn't ask me that, because you are the one who claims it is bad to begin with. Therefore you are the one who decides that it is bad, you are the one who sits on the definition, and being the one to advance the claim, you are the one with the burden of evidence. You can't use "how is it not bad" as an argument that it is bad.

Besides, they can never be as Dutch as church towers. As you pointed out yourself, churches all over Europe are very different. Dutch churches look completely different from French, Norwegian or British churches. But "Dutch" minarets look exactly the same as [random Islamic country] minarets.
That's because Christianity has a 1500 year history in the Netherlands, and Islam not even a century. It hasn't had time to adopt a Dutch flavour yet, but it will: it is inevitable.

You mean, "how do they change culture?"
I already answered that:
"It brings large, instantly recognizable aspects of a foreign culture into ours.
Many mosques with no minarets or calls to prayer would hardly matter. One mosque with minarets and calls to prayer would hardly matter. In both cases it doesn't influence the Dutch culture significantly.
But when you build many mosques with minarets and calls to prayer, you are bringing Arabic influences into our culture on a large scale."
I mean how is it anti-Dutch? If it is anti-Dutch to change culture, then the very word progress is anti-Dutch, because that changes culture, too. It's not like it's going to change Dutch culture into something not Dutch: the new culture will be the new Dutch culture.

You're not happy with the current development of Dutch culture, but this is true of every conservative person everywhere. You can bet your rear end that Dutchmen 100 years ago were bewailing the "erosion" of Dutch culture, as well.

The kids were mostly Muslim kids. Not Catholic kids or Buddhist kids or Hindu kids. All those other kids didn't "jump at the opportunity to wreak havoc", so simply saying it are just "kids" that did it isn't right. A large difference between the rioting kids and the non-rioting kids is that the rioting kids were mostly muslim.

I won't say that being muslim was the sole (if any) reason for those kids to riot.
But you are saying that being muslim was "just an excuse" to riot, while being kids was the cause.
Pretty much, though an oversimplification. Let me refer back to football hooligans: it is not because they like football that they cause football riots, they simply use it as an excuse. Football is not the cause of football riots, or we'd see riots at nearly every football match. Likewise, Islam was not the cause of the riots in France, or we wouldn't be talking about the riots in France, but more like World War III.

DarkFish

05-24-10, 05:42 PM

That doesn't answer my question. In what way does it change? The cultural flavour of the country changes, yes, but I do not see how that affects your identity in the slightest. Don't just say that it does change, be a bit more specific as to what the differences between the new DarkFish identity and the old Darkfish identity would be. I certainly don't feel any change to my Norwegian identity just because of immigration, or the flavour they bring to Norway.My culture is a part of my identity. If you change that part, you change my identity.
My 'old' identity would be one of Dutch architecture, Dutch food and Dutch speech. My 'new' identity (in the worst case) would include Arabic architecture, Arabic food and Arabic speech.

How is it any different from church bells?A church bell is different from a call to prayer in that church bells are an accepted and established part of Dutch society.

Are those the only things that can change culture? Technology hasn't even been touched on so far, by the way.No, of course they're not the only things. But in the last few centuries they (especially technology, up until now) have been the most important. Other factors that cause cultural change tend to change a culture only on a very slow rate.

If you look at early medieval culture and late medieval culture for example, you'll find that the cultures are remarkably similar. Hell, you could even compare a medieval farmer with a farmer some 100 years ago, and still their cultures wouldn't differ in a huge manner.

But be that as it may: what makes one sort of change ok, and the other not ok?This is subjective. What may be okay for you, might not be okay for me. There is no objective way of determining whether a change is okay or not.

Isn't it just reasonable that if 30% of a nation's population is Muslim, that the nation's culture should reflect this? The greater the Muslim part of the community, the greater the Muslim part of the cultural flavour. I really don't see anything objectionable about this.Once again, you confuse the religion with the culture. "Muslim" isn't a culture on itself, it's a religion. Therefore I'll reply to this as if you had written "Arabic" instead of "Muslim".

It depends on if that Arabic presence has always been there, or is a recent development. If the Arabians have always been there, they're part of the culture and the nation's culture should reflect that.
If they are, however, new to that country, they should adapt to the nation's culture. Not demand the nation's culture to reflect their culture.

A country is defined by its people. Culture is defined by its people. It is unreasonable to expect, let alone demand, that someone should abandon their entire identity and create a brand new one just because they move to another country. It is also unreasonable to demand that second generation immigrants ignore their own heritage and embrace a new historical identity from their new country.I find it quite reasonable to expect that. If you want to move to another country, be my guest, but adapt to the local culture.
I can't help but notice this quote by you:
But what I do care about is this: the newcomer must adapt to the establishment, not the other way around. If Islam wants to be accepted in Europe, Islam must conform to European culture.At what point in this discussion did you change your mind? Because what you say here is quite the opposite of what you say above.
First you say the newcomer must adapt to the establishment, and now you say it's unreasonable to expect a newcomer to do so?

Then if you would be so kind as to explain it to me, because I don't get it.It's a matter of opinion. Just as it is your right to not see the problem, it is my right to do see the problem.

Exactly. And given enough time, the architecture of mosques and minarets in the Netherlands will adopt their own particular Dutch twist, just like the churches have.It will eventually happen. But not in the near future, and it would have Arabic culture to start with. Therefore being a flavour of Arabic culture, instead of one of Dutch culture. That is, provided that the Arabics don't get a stronger foothold in Dutch society than they've got already.

And at one point, the Germannic tribes of what is now the Netherlands were "contaminated" by Roman culture, and "contaminated" by Christianity. Do you object to that "contamination" as well?Yes, I would. Christianity/Roman culture has definitely introduced some things I'd rather not have seen.
For example, the death penalty and torture only appeared after we converted to Christianism.

But there is one major difference between the cultural changes at the time, and the current cultural changes. The Germanic people at the time changed their own culture out of their free will, while nowadays Dutch culture is changed by foreigners, against the will of most Dutchmen.

No, you actually couldn't ask me that, because you are the one who claims it is bad to begin with. Therefore you are the one who decides that it is bad, you are the one who sits on the definition, and being the one to advance the claim, you are the one with the burden of evidence. You can't use "how is it not bad" as an argument that it is bad.What I claim is something personal. I don't have any obligation to prove that I find something bad, because it's true by definition. That's why "bad" is subjective. The fact that a person's opinion is equal to that person's opinion is true by default.

Besides, would the answer matter? Would it be any different if I said "because the cookie monster ordered me to", "because I'm racist" or "because I'm a devoted Christian and I don't want muslim influences"? (All of which are not reasons of mine)

That's because Christianity has a 1500 year history in the Netherlands, and Islam not even a century. It hasn't had time to adopt a Dutch flavour yet, but it will: it is inevitable.Eventually, yes. But not in the near future.

