So it is a case of you again using specifics where you are making generalisations and making generalisations when you want to deal with specifics.


So you have to exaggerate to the extreme to try and make a point seem valid.
That suggests that your point is somewhat lacking validity.:yeah:


Errrrr....you went to great lenths insisting that no churches in Holland did any such thing at all and that you should know because you live there.
Your arguement was that only muslims mark their prayer times with regular noise and it shouldn't be allowed because no one else does it.

BTW Those are not generalisations I did as they are all specifics and are all true. If I had said Amish traditions are the American culture or that there are no Amish traditions in american culture you would have a point

Its a pattern isn't it, you make complaints about things being so wrong and how they shouldn't be allowed as only one group does it, then spend ages trying to deny that your arguement clearly lacks a decent connection to reality.

Use your own evidence from the report you posted, can you explain how the dutch christians from the Americas have such high crime rates as they ain't muslims or Turkish?
When you have worked that one out you might come back to the "reported suspects" figure you first posted and make a connection

So a rhetorical device makes a point non-valid?

Your proven inability to understand rhetorical devices explains why you think I did.

BTW wouldn't you agree that a native knows more about his culture than a foreigner? If not, all Irishmen dress as pink leprechauns and I'm right because I'm not Irish:yeah:

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

To help you here, I'll copy the definition of "culture":
"The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group"

Wait - *shared*? So the traditional practices of one or two villages are not part of a country's culture, simply because they aren't shared. If I was digging myself a hole before, you must be making a tunnel to China.

Nope, I collect evidence supporting that my claim does clearly have a connection to reality. Now if you don't bring in any counter-evidence, there's only evidence supporting my claim. Arguing has never been so easy.

Well, you finally do provide some evidence:o Well done, tribesman! I must honestly say I underestimated you because I didn't think you would.

I assume with "Dutch Christians from the Americas" you mean immigrants from the Antilles/Suriname? The answer is very simple. They aren't members of the Dutch culture. Their culture is a strange mix of African, Ind(ones)ian, American and Dutch culture. So the high crimerates in said population say absolutely nothing about my claims, as those were about Dutch and Turkish culture. Other cultures simply fall outside them.

I would like to extend my claim however. Most firmly-established non-western (except Asian maybe) immigrant cultures in the Netherlands have higher crime rates than native Dutchmen. If anything this should make it easier for you. It doesn't matter in this case however, as the statistics you're talking about here only back up this new claim of mine.

As for your second question about the reported subjects, if the Dutch police is in your opinion so biased that just this bias alone explains these statistics, how can you explain that Indonesians for example are less likely to become a suspect than native Dutchmen?

It does when you try to defend what it says because you know it was nonsense in the first place

No, your repeated insistance that none at all did it explains why.

Nice try, so lame but nice try all the same.:har:
How many different definitions of culture regarding social traits can you find in a single dictionary?
So you mean "one of the defininitions" not "the definition".
Once again you are mixing specifics and generalisations.

Oh dear, you really have a problem with language don't you.
The traditional cultural practices of places would not be part of a nations culture only if those places were not part of that nation:doh:

Yet once again you have in your own post provided sufficient evidence to prove yourself wrong.
The fact that you cannot even realise it is what makes it so easy to prove you wrong with so little effort.


As I said, you provide all the evidence I need but don't realise it.

You shouldn't assume, but you are not far off.

I am afraid the answer is not simple at all.

No, yes(but with no twice). Wrong, no not really. No.

So that shows how your "simple" answer is simply so wrong its almost a joke:yep:


That wasn't a wise thing to do, extending your claims when you are doing so badly on your existing claims.
Can you define a native dutchman in terms of citizenship and culture?
It will relate back to some of your earlier claims which you destroyed yourself still don't realise it.

