Gold sniffing dogs*? Could it happen here ... ?

Dogmatix... you are making the mistake of grouping ALL immigrants together, as if it were impossible to distinguish between them. Indeed, this is a common error made by many, who basically reason, "If they don't have a serious criminal record, then let the doors of this country fly open to receive them..." Yippe-Ki-Ya and myself are saying, that you must consider what might be the effect of letting people in who have no intention to assimilate. This is a view alien to most, and indeed it is how many EU countries used to think. I used to live in mainland Europe 10 years ago, and was aware of many cases, investigated by the authorities, where the immigrants, in their places of worship, used to talk about how the native inhabitants were filthy, godless, and to be despised as an inferior people. Some twits actually were so dumb as to think these refugees would be grateful after they were offered refuge. :lol: I am only talking about a very narrow band of persons, and so far as I see, 95% of all immigrants are great and enrich the host country.

Edit: Australia has not yet been exposed to an influx of this type, but things are gradually changing. These people are forceful in their demands; ie: that the host country which has received them must change its ways in order to accommodate them. Just wait and see how your children like Australia, if a critical mass of these non-integrating persons is achieved in Australia. People of all races and cultures will curse their forebears for allowing so many people who refuse to assimilate, into Australia.

 

Thanks for that clarification Black_Sun (and Yippe). You are right that I assumed you were talking about all immigrants, a majority of immigrants, or just simply a particular 'race' of immigrants.

In my heart I think I agree with you - because I know exactly what you're talking about. But in my head I know it is not that simple, because we look at everything through a comfortable western lens.

I guess the question is whether a person believes that 'integration' - adopting the host countries culture and somewhat abandoning previous culture - is a requirement, and that 'non-integration' is a choice immgrants might make out of disrespect or a similarly negative reason.

If we put ourselves in their shoes, it might not simply be a case of disrespect. Or maybe it is disrespect, after they had already been disrespected by us. Who knows.

I'm not strongly at odds with you though, not now that you've explained it.

 

The topic of immigration is understandably, for everyone, a very emotive one. But at the end of the day, we are all one big human family, we are ONE (human) race. But as a race, we're still pretty much in our infancy, and we need to try and protect societal harmony where it exists.

 

I find this is a difficult conundrum as well. Others can probably explain better than me, but I think many cultures (particularly secular) are very similar at heart and it comes down to essentially inconsequential differences like different foods, language, art etc. Some cultures (particularly ones which have a massive religious element that drives their ability to live within our legal system) however, are completely anathema to ours and that is the cancer Black_Sun et al are talking about. I'll no doubt rapidly get onto shaky ground if I try to explain what I think "our culture" is as no doubt everyone has their own view so I'll leave that to someone else to kick off.

 

No offense, but why would you want to integrate with popular culture. It's like politics, it's lowest common denominator. I don't fit in with many Aussies because I don't fill my head with all the moronic stuff on TV. As long as people don't infringe on other people I really don't see what the problem is.

There's people from every race who are a$$holes. There are more white jerks in Australia than any other colour due to the simple fact that there are more white people than any other colour.

To me, the mostly white people in govt and those who support them do far more harm than most immigrants. Few immigrants as far as I can see want to infringe on my rights. Most white people in this country think they have the right to to tell me to do whatever they want via the govt. I know which group I like the least.

 

I would have raised that freedom to essentially do what you want as long as you don't infringe on other people is a large part of our "culture". Australians aren't Australians simply because they happen to be white whose parents were five pound poms (or convicts). Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion (or from religion), freedom of travel, freedom to cause offence (but not defamation obviously), equality of everyone before the law, no restrictions on who I employ or who employees me and true personal property ownership are all major elements (probably more). Some foreign cultures do not recognise all of these and some people unfortunately keep these ideas when they migrate to Australia.

Unfortunately, I think I agree with you hawkeye that more and more the people in this country have been willing to go along with our Government infringing on these things because of some mistaken belief that it is for the "common good". They are another form of cancer, albeit one who's effects are only seen over the long term and not in day-to-day headlines.

 

The version I heard involves taking a long a female dog in heat; you can't train raw animal instincts out of a dog.

 

Better than this 'hamburger gambit' i keep reading about

 

You have to consume popular culture to remain aware of what they're up to. I read right wing, left wing, loopy, and staid commentaries, watch everything from obscure Turkish films to The Dark Knight. If you keep up with the zeitgeist you have a better chance of avoiding the madding crowd.

As for racial and cultural differences, about 12% of human DNA differs across the population, and considering the range of human behaviour, health and evolutionary traits indicated by DNA I'd suggest that there are definitely racial and cultural differences. It doesn't mean I'll vote for the We're Full party, but if you aren't aware of cultural and racial differences directing behaviour that might affect you and your own inherited behaviours in response, you are just choosing a different type of racist ignorance.

 

Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom ...

 

As Julie pointed out, there can be a significant difference in genetics (its some stupidly small number that separates us from chimps) so therefore in genetics 12% is actually a huge amount therefore there are multiple "races", having said that however we are arguably a single species. As a species we have had to fight our way to the top of the food chain (I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to become a vegetarian) so all that conflict we have had it "bred" into us through genetic selection (the stronger survive, therefore mate, therefore the genes for conflict are passed down) as per Darwin's theory of evolution. What point does this have, it goes to my point which is this, humans barring some outside threat that will devastate the species as a whole, will continue to fight each other to be "at the top" its simply human nature, there for societal harmony is not going to be possible, we as a species are driven to be at the top. This is achieved through conflict (be it military or simple competitiveness) whilst this desire to be at the top is "around" there will be conflict. Conversely if we loose that desire to be the best, we will become complacent and achieve nothing and eventually lose our place at the top of the food chain, that is assuming we to not become the architects of our own destruction before that comes to pass

 

Basically agree but don't underestimate importance of getting to the top with all your limbs, etc intact (one in particular ). Competitiveness and dangerously violent competitiveness are very different things. Guile and sneaking in for a quickie after cleaning the pool while the testosterone-filled maniacs battle it out in the boardroom is also important.