I mean how is it anti-Dutch? If it is anti-Dutch to change culture, then the very word progress is anti-Dutch, because that changes culture, too. It's not like it's going to change Dutch culture into something not Dutch: the new culture will be the new Dutch culture.I already answered this as well. It's anti-Dutch because minarets and stuff change the Dutch culture. If it changes the Dutch culture, it's not in conformity with the Dutch culture. If it's not in conformity with the Dutch culture, it's anti-Dutch.

So yes, using that definition any progress that changes the Dutch culture is anti-Dutch as well.

You're not happy with the current development of Dutch culture, but this is true of every conservative person everywhere. You can bet your rear end that Dutchmen 100 years ago were bewailing the "erosion" of Dutch culture, as well.Except for the fact that Dutch culture back then wasn't changing at the rate it does now by far, and for the fact that cultural changes at that time weren't because of extensive foreign influences.

Pretty much, though an oversimplification. Let me refer back to football hooligans: it is not because they like football that they cause football riots, they simply use it as an excuse. Football is not the cause of football riots, or we'd see riots at nearly every football match. Likewise, Islam was not the cause of the riots in France, or we wouldn't be talking about the riots in France, but more like World War III.Islam is not the direct cause of the riots in France. But the difference in demographics between rioters and non-rioters does suggest Islam played a large role in it.

Snestorm

05-24-10, 07:25 PM

How? If it doesn't make you Muslim, how does it affect your identity?

Yet on the outside you can still see the shops and smell the food. It's not like you only notice the foreign element once you go inside. And why should that even matter? What you define as "Dutch", how "Dutch" would that be to Dutchmen 100 years ago? And someone immigrating to the Netherlands, and whose children become Dutch citizens, are they not allowed to decide on what is "Dutch" every bit as much as you?

The problem here is not Culture or Religion. These are results of the problem.
The problem is that the ethnic dutch population is being replaced by a non-ethnic dutch population. This problem is mot unique to the dutch. If the problem persists the dutch (and other europeans) will become a minority within the borders od what once WAS their own country. At which point they will be subjected to the laws, and will of the former minority. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time until the dutch people are moved to the borders of extinction.

Can't happen?
One only need to look to North America, South America, and Australia.
It can happen. It has happened. And it's happening again, in Europe.
It needs to be stopped "yesterday".

Tribesman

05-25-10, 09:13 AM

A church bell is different from a call to prayer in that church bells are an accepted and established part of Dutch society.

I could have sworn Darkfish recently spent quite some time stating that church bells marking prayer times were not a thing that happens in Holland and were not established as part of Dutch society.
Its quite amazing how he has changed views, maybe he walked past a few churches and cathedrals in the past week.

DarkFish

05-25-10, 09:31 AM

The problem here is not Culture or Religion. These are results of the problem.
The problem is that the ethnic dutch population is being replaced by a non-ethnic dutch population. This problem is mot unique to the dutch. If the problem persists the dutch (and other europeans) will become a minority within the borders od what once WAS their own country. At which point they will be subjected to the laws, and will of the former minority. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time until the dutch people are moved to the borders of extinction.

Can't happen?
One only need to look to North America, South America, and Australia.
It can happen. It has happened. And it's happening again, in Europe.
It needs to be stopped "yesterday".Interesting viewpoint:hmmm: Hadn't even thought of it like that myself...
Very disturbing now you say it... If more than 50% of our population are foreigners, we essentially transfer all power to them. We'd be at their mercy.

BTW, should anyone think that whatever crap tribesman posted is worthwile answering, just say so and I'll read his post and reply to it.

NeonSamurai

05-25-10, 09:37 AM

BTW, should anyone think that whatever crap tribesman posted is worthwile answering, just say so and I'll read his post and reply to it.

Not sure how to answer that since that is a rather subjective thing. After all what is worth responding to?

This is what he said anyways, you can answer your own question then.

I could have sworn Darkfish recently spent quite some time stating that church bells marking prayer times were not a thing that happens in Holland and were not established as part of Dutch society.
Its quite amazing how he has changed views, maybe he walked past a few churches and cathedrals in the past week.

DarkFish

05-25-10, 09:45 AM

Not sure how to answer that since that is a rather subjective thing. After all what is worth responding to?Well that's for someone else to answer. I find his posts not worth responding to anyway.
But since you quoted his post anyway now:
I could have sworn Darkfish recently spent quite some time stating that church bells marking prayer times were not a thing that happens in Holland and were not established as part of Dutch society.
Its quite amazing how he has changed views, maybe he walked past a few churches and cathedrals in the past week.In the thread Tribesman mentiones, I have never ever said church bells don't ring in the Netherlands and are not an established part of Dutch society.
That he thinks otherwise just shows he hasn't thoroughly read my posts.

Anyone who doubts me can read it for himself in the following thread: http://subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=169535

Tribesman

05-25-10, 09:52 AM

BTW, should anyone think that whatever crap tribesman posted is worthwile answering
Thats rather rich mentioning "crap" when you wrote that your father was cleared in court when her was found guilty as charged.
But hey stick to posting falsehoods :rotfl2:

Tribesman

05-25-10, 10:06 AM

In the thread Tribesman mentiones, I have never ever said church bells don't ring in the Netherlands and are not an established part of Dutch society.
That he thinks otherwise just shows he hasn't thoroughly read my posts.

The irony is heavy. Thoroughly read the posts:rotfl2:
Starting with the quote he just used and the answer he gave, as I didn't say he claimed they never ever rang, I said he claimed no dutch churches rang regularly to mark the daily prayer rituals:up:

Kissaki

05-25-10, 01:21 PM

My culture is a part of my identity. If you change that part, you change my identity.
My 'old' identity would be one of Dutch architecture, Dutch food and Dutch speech. My 'new' identity (in the worst case) would include Arabic architecture, Arabic food and Arabic speech.
Would it? Only if you started eating Arab food and speaking Arabic. My cultural identity has always been completely devoid of Arab or Eastern European aspects, and Saami aspects for that matter. But even if Arab, Eastern European or Saami aspects did manage to "sneak" their way into my cultural identity - so what?

A church bell is different from a call to prayer in that church bells are an accepted and established part of Dutch society.
Yes, because they have a history. It wasn't always so, though. Every single thing about what you associate with Dutch was "un-Dutch" once.

No, of course they're not the only things. But in the last few centuries they (especially technology, up until now) have been the most important. Other factors that cause cultural change tend to change a culture only on a very slow rate.
The introduction of cars into a society will naturally leave an impact on society, because it affects the standard of living. Technology makes a tremendous visual impact on society, but culture is so much more than what can be captured on a photography.