I really am beginning to feel sorry for you now Darkfish, several times you have insisted that you understand what reported suspects means, yet now again you demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea and think its somehow the Dutch police being biased.:doh:
Not only that but you demonstrate your language problem again as from the pile of reasons I gave strangely you chose one reason that was not given by me and claim that it alone was the formation of my opinion.:know:

Tribesman, all your argument is based on either deliberately completely misunderstanding and twisting my words, or saying "you are wrong and that's so clear I don't need to provide evidence".
Discussing can have two possible goals. The first is to come to a new opinion by learning new insights into the problem. The second is to simply win the debate. The former is impossible because you bring in absolutely nothing constructive, the latter because with your way of discussing you could maintain the earth is flat if I told you otherwise. And I don't mean that as a compliment. Therefore I can see absolutely no use in continuing this discussion. This will be my last post in it and I hope you have the decency to refrain from posting as well, and lack the cowardice to do otherwise.

Thats just a language and perception problem on your part, all you have to do is follow the flow and join the dots, it is very easy.
Not without checking first:yeah:
Perhaps thats what you should do when someone questions what you have written:know:

Just when we were getting somewhere.:har:
Two small questions if you have the balls to face them.
What does a foriegner look like and what is the legal status of people from the different parts of the Netherlands which other States might call colonies?
Amazingly both questions still relate to that perception thing and the first figures you posted which you still cannot understand even though it really is simple, plus they have the bonus of relating to the "culture" thing where you got one bit right and five bits wrong in your claim.

This happens when I submerge some days from the forums: heated discussion, but some good posts:
Seems like the headline is indeed true, still a wrestle about the (multicultural) identity going on here...

my 2 eurocents, sorry for the wall of text, got longer than I expected:

First there is a little too much Dark-Fish-bashing here for my taste - I don't see him as an immigrant-hating madman who wants to promote a germanic master race. I think of him more in terms of a patriotic socialist - yes this is not a contradiction, there have been many of them, Willy Brandt being Germany's most famous example. I understand his way of thinking, that's why I said he can do better than over-generalisation. The Dutch always had a reputation of being a very liberal and tolerant society. Did the mentality change overnight, or isnt it much more that people learn from many negative experiences? I believe the latter.

There has always been migration to Germany, especially here in the Rhineland. A paper here had a series some time ago: why we have the most beautiful women here: it comes from thousands of years of mixing. We had the Romans here, the French, dozends of other visitors in the 30 year war. Then the immigration from eastern europe, mainly Poland in the 19th century, after WW2 many others. Of course also the inner-german migration, not to underestimate: many people here are closer to the Dutch than to the Bavarians - in their way of thinking and their cultural norms. This all contributed to the fact that we are a mutt race here and there is a certain mentality here that a stranger is not seen as a threat but as a victim for chit-chat. When you are sitting alone here, people will talk to you.

When we talk about generations, we should make clear what we are talking about. A 1st generation Turk from the 60s differs much from a 1st generation Turk from the 90s. That's why I prefer to talk about different eras. The people who came here in the 50s - about 1970 were integrated like ****. They were called guest-workers, most did blue-collar work, no need to learn much German, the intention was to leave after making some money. We all know live is always other than planned. Many stayed. Their children are the real 2nd generation, my generation, born in the 70s. Most of them speak perfect german without an accent. This comes from several factors: When the parents cared then they wanted a better life for their kids, many of those even refused to teach their children their native language. The 2nd gen grew up in predominantly german neighbourhoods, so they had to speak German in school as well as in everyday life. As far as criminal activities go, well I can only speak from my experiences, we all did much non-smart stuff in our youth *innocent looks* - Besides juvenile stupidity, class/wealth are also factors.

When people decide to stick to an idiotic culture, they do not want to mingle with people from this 2nd or 3rd gen. The women are much too westernized for their taste, they prefer import brides - preferably uneducated and religious, lovely combination! Little anecdote: When a co-worker of turkish descent finally got her german citizenship she first complained that it was a non-easy procedure. In the next moment she said that she however understands this, as the germans should not let every "Kanake" (n-word for turks) in. :D She meant exactly those people who I talked about in the previous sentence.