 

There is always that "angle"

 

I'm pretty sure sister #2 in my family is only related by one of our two "parents" (And my brother was pretty certain we had a couple of "cousins" floating around in SW NSW.)

 

We didn't 'fight' to become top of the food chain. I'd also argue that we're 'equal' top of the food chain, amongst other predators (we typically do not eat lions for example, and don't eat many crocodiles, although we eat practically every large predator that comes out of the sea). A real 'top' of the food chain would prey on, and eat everything. There are some obvious exceptions, whereby a starving man might eat a lion perhaps, or a starving lion might eat a man.

The will to survive, and have more is not restricted to humans, or even mammals. It is common across most lifeforms that can exert some form of territoriality (eg, not really if you're a plankton, and not really if you're a schooling fish or perhaps a rabbit...i've never seen rabbits fight).

So what you're really saying is that humans, as animals, have built-in desires that affect our decision-making (emotions, hormones, territoriality, etc). But you're also saying that whilst we have these, there will always be some kind of conflict. Obviously there are different degrees of conflict, and just because I might not have as much territory as my neighbour, does not imply that I would go over there with a baseball bat and try to take it from him...because there are consequences (laws, moral obligation, etc).

So given that we have 'guidelines' (laws) that we see pretty much uniformly across all communities (they do differ, but they're fairly standard), is it normal to break these laws? If it is normal to break the laws, is the problem the humanity, the laws, or the way the laws are enforced?

It's actually a very deep topic I believe.

And finally - I personally believe that human evolution is pretty much dead. Natural selection vs. globalisation = no evolution. This idea of survival of the fittest is quite possibly in reverse in some regions, whereby the weak get to procreate, and the smart spend their time building careers. It very much makes me think of the movie 'Idiocracy' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy) which is not a 10 stars movie, but is classic in that it covers the topic of Dysgenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenic) "Dysgenics is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species".

However I did have a conversation with an interesting lady recently about this topic, and she suggested that human evolution may still exist, but instead of being physical characteristics, it is rather intellectual characteristics. I'm not sold on the idea, but it sure did make me think (no pun intended).

Edit: I've obviously omitted the topic of religion, which is the elephant in the room, and in my opinion it sits very close to territoriality as the greatest conflict motivator.

 

Try and play a computer game against a nine year old and you might see her point.

 

That I can agree with, but its not so much we cannot eat a lion for example, its that we CHOOSE not to (not everything is tasty), its like we do not really eat puffer fish, but look at fugu, its not that we as a species cannot, its that we choose not to as it is not worth the risk (or it does not taste good)

I agree, its not limited to humans, mammals or any other type of life its universal, it has to exist for Darwinism to hold true. Whilst I agree on the differing levels of conflict it will still be there, as I believe I stated it can be a rivalry between to people over a wager, it can be all out war, both are forms of conflict.

Whilst laws, be they religious, legal or moral prohibit things now I would like to know how in the absence of an enforcement group and punishment for breaking the law, I do believe that humans baser instincts will show through, look at any of the real loss of law and order in recent times, the collapse in Zimbabwe, LA and London riots, whilst the latter at least did not degenerate as far as the two former examples it gives you a "taste" of what can/will happen in any serious disaster. This is at least my contention

I Concur, however whilst a great deal of "leniency" is required in moderation of topics like that, a very stringent moderation is also needed to stop it getting out of control.

Don't know about dead, but certainly retarded at the very least, I do agree with your premise of the survival of the fittest being limited or reversed, and this very possibly creating a possibility of an 'Idiocracy' like future.

I concur, at least in part I see it as two things that cause conflict religion/beliefs (I put things such as the Nazi's into this category, as it was their beliefs that caused WWII), and resources (I put territory into this) as many wars have been and will be fought over the earths limited resources, be they gold, oil or food.

 

^ Good responses ShadowPeo.

I think you've got me on the 'top of the food chain' argument - humans do have the choice to eat anything (unless animal rights groups stop us )

Overall I think we're in agreement, except perhaps to the extent that you think conflict must exist between humans. We seem to agree on the causes, but I still don't think it has to be that way.

Actually the other thing we haven't discussed is conflict caused by economics. We could say it is resource-based, if money is counted as a resource, but I'd have it separate. An example i'd like to use is the stress that US dollar inflation as put on different countries across the world. Areas where there was no conflict (eg Greece, Spain?), there is now rioting. Some might argue that the US dollar inflation is related to resources, which is partly true, but it's more about power overall - and debt slavery.

A final thought about conflict due to resources or territory - can we compare a country like Japan or somewhere similar that is quite restricted in land and resources, with a greater set of countries? Eg, how can Japan survive (their current survival is debatable, but besides the point) with restricted resources and land, and have little apparent internal conflict, yet it is such a problem for countries that neighbour each other? Is this because Japan is ruled by one Govt, and a group of countries is not?

A counter example to the above could be Israel, who seems to like the idea of expanding its borders for land (and ocean resources). This could be argued as a religious conflict, which it is, but is it more? Other than that, I can't really think of any recent conflicts that specifically relate to a non-resource land-grab.

 

I will answer the others later, however I would have to put Israel into both categories, they were given land (which they were not entitled to IMHO) and then their religion dictated that they should have this bit or that bit and after a while they decided, hey we have the capability and we want some more land so we will take it, so a bit of both where Israel is concerned