If you look at early medieval culture and late medieval culture for example, you'll find that the cultures are remarkably similar. Hell, you could even compare a medieval farmer with a farmer some 100 years ago, and still their cultures wouldn't differ in a huge manner.
This is simply not true. From our perspective, if we simply look at the architecture, yes, then it looks remarkably similar (and goes to prove my point: culturally-specific architecture requires maturing). But culture was far more diverse in those days than it is now. You could notice differences in customs from one village to the next, simply because society was much less international in those days. The values and identity of a medieval farmer, used to a feudal society, would be extremely different from the values and identity of a farmer 100 years ago. The technology wouldn't be all that different from the one to the other, but like I said, culture is so much more than what is immediately visible.

This is subjective. What may be okay for you, might not be okay for me. There is no objective way of determining whether a change is okay or not.
Indeed, so why not live and let live? Why oppose it as if it threatened you, somehow? Resistance to change is always to be expected (and is possibly a very useful moderating force in any society), but I guess I see protest marches as an overreaction.

Once again, you confuse the religion with the culture. "Muslim" isn't a culture on itself, it's a religion. Therefore I'll reply to this as if you had written "Arabic" instead of "Muslim".

It depends on if that Arabic presence has always been there, or is a recent development.
But no one has "always" been there. At one point the Netherlands was populated by dinosaurs.

If the Arabians have always been there, they're part of the culture and the nation's culture should reflect that.
If they are, however, new to that country, they should adapt to the nation's culture. Not demand the nation's culture to reflect their culture.
The people you perceive as having "always" been there are also the result of outside influences. How much is left of the cultures of the Germannic tribes in Netherlands? Things change, and new people bring change with them. This is just natural, and right. If you were to move to another country, you shouldn't be expected to abandon your Dutch heritage, either.

I find it quite reasonable to expect that. If you want to move to another country, be my guest, but adapt to the local culture.
I agree, insofar as laws and customs are concerned. You shouldn't be expected to change your taste in music, literature, food or anything else, though. You still bring your old identity with you, and I put it to you that it would be impossible for you to rid yourself of it.

I can't help but notice this quote by you:
Yes, and it turned out in the very next post that you and I were operating under very different definitions of culture. You expect them to blend in 100% in every single aspect, but this is impossible. To me, conformity to local laws and values is what is required, and all that is required.

At what point in this discussion did you change your mind? Because what you say here is quite the opposite of what you say above.
First you say the newcomer must adapt to the establishment, and now you say it's unreasonable to expect a newcomer to do so?
Please read back a few posts. You seem to have forgotten how we discussed different definitions of culture, and how I was not using your all-encompassing definition. At no point have I changed my mind; at no point have I contradicted myself.

It's a matter of opinion. Just as it is your right to not see the problem, it is my right to do see the problem.
Yes, of course it is your right, but if you see something as a problem then you should also be able to say why it is a problem.

It will eventually happen. But not in the near future, and it would have Arabic culture to start with. Therefore being a flavour of Arabic culture, instead of one of Dutch culture. That is, provided that the Arabics don't get a stronger foothold in Dutch society than they've got already.
Well, there is already a lot of Roman and Arab aspects of Dutch culture. You use Roman letters and Arab numbers, architecturally you owe a lot to the Romans, and Christianity is itself a Middle Eastern religion which also has left a very considerable mark on Dutch culture. What, exactly, is "Dutch", which doesn't originate from outside the region?

Yes, I would. Christianity/Roman culture has definitely introduced some things I'd rather not have seen.
For example, the death penalty and torture only appeared after we converted to Christianism.
You really think there was no death penalty or torture in the local Germannic tribes? If you go back far enough, I shouldn't be surprised to find human sacrifice as well.

But there is one major difference between the cultural changes at the time, and the current cultural changes. The Germanic people at the time changed their own culture out of their free will, while nowadays Dutch culture is changed by foreigners, against the will of most Dutchmen.
You really think they changed their ways voluntarily? You think there wasn't resistance to change just as there is resistance to change now? Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves - that's human nature, and just as true then as it is now. Roman culture wasn't popular among the conservatives at the time, and neither was Christianity. Not because the change was for the worse, but because there are always those who will want to stick to "the old ways".

What I claim is something personal. I don't have any obligation to prove that I find something bad, because it's true by definition. That's why "bad" is subjective. The fact that a person's opinion is equal to that person's opinion is true by default.

Besides, would the answer matter? Would it be any different if I said "because the cookie monster ordered me to", "because I'm racist" or "because I'm a devoted Christian and I don't want muslim influences"? (All of which are not reasons of mine)
I'm not asking you to prove the fact that you find something to be bad. I'm asking you to explain why you think it is bad.

I already answered this as well. It's anti-Dutch because minarets and stuff change the Dutch culture. If it changes the Dutch culture, it's not in conformity with the Dutch culture. If it's not in conformity with the Dutch culture, it's anti-Dutch.

So yes, using that definition any progress that changes the Dutch culture is anti-Dutch as well.
If that's how you wish to define it. But then you must also agree that if minarets become a normal aspect of Dutch scenery in the future, then they will no longer be "anti-Dutch".

Except for the fact that Dutch culture back then wasn't changing at the rate it does now by far, and for the fact that cultural changes at that time weren't because of extensive foreign influences.
Culture changes a lot faster these days, it is true. This is mostly due to communication and information access, which has internationalized just about every country. And what does it matter if cultural change comes from immigration, religious reformation, technology or whatnot?

DarkFish

05-25-10, 01:22 PM

^ Same goes for any of these posts, if someone does really want an answer, I will provide it. But unless I'm explicitly asked to reply to those posts, I won't even read them.

Let me further elaborate on why I do like discussing these things with you (Kissaki), while I absolutely hate (discussing with) Tribesman.
It's not because you come up with bad arguments. On the contrary. Your arguments often require very hard thinking of mine to come up with a good counter-argument.
It is because I have the feeling you do actually read my posts. You seem to be quite able to grasp the main point of what I'm saying, and you come up with counter-arguments on exactly that. You don't go nitpicking over grammatical irregularities to supposedly prove your point, while in fact I meant to say something different, something that 99% of all people would have understand, although maybe it might mean something slightly different when you look at it literally.
Also you don't claim any expertise in a field you clearly know much less about than I do. (I'm not talking about this topic)
Or even better, you don't go completely twist what I say, and claim something I've just proven wrong.

I like those people to discuss with. Because in the end I believe that the ultimate goal of debate is to make you think about things. Not to prove your points.
One thing I've learned is that in a discussion usually neither of the participants is completely right. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, especially in this topic since we're discussing opinions here. But discussing these things surely makes me wonder why I think what I think, and makes me further define my thoughts. A good discussion never hurts anyone.