It is a lie that there are only the Turks causing problems here and all other nationals are well-integrated. I can show you a tamile, a russian, a german and a maroccan ghetto, all within 10kms. Go through a german city, tell me what ethnicity the dealers at the central station have or look up where most burglars or pickpocketers come from, if you know what I mean. An interesting article in the Spiegel stated that the worst integratedimmigrants are Italiens: many don't speak good german after generations, the school-drop out rate is high, though many live off welfare - all in higher percentages than the Turks. This does not match up with my experiences, but they did some reasearch.

I am far from a peace-loving tree-hugging kumbaya-singer. The problems are here, they are real and it does not help to marginalize or mute them. There are some quarters of towns going down. People move in who don't care about their community, the better-off leave, analogue to the american expression of "white flight". It is not comparatible to the US however. It has nothing to do with ethnicity, even the better-off immigrants don't want their kids to go to predominately foreign schools. We all live much closer together here in Europe - so if you are not a total ignorant, everyone should be aware of these problems. Especially people in the less well off neighbourhoods feel that they left alone. Our police is a joke, our justice system an even sadder one. Activities for juveniles become closed, social work funding cut down. Money for education? muhuahua, we got the ****ing banks to bail out!

I am not saying that it is only an issue of funding, but if money in key areas is denied then this is a matter of politics, or political will if you want to call it so.
Countries with traditions of immigration, like Canada and Australia have sensible policies regarding this isssue - in comparision to Germany of course. It seems here the politics does not want people coming here who can contribute something to its society.
During all the time, Germany never developed an immigration policy worth it's name. The debate goes on since I am political aware - like the german joke called "health reform": much talk, nothing gets done since decades.


Conclusions: dunno, I am just a grumpy old anti-everything guy...

2 euro cents, it was a cheap reading :yep:

I think the word "multicultural" is part of the problem. The notion of difference as being something to support. I prefer the old US notion of "melting pot." The former suggests preserving difference, the latter suggests integration. It's not just semantics, it does set an expectation, IMO.

People are more the same than different. Concentrating on difference—particularly in the realm of public policy—is a huge mistake, IMHO. No special rules to make the "different" able to fit in, or keep their difference. Integration is the only thing that matters. That means the new, "other" in the society needs to change to match the society—in return the society also changes a little, but the "mass" of society is bigger, it's like putting a liter of boiling water into the ocean, the ocean's temp rises very little indeed, and the liter of boiling water ends up effectively the same temp as the ocean. The onus is on the immigrant, not society. If you don't wish to become "german," don't move to Germany. Ditto immigration to the USA or anywhere else.

This means a rational immigration policy would try to sort for those willing to adapt. This doesn't mean abandoning their religion—though bumping atheists, or other apostates immigrating from the Islamic world to the front of the line makes perfect sense to me as they are far more likely to adapt to the secular west. It does mean that society should not bend over backwards to facilitate their religion. As I have said before, at least in the US where it is codified in the Constitution, strict separation of church and state is your friend. No special schools, nothing at all from the state that makes the immigrants "special" or otherwise unmixed into society. Integration, integration, integration. Western culture needs to be unescapable except by leaving.

Vendor, please donate 20 öre to subsim for reading the last post :DL

tater, you made some good points.
When we first learned about the US in my english class in the 7th grade, the term melting pot was introduced to us. Our teacher then also elaborated the term salad bowl. In a salad bowl each pieces are still distinguishable. If you take this example further you can say that all the ingredients are held together by the bowl - this could be the constitution, while the dressing can be seen as the culture.

In the same year I was in London for the first time, it was really amazing for little Penguin to see that they have Sikh bobbies with turbans, who were 100% british, from the perfect english to the stiff upper lip - despite having a faith most Brits don't have.

Speaking about the US, you can also say that a Midwest farmer, a member of the gay community in SF or a Cajun in Lousiana all have different (sub)cultural norms, but also much more in common than with someone living in Tokyo.