Kudos to you for that:up:

Kissaki

05-25-10, 01:24 PM

The problem here is not Culture or Religion. These are results of the problem.
The problem is that the ethnic dutch population is being replaced by a non-ethnic dutch population. This problem is mot unique to the dutch. If the problem persists the dutch (and other europeans) will become a minority within the borders od what once WAS their own country. At which point they will be subjected to the laws, and will of the former minority. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time until the dutch people are moved to the borders of extinction.

Can't happen?
One only need to look to North America, South America, and Australia.
It can happen. It has happened. And it's happening again, in Europe.
It needs to be stopped "yesterday".
There's a difference between two populations blending over the generation through breeding, and ethnic cleansing. If the future Europeans are mostly or completely white, black, brown, red, yellow or purple, what difference does it make? They'd still be Europeans.

I admit there is something "safe" and "homely" about seeing mostly white faces in my home town, but does it really matter?

Kissaki

05-25-10, 01:29 PM

^ Same goes for any of these posts, if someone does really want an answer, I will provide it. But unless I'm explicitly asked to reply to those posts, I won't even read them.

Let me further elaborate on why I do like discussing these things with you (Kissaki), while I absolutely hate (discussing with) Tribesman.
It's not because you come up with bad arguments. On the contrary. Your arguments often require very hard thinking of mine to come up with a good counter-argument.
It is because I have the feeling you do actually read my posts. You seem to be quite able to grasp the main point of what I'm saying, and you come up with counter-arguments on exactly that. You don't go nitpicking over grammatical irregularities to supposedly prove your point, while in fact I meant to say something different, something that 99% of all people would have understand, although maybe it might mean something slightly different when you look at it literally.
Also you don't claim any expertise in a field you clearly know much less about than I do. (I'm not talking about this topic)
Or even better, you don't go completely twist what I say, and claim something I've just proven wrong.

I like those people to discuss with. Because in the end I believe that the ultimate goal of debate is to make you think about things. Not to prove your points.
In the end, since this topic is about an opinion (if it's bad)

Kudos to you for that:up:
I know, I rock :|\\

I just hope my most recent reply doesn't make you change that perception :oops:

Tribesman

05-25-10, 02:25 PM

Yes, because they have a history. It wasn't always so, though. Every single thing about what you associate with Dutch was "un-Dutch" once.

True, the Carthusian dutch Cathedrals Monestaries and abbeys were a religious tradition from across in Cologne originally. While the Benedictines are up from Italy, though the Italians found the dutch bells nicer and more traditional, though of course some of that tradition was latterly a remnant of Spanish rule espercially in the churches round roermond where you can hear the bells calling prayer times as regularly as you can in Utrecht or even surprisingly ......Arnhem.

while I absolutely hate (discussing with) Tribesman.

I am not surprisded, it must be frustrating when you keep going "but you are foriegn so I know better" yet end messing up rather badly on your local stuff.

DarkFish

05-25-10, 02:42 PM

Would it? Only if you started eating Arab food and speaking Arabic. My cultural identity has always been completely devoid of Arab or Eastern European aspects, and Saami aspects for that matter. But even if Arab, Eastern European or Saami aspects did manage to "sneak" their way into my cultural identity - so what?It doesn't necessarily have to copy the Arab culture. Even if the Dutch culture is just heavily influenced by Arab culture, it isn't the current Dutch culture anymore.

Should such influences sneak their way into your culture, if you mind it or not is a personal matter.

Yes, because they have a history. It wasn't always so, though. Every single thing about what you associate with Dutch was "un-Dutch" once.I agree. Eventually, if you go back in time far enough, you'll find that most "Dutch" aspects once weren't "Dutch" at all.

The introduction of cars into a society will naturally leave an impact on society, because it affects the standard of living. Technology makes a tremendous visual impact on society, but culture is so much more than what can be captured on a photography.Agreed, but the impact of technology is much more than just "visual" things. Take modern technologies like cell phones, and how they've influenced communication. And along with that social behaviour.

This is simply not true. From our perspective, if we simply look at the architecture, yes, then it looks remarkably similar (and goes to prove my point: culturally-specific architecture requires maturing). But culture was far more diverse in those days than it is now. You could notice differences in customs from one village to the next, simply because society was much less international in those days. The values and identity of a medieval farmer, used to a feudal society, would be extremely different from the values and identity of a farmer 100 years ago. The technology wouldn't be all that different from the one to the other, but like I said, culture is so much more than what is immediately visible.While it is true that customs (and thus "culture"), hell even language, were often different between neighbouring villages, the "macro-culture" of the average farmer barely changed. The average farmer on the countryside, wouldn't have noticed a single thing about the enlightenment and all that. They did things exactly like their father and grandfather before it did. Norms and values didn't change much. Architecture didn't change much. Food didn't change much.
You do have a point with the feudal society, but well after the middle ages noble titles still existed, and the common people still had to pay taxes to those.

Indeed, so why not live and let live? Why oppose it as if it threatened you, somehow? Resistance to change is always to be expected (and is possibly a very useful moderating force in any society), but I guess I see protest marches as an overreaction.I don't live and let live because I'm against this change.
I do feel threatened actually. I'm afraid for the loss of the Dutch culture.
(BTW, you won't likely see me in any protest marches;))

But no one has "always" been there. At one point the Netherlands was populated by dinosaurs.That's true. In this context, with "always" I mean "long enough to have become part of the common culture of that area".

Then I guess you could argue that if the Arabs would stay here for a few more centuries, they'd become part of the "new" Dutch culture. And they would. But they haven't been here for that long yet, and thus aren't part of our culture yet.

The people you perceive as having "always" been there are also the result of outside influences. How much is left of the cultures of the Germannic tribes in Netherlands?You'd be surprised. In fact, if you take the moral values of the Germanics, and compare it to both the Christian moral and the present moral, you'll find that the Germanic moral often corresponds with the present moral a lot more than with the Christian.

Things change, and new people bring change with them. This is just natural, and right. If you were to move to another country, you shouldn't be expected to abandon your Dutch heritage, either.Abandoning and adapting are different words. I would not "abandon" my Dutch heritage, I would always see me as having a Dutch origin, and would be proud of that.

But I would adapt to the local culture. I would learn the local language. I would learn the local norms and values. And I would comply to those. Even if they went straight against the Dutch norms, I would act as the locals would expect me to. Because I know that if I want to be accepted into their society, I have to follow the rules of that society.

Which is something I do often not see when Muslim foreigners are concerned. Not rarely do I see some of those who haven't even bothered to learn the Dutch language.:nope:

Yes, and it turned out in the very next post that you and I were operating under very different definitions of culture. You expect them to blend in 100% in every single aspect, but this is impossible. To me, conformity to local laws and values is what is required, and all that is required.
[...]
Please read back a few posts. You seem to have forgotten how we discussed different definitions of culture, and how I was not using your all-encompassing definition. At no point have I changed my mind; at no point have I contradicted myself.Then this difference in our definitions explains it:) The blame is entirely on me.

Yes, of course it is your right, but if you see something as a problem then you should also be able to say why it is a problem.Very well then. There are two major reasons:
- I like every country to have a different culture. What an utterly boring world would this be if all people had the same culture.

- Some self-developed "racial/cultural" theory of mine, based on Darwinism. This is why I'm so afraid of giving my reason for finding it a problem. Because as soon as I say the word "race", I'm sure everyone immediately starts jumping on me and accusing me of racism. Even though in my theory, every race is essentially equal.
I'm not going to elaborate any further about the exact contents of it, and "proof" for it, as it's rather off-topic and it would take quite a long post to do so while I'm too lazy to type such long texts:lol:

Well, there is already a lot of Roman and Arab aspects of Dutch culture. You use Roman letters and Arab numbers, architecturally you owe a lot to the Romans, and Christianity is itself a Middle Eastern religion which also has left a very considerable mark on Dutch culture. What, exactly, is "Dutch", which doesn't originate from outside the region?The difference is in that we Dutch copied these influences out of our own free will. We saw the Arab numerals, and we thought "hey, that's a much smarter system than our own! Let's use it!"

You really think there was no death penalty or torture in the local Germannic tribes? If you go back far enough, I shouldn't be surprised to find human sacrifice as well.But if you read into these accounts of human sacrifice, you'll find they quite often were voluntarily. Read this account by the 10th century Arab writer Ibn Fadlan (http://web.archive.org/web/20080409203620/http://www.geocities.com/sessrumnirkindred/risala.html), paragraph 88.
Which tribes did or did not use involuntary human sacrifice seems to depend on the tribe, because most tribes I know about seem to not have used this practice.

But even when they did, it was never used as punishment. Torture was definitely never used as punishment, neither as a means of making someone confess.
I quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples)here:
"Corporal or capital punishment for free men does not figure in the Germanic law codes, and banishment appears to be the most severe penalty issued officially."

You really think they changed their ways voluntarily? You think there wasn't resistance to change just as there is resistance to change now? Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves - that's human nature, and just as true then as it is now. Roman culture wasn't popular among the conservatives at the time, and neither was Christianity. Not because the change was for the worse, but because there are always those who will want to stick to "the old ways".But the people that converted to Christianism were Germanic nonetheless. While there are utterly few Dutchmen converting to Islam.

The people that converted at the time did it voluntarily.

I'm not asking you to prove the fact that you find something to be bad. I'm asking you to explain why you think it is bad.Well, in that case my answer is essentially the same as the one I gave a few quotes back. The one with the 2 reasons.

If that's how you wish to define it. But then you must also agree that if minarets become a normal aspect of Dutch scenery in the future, then they will no longer be "anti-Dutch".I agree with that. But until they have become a normal aspect, they are.

Culture changes a lot faster these days, it is true. This is mostly due to communication and information access, which has internationalized just about every country. And what does it matter if cultural change comes from immigration, religious reformation, technology or whatnot?That changes caused by technology and many other things come from within the country. The people who lived there have devised these cultural changes of their own. And thus these cultural changes are essentially the will of the people (otherwise they wouldn't have happened).
While changes caused by immigration is a change from outside the external environment, against the will of the people.

I just hope my most recent reply doesn't make you change that perception :oops:certainly not:)

DarkFish

05-25-10, 03:07 PM

There's a difference between two populations blending over the generation through breeding, and ethnic cleansing. If the future Europeans are mostly or completely white, black, brown, red, yellow or purple, what difference does it make? They'd still be Europeans.If they'd be adapted to our culture, they would definitely be Europeans in my point of view.

Last week I met a black guy, and it seemed to me he had lived in the Netherlands for generations, so well did he speak Dutch. So well did he comply to our norms and values, to our behaviour.
But then he told me he came from Mozambique only 12 years ago, as a young boy.
I quote (well, pretty much since it's already a weak ago:)) him:
"When I came here, I wanted to learn the local language.
[...]
I wanted to eat the local food. And even though I didn't like it at first, I kept eating it because I knew that was what they ate here."

I really admire people like that. They should have all the right to be a full part of Dutch society. No matter what skin color they have, no matter where they come from.

Happy Times

05-25-10, 06:22 PM

Luckily times are closing when we dont need twenty pages discussions to establish that European people have a right to their culture.:yeah:

Im starting to read with anticipation stories like the one today.

Two African males are wanted for the abduction of a 16 year old girl in Finland.
They snatched her during her school trip in a van.
Took her to the woods and left her tied to a log in a stream from waist down,
luckily someone found her in time.
The details are not public yet and the perpetrators are still at large.

These immigrant crimes are often defended in Finland by saying that different cultures cause clashes.
Easy solution for that, dont mix cultures.:yeah:

Snestorm

05-25-10, 06:54 PM

There's a difference between two populations blending over the generation through breeding, and ethnic cleansing. If the future Europeans are mostly or completely white, black, brown, red, yellow or purple, what difference does it make? They'd still be Europeans.

I admit there is something "safe" and "homely" about seeing mostly white faces in my home town, but does it really matter?

Ethnic Cleansing is Ethnic Cleansing. Whether it be by murder or cross breeding, the result is the same.

Does the ethnicity of the population matter? Yes!

Personaly, I like seeing the pretty danish faces of girls (all scandinavian girls).
I like to see other people with blonde, as opposed to "blonde" (bleached) hair.
I like seeing other people with light colored eyes.

The idé of any of that becoming extinct makes a great deal of difference to me.
(Once we're gone, we can never come back. This social experiment has permanent results.)

Snestorm

05-25-10, 07:02 PM

Luckily times are closing when we dont need twenty pages discussions to establish that European people have a right to their culture.:yeah:

These immigrant crimes are often defended in Finland by saying that different cultures cause clashes.
Easy solution for that, dont mix cultures.:yeah:

We stand again united, sir.

DF

DarkFish

05-25-10, 07:11 PM

Ethnic Cleansing is Ethnic Cleansing. Whether it be by murder or cross breeding, the result is the same.

Does the ethnicity of the population matter? Yes!

Personaly, I like seeing the pretty danish faces of girls (all scandinavian girls).
I like to see other people with blonde, as opposed to "blonde" (bleached) hair.
I like seeing other people with light colored eyes.

The idé of any of that becoming extinct makes a great deal of difference to me.
(Once we're gone, we can never come back. This social experiment has permanent results.)Hmm, this too yeah. I wouldn't like too many immigrants mix in with the Dutch.
I like Dutch girls with their light brown hair and blue eyes:)

But you won't hear me say that black or yellow or red or purple or green people can't be "Europeans" per se. Racially, maybe not. But culturally, definitely so.