The patriotism in the US looks often so strong to European eyes, however you think about it, it is also a unifying component, making it easy for immigrants to get a feeling to be part of the team.

I have no special love for my country nor for my fellow countrymen - no matter if they are german or foreigners. My most patriotic feelings are about our constitution, so maybe I am a constitutionalist, lol.
However I am planning to migrate to another country, I think when I am there I will raise its flag every morning, just because of thankfullness that this country is insane enough to let me in :D

So I have nothing against if people are not all the same, but as you stated right, it is the immigrant who has to live with the norms that are in his new country. Learning about its norms and language is such a minimalistic requirement that it's not even worth mentioning. Thnings like secularism or fundamental rights, as defined in the constitution are not debatable.

I'll make a larger donation to SubSim, a 2 cents, :yep:

Taboos and Fear among Muslim girls

About the abuse and the double lives many Muslim women in Europe need to live, while being betrayed and let down by the PC brigades who ignore their fates as well as the criticism of ex-Muslim apostates attacking them for their nice-talking of Islamic totalitarianism. Both do not meet the world view of the PC briagdes and put the PC's fantasies about Islam into question.

Thanks for your support. I think of myself exactly like that as well.

I don't know for sure of course as I weren't there, but as far as I know the public opinion about immigrants used to be much better. If the opinion changed by coincidence, or by bad experiences? Who knows but the latter is certainly more likely.

I agree we've got the most beautiful girls:DL
But is that because our girls are really more beautiful than girls from other "races", or because we've grown up with our idea of beauty? I think if you'd ask someone from Timbuktu how his ideal women would look like, he'd come up with a very different picture than I would.
Also, is this beauty purely because of all the mixing? If you take the Swedes for example, they've had much less mixing than Dutchmen/West Germans, but IMO their girls are among the most beautiful in the world, only second to Dutch and maybe West German girls.

Which is why I don't really see myself as a "Dutchman" but more as a lower-Rhineland Germanic. I feel myself more connected to Western Germans than for example Frisians or people from Holland.
Countries are just borders. Culture goes way beyond that.

As for the rest of your post, I think I can agree with you. I want to emphasize that I did not mean to generalize that much. Of course there are lots of "good" turks as well.

Also as you say there are other nationalities that are even less integrated and/or more criminal than Turks. But for Germany the Turks are the best example, because AFAIK they are the biggest immigrant group (correct me if I'm wrong here). And as such cause the biggest trouble.

And I'm just a grumpy young anti-everything guy or what?:haha:

Let us squeeze out this thread, :stare:

Speaking as a non-Duch-speaking non-integrated immigrant to the Netherlands....I'll just stay quiet :O:

Why?
It is interesting.
Its exploring the problems of culture and adapting to the local cultures.
Its far better than just a stream of the latest BBC headlines.

So far we have a German who complains about people not fitting into German culture while complaining about German culture and about people having loyalties to other things rather than the state where thery live while he says he has no loyalty to the state where he lives.
That suggests a german wrestling with his own cultural identity floundering when trying to wrestle with another.
Then we have a Dutchman who isn't really a Dutchman saying that what other Dutch people do isn't Dutch culture as its a differnt part of the country and in his part of the country where they are not really Dutch they don't do the Dutch thing so it isn't a Dutch thing.

Its very illustrative of the problem of defining culture which people complain about others not adopting.
After all if there is a call for native born citizens who are descendants of immigrants to be thrown out of the country for not having the local culture then you must also throw out all the native born citizens who are descendants of locals who don't have the local culture, after all they both have the same legal status.

One example the Brits had a few years ago in a dumb attempt to define Britishness was the cricket question, after all what could be more British.
So do you support england in cricket?
Most British would reply either
England???? I ain't English
Cricket is a crap game
England are crap at cricket
or of course.......I support Yorkshire!!!!!!!

Could be worse, you could be one of those english speaking Dubs who move to London and then insist on speaking Irish