Kissaki

05-25-10, 09:52 PM

Ethnic Cleansing is Ethnic Cleansing. Whether it be by murder or cross breeding, the result is the same.
No, it is not the same. Nor is the result the same. Ethnic cleansing is the willful destruction of an ethnicity either by sterilization and/or murder. The purpose is to prevent further breeding.

When an ethnicity disappears because it has been absorbed into another, more dominant ethnicity, it is nothing similar to ethnic cleansing by any means. In this case your seed lives on - with ethnic cleansing it doesn't. Have you ever heard of anyone saying, "that race must be eliminated, so let's have kids with them"? The very notion is absurd on the best of days.

Does the ethnicity of the population matter? Yes!
Because...?

Personaly, I like seeing the pretty danish faces of girls (all scandinavian girls).
I like to see other people with blonde, as opposed to "blonde" (bleached) hair.
I like seeing other people with light colored eyes.

The idé of any of that becoming extinct makes a great deal of difference to me.
(Once we're gone, we can never come back. This social experiment has permanent results.)
I like diversity, too. But it is sheer romanticism, and why should your romantic ideals decide anything for tomorrow's generation, when you are dead and gone? In practical terms the world would actually be served by having all ethnicities blend into one, because then there would be no more racism. I would lament the disappearance of variation, but does it actually matter? Do we care about the lamentations of the previous generations?

Kissaki

05-25-10, 09:58 PM

Luckily times are closing when we dont need twenty pages discussions to establish that European people have a right to their culture.:yeah:

Im starting to read with anticipation stories like the one today.

Two African males are wanted for the abduction of a 16 year old girl in Finland.
They snatched her during her school trip in a van.
Took her to the woods and left her tied to a log in a stream from waist down,
luckily someone found her in time.
The details are not public yet and the perpetrators are still at large.
Yeah, that's not anecdotal at all. :roll:

These immigrant crimes are often defended in Finland by saying that different cultures cause clashes.
Easy solution for that, dont mix cultures.:yeah:
First of all, do you think what they did was culturally acceptable where they came from? :stare:

Second, how will you iron out differences between cultures if you don't mix them? Aren't cultural clashes evidence of lack of integration?

Snestorm

05-25-10, 10:33 PM

No, it is not the same. Nor is the result the same. Ethnic cleansing is the willful destruction of an ethnicity either by sterilization and/or murder. The purpose is to prevent further breeding.

When an ethnicity disappears because it has been absorbed into another, more dominant ethnicity, it is nothing similar to ethnic cleansing by any means. In this case your seed lives on - with ethnic cleansing it doesn't. Have you ever heard of anyone saying, "that race must be eliminated, so let's have kids with them"? The very notion is absurd on the best of days.

More dominant ethnicity?!?!
You're free to act submissive if you so choose, but I shan't.

And on: "that race must be eliminated, so let's have kids with them?"
The old way of saying that is:
"Kill the men, and rape the women."
Seems like some immigrants have already picked up on this very old idé.

Morts

05-26-10, 01:03 AM

Seems like some immigrants have already picked up on this very old idé.
wow...just...wow...

Tribesman

05-26-10, 02:28 AM

Ethnic Cleansing is Ethnic Cleansing.Whether it be by murder or cross breeding, the result is the same.

What a disturbing statement
Cross breeding??????
that sounds very like that lunatic 1930s ideology of racial purity.

I like to see other people with blonde, as opposed to "blonde" (bleached) hair.
I like seeing other people with light colored eyes.

Very 1930s,:doh:
Is that you Adolf? Have you come back from the dead?
Can you get Heinrich to reintroduce Lebensborn to ensure plenty of blue eyed blonds for the preservation of the master race from extinction by the cross breeding horde?

Jankowski

05-26-10, 06:49 AM

i would be more worried about a synagogue...........

Morts

05-26-10, 08:14 AM

What a disturbing statement
Cross breeding??????
that sounds very like that lunatic 1930s ideology of racial purity.

Very 1930s,:doh:
Is that you Adolf? Have you come back from the dead?
Can you get Heinrich to reintroduce Lebensborn to ensure plenty of blue eyed blonds for the preservation of the master race from extinction by the cross breeding horde?
he says DF at the end of one of his posts, and that probably means Dansk Folkeparti (danish peoples party)...they are pretty much closet neo-nazis...there is loving ones country, and then there is "loving" it DF style, the fanatic nationalist way

Nordmann

05-26-10, 09:11 AM

Arrested for showing your nation's flag? Wow. I bet if it had been a mob of angry Muslims, waving placards and yelling violent slogans, the law would probably have been cheering them on!

Europe is definitely a sinking ship at the moment, it's certainly going to take a protest of monumental proportions to overturn such flagrant breaches of civil rights. Something which I cannot see apathetic Europeans doing any time soon.

Happy Times

05-26-10, 09:27 AM

Kissaki

05-26-10, 10:41 AM

More dominant ethnicity?!?!
You're free to act submissive if you so choose, but I shan't.
You misunderstand the word "dominant". It is not the same as the opposite of "submissive": a dominant segment is simply the segment of the population which is in majority. Has nothing to do with dominant/submissive.

And on: "that race must be eliminated, so let's have kids with them?"
The old way of saying that is:
"Kill the men, and rape the women."
Seems like some immigrants have already picked up on this very old idé.
"Kill the men, rape the women" has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. That's the old raiding mantra, and it's not like you intend to have anything more to do with the women you rape, much less the offspring. Are you being difficult on purpose?

Tribesman

05-26-10, 12:06 PM

Arrested for showing your nation's flag?
He wasn't arrested for showing his nations flag, he was arrested for continuing to cause a disturbance in a meeting after he was told to stop or leave. He was arrested for refusing to follow the instructions of the council clerk in a council meeting and then refusing to follow the instructions of the police who were called to the meeting.
Face it, going by his own words he was ranting about stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed in the planning meeting.

he says DF at the end of one of his posts, and that probably means Dansk Folkeparti (danish peoples party)...they are pretty much closet neo-nazis...there is loving ones country, and then there is "loving" it DF style, the fanatic nationalist way
I know, I have commented before on how his warped version of fanatical patriotism is one that most people realised was very sick and twisted after events of 70 years ago.
Though the old Dansk Front might be more in line than the Folkparti.

Nordmann

05-26-10, 01:02 PM

He wasn't arrested for showing his nations flag, he was arrested for continuing to cause a disturbance in a meeting after he was told to stop or leave. He was arrested for refusing to follow the instructions of the council clerk in a council meeting and then refusing to follow the instructions of the police who were called to the meeting.
Face it, going by his own words he was ranting about stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed in the planning meeting.

Would that be the same manner of disturbance caused by mobs of protesting Muslims? I'd like to see some of them arrested... oh wait... that's right, they have freedom of speech, while the rest of us get a cold cell for the night.

Ah, equality, got to love it!

Tribesman

05-26-10, 03:42 PM

Would that be the same manner of disturbance caused by mobs of protesting Muslims?
No its in the manner of turning up at a council meeting, being deemed to be disturbing proceedings and then eventually getting arrested after choosing to ignore repeated warnings.

I'd like to see some of them arrested... oh wait... that's right, they have freedom of speech, while the rest of us get a cold cell for the night.

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and quite frankly you are talking complete nonsense.

Snestorm

05-26-10, 08:59 PM

Snestorm

05-26-10, 09:01 PM

i would be more worried about a synagogue...........

How is that?

Snestorm

05-26-10, 09:05 PM

Are you being difficult on purpose?

Actualy, no.
We just happen to disagree.

Snestorm

05-26-10, 09:10 PM

It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and quite frankly you are talking complete nonsense.

The word "nonsense", when translated from Tribesman to plain english means obviouse truth.

August

05-26-10, 09:41 PM

The word "nonsense", when translated from Tribesman to plain english means obviouse truth.Well then why feed the Troll?

Happy Times

05-26-10, 09:52 PM

Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.

http://mulattodiaries.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/shutterstock_1560565multiracial_400.jpg

Happy Times

05-26-10, 09:58 PM

Im not personally that interested anymore after i realised that my view will prevail and theirs will not.

The multiculturalists will still do some more damage but the tide is turning clearly, they can accept it or flush out with it.:rock:

Snestorm

05-26-10, 11:12 PM

Tribesman

05-27-10, 12:16 AM

Spoken like a true hippie.
Coming from what would appear to be a rather fanatical "aryan" nationalist that is one hell of a compliment. Thank you:up:

The word "nonsense", when translated from Tribesman to plain english means obviouse truth.
The word nonsense means nonsense which is easily demonstrated by taking Nordmanns ridiculous claim and measuring against a similar event in his own country, like the public planning meeting and associated protests over the proposal for a new mosque in Camberley.
Even those nazi scum from the EDL that were protesting were not arrrested for protesting as they kept within the law and more importantly apart from a few initial minor disturbances inside the meeting for which people were warned to stop or leave it all went smoothly with no arrests.

Oh dear, once again August jumps in just to troll in a topic. What a surprise.

Kissaki

05-31-10, 05:37 AM

Actualy, no.
We just happen to disagree.
It is more than mere disagreement. Ethnic cleansing has a very well defined definition, and you were wrong in the way you used the word. But rather than admitting it you grasp at straws and make things up, things which you cannot even possibly believe yourself. You have even managed to say that the OPPOSITE of ethnic cleansing (co-existence and what you would call "cross-breeding") is "ethnic cleansing".

Happy Times

05-31-10, 06:23 AM

It is more than mere disagreement. Ethnic cleansing has a very well defined definition, and you were wrong in the way you used the word. But rather than admitting it you grasp at straws and make things up, things which you cannot even possibly believe yourself. You have even managed to say that the OPPOSITE of ethnic cleansing (co-existence and what you would call "cross-breeding") is "ethnic cleansing".

Im not taking his side because im not sure where he is getting at.

But if we are usually told to protect the native peoples in Asia or Americas coming extinct, why cant he be worried about the Nordic peoples?

We are the native people of our lands!

Or maybe the North European white male is always wrong and should just shut up die fast?

Kissaki

05-31-10, 06:37 AM

Im not taking his side because im not sure where he is getting at.

But if we are usually told to protect the native peoples in Asia or Americas coming extinct, why cant he be worried about the Nordic peoples?

We are the native people of our lands!

Or maybe the North European white male is always wrong and should just shut up die fast?
No one is going extinct in Europe. Extinction means that the bloodline dies, that there are no descendants. Even if the future Europeans are darkskinned, they will still have white ancestors. As well as coloured, of course. So even if there aren't any visually white people around in, say, 800 years time, you still can't say white people went extinct, if the bloodline is still there.

Now, if white people were segregated from non-white, and reprocreation was restricted until it finally ceased, then we could talk about extinction.

Happy Times

05-31-10, 06:55 AM

No one is going extinct in Europe. Extinction means that the bloodline dies, that there are no descendants. Even if the future Europeans are darkskinned, they will still have white ancestors. As well as coloured, of course. So even if there aren't any visually white people around in, say, 800 years time, you still can't say white people went extinct, if the bloodline is still there.

Now, if white people were segregated from non-white, and reprocreation was restricted until it finally ceased, then we could talk about extinction.

So even if something doesnt exist it is still not extinct?:hmmm:

And in your scenario everything else would be gone also, culture and language.

But hey, we could read about it in history books so it wouldnt be really gone, right?:doh:

DarkFish

05-31-10, 07:52 AM

No one is going extinct in Europe. Extinction means that the bloodline dies, that there are no descendants. Even if the future Europeans are darkskinned, they will still have white ancestors. As well as coloured, of course. So even if there aren't any visually white people around in, say, 800 years time, you still can't say white people went extinct, if the bloodline is still there.I don't agree with that. A race depends on certain genotypical characteristics. This genotype represents itself in a certain fenotype (the looks). If 'white' men cease to be white, and blue-eyed men cease to have blue eyes, the white blue eyed fenotype is extinct, and thus the white blue eyed genotype is extinct. And thus the white blue eyed Caucasian race will be extinct, cause there are none of the genes left that made the Caucasian race "Caucasian".

With your theory one could say we are all of the black race, because in the end we all come from Africa. Even though Caucasians look totally different from black people.

Kissaki

05-31-10, 10:09 AM

So even if something doesnt exist it is still not extinct?:hmmm:

What do you mean, "doesn't still exist"? Is a half white, half black person not just as white as he is black? The genes are still there, so even if visually darker skin dominates, that doesn't mean the white genes are gone.

And in your scenario everything else would be gone also, culture and language.
Culture and language changes. This is inevitable, and the alternative is stagnation.

But hey, we could read about it in history books so it wouldnt be really gone, right?:doh:
Soooooo... it's a BAD thing that culture and language has changed since the paleolithic?

Kissaki

05-31-10, 10:17 AM

I don't agree with that. A race depends on certain genotypical characteristics. This genotype represents itself in a certain fenotype (the looks). If 'white' men cease to be white, and blue-eyed men cease to have blue eyes, the white blue eyed fenotype is extinct, and thus the white blue eyed genotype is extinct. And thus the white blue eyed Caucasian race will be extinct, cause there are none of the genes left that made the Caucasian race "Caucasian".

With your theory one could say we are all of the black race, because in the end we all come from Africa. Even though Caucasians look totally different from black people.
Looks are only superficial, and only one aspect of your genes. A brown-eyed person may well have the genes for blue eyes, it's just that the genes for brown eyes are dominant. He may have blue-eyed descendants along the line.

If we say we have ethnicity A and ethnicity B, and they mix, we will end up with ethnicity AB. Ethnicity AB may have more of the looks of ethnicity B than ethnicity A, but that doesn't mean that AB is somehow more B than A. And if the entire species end up being ethnicity AB (and let us say for the sake of argument that neither A nor B can resurface in "pure" form), A will be no more gone than B, no matter how much AB looks like B. The genes of both ethnicities will still be there, and variation does a species good, anyway.

DarkFish

06-01-10, 06:28 AM

Looks are only superficial, and only one aspect of your genes. A brown-eyed person may well have the genes for blue eyes, it's just that the genes for brown eyes are dominant. He may have blue-eyed descendants along the line.Looks are the parts of your genes that are the easiest to ''see". If the genes that determine your look have changed, it's reasonable to assume the other genes have changed as well (assuming both "types" of genes differ between the races).
If we say we have ethnicity A and ethnicity B, and they mix, we will end up with ethnicity AB. Ethnicity AB may have more of the looks of ethnicity B than ethnicity A, but that doesn't mean that AB is somehow more B than A. And if the entire species end up being ethnicity AB (and let us say for the sake of argument that neither A nor B can resurface in "pure" form), A will be no more gone than B, no matter how much AB looks like B. The genes of both ethnicities will still be there, and variation does a species good, anyway.It's true that the genes will probably remain. But if the genes are recessive, and suppressed by a large enough amount of dominant genes (e.g. a huge amount of black people cross-breeding with a small amount of white people), it's very likely that the suppressed genes will never surface again.
Thus the race will cease to exist.
"Race" depends on phenotype as much as it depends on genotype. The genes may still be there, but if they don't show the race has disappeared (or rather changed/assimilated) nonetheless.

Happy Times

06-01-10, 07:24 AM

What do you mean, "doesn't still exist"? Is a half white, half black person not just as white as he is black? The genes are still there, so even if visually darker skin dominates, that doesn't mean the white genes are gone.

Culture and language changes. This is inevitable, and the alternative is stagnation.

Soooooo... it's a BAD thing that culture and language has changed since the paleolithic?

You do realize that cultures do have major and measurable differences, unlike races?

I dont accept cultures automatically as of equal value, some i despise deeply.

You claim protecting ones culture is automatically stagnation, i dont buy that, sounds like leftists propaganda.

At the same time you dont see the possibility of culture deteriorating with outside influence.

Its part of the multiculti faith that everything new coming from outside is good and the old is bad.

We are always being enriched from outside, never impoverished.

NeonSamurai

06-02-10, 03:31 PM

DarkFish

06-03-10, 06:17 AM

Cultural evolution is an ongoing process of change and even extinction. The culture a society has now is not the same as 10 years ago, or 100 years ago, and so on. Change is inevitable, and cultures have been mixing, blending, and disappearing since the start of society. Trying to protect it is in a sense pointless as it is ever changing even without outside influences. Also this is survival of the fittest, the strongest culture is the one that survives in the end.Culture is indeed changing. It always has. But the problem here is that Western European cultures are currently changed by foreign influences from immigrants, against the will of the natural population.

Also for the record, race does not exist according to genetics or scientific theory.Not entirely true. Scientists don't agree on it.
But one thing is certain; there are notable genetic differences between the human races. Apart from these difference, all Humans are essentially the same. But isn't that exactly what "race" means? Different races of one species always have the same genetic buidup, if they had a different genetic buildup they'd be another species. That's why the word "race" was invented.
Why is it okay to talk about dog races, horse races, whatever animal race (though in English it's rather called "breed". In Dutch it's the same word for both), but when we talk about human beings it's immediately regarded as incorrect? Why is a human different from a dog, apart from that we're a little smarter?

None of the so called races posses unique genetic traits, all races have variations where some genes may be more dominant then others. All 'races' possess the physical features of all the other 'races', you can have dark skinned 'white' people, Asians with Caucasian features, and all with out intermixing of genetic data. We assign race to people because of trends in very superficial physical characteristics in the overall demographics.Not entirely true. Apart from genetic irregularities (e.g. albino) the physical features within one race are largely the same. The only reason why e.g. Caucasians from the Mediterranean look quite different from Caucasians from northern Europe is an (IMO) too large generalization of races. Personally I'd divide the Caucasian race into "North Western Caucasian race", "Mediterranean Caucasian race", "Slavic Caucasian race" etc. etc. If you do so you'll find that there are remarkably few differences amongst the members of one race.
This doesn't count for cross-bred people of course. They've got characteristics from both races (just as is the case with animal cross-breeding. But we do talk about races there. We Humans are animals too so why make such a large difference between our species and other animals?)

And yes, there'll always be differences amongst the members of a single race. But so is it with other animals. No two animals look exactly the same, but still we do talk about races (or breeds) there.

One of the ironies of the holocaust was that the Nazi's were often putting to death people that more perfectly represented the physical ideals of the so called Aryan race then the vast majority of the German populace. Yet their ideology was based very much on physical traits associated with 'racial purity'.True, because Judaism is just a religion being Jew doesn't say anything about your race.
But because the Nazis misused the word "race", does that mean races don't exist?

NeonSamurai

06-03-10, 09:03 AM

DarkFish

06-03-10, 10:06 AM

Most reputable scientists have dropped the term after all the research that has gone on. There is no unique genetic information that is found in only one race. Yes there are traits dominant towards one group, though those traits adapt and change too depending on environment.That's exactly what a race is. The difference in frequencies in which certain genes appear between a number of populations. If these differences are reasonably high you can sensibly call it a different race. I have yet to see any white people with a black skin, which means the genes for a black skin are (almost) nonexistent amongst Caucasians. Therefore you could call them different races.
Please note that it appears that we are using different definitions of race (read my reply to your next quote below). This has probably caused some misunderstandings between the two of us.:) Using your definition, what I call race would be breed.

Beware, I'm not saying any race/breed would be better than or superior to any other race/breed. White people and black people and yellow and purple and green people are all humans, so in my opinion all equal.

Also we don't use the term race for dogs, or cats, or horses, we use the term breeds. There is only one race of dogs (pet dogs), one race of cats (house cats), etc.Depends. There are more ways to define "race". Depending on what definition you use, race either means "subspecies" or "breed". I obviously mean "breed" as there are clearly no different human subspecies.
I agree that in English the word "breed" is far more common, but "race" isn't incorrect:
race (countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable) and uncountable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable); plural races (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/races))
[...]
5. A breed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/breed) or strain (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/strain) of domesticated (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/domesticate) animal.
The term race denotes major differences between two biological entities, which really don't exist in humanity. There is only one race. All the differences are cosmetic and very superficial.This too is probably a result of us using different definitions of race.
If you change all "race" into "breed" in my previous posts, would you agree with me then?