View Single Post
      08-20-2006, 02:55 PM   #30
CMD
Guest
Rep
n/a
Posts

 
Drives:


Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
CMD - I'm a bit worried about us agreeing

Anyway ... I was thinking about your post last night ... and about why things like that make me uncomfortable.

None of what follows is intended to annoy or insult - it's just my observations and I would be genuinely interested in your replies to my questions.
What troubles me is as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
1. The post is written as a first hand account, but I doubt you attended the meeting (you may correct me if I am wrong). The account also seems deliberately theatrical (the talk of a hushed silence at the end) and also tries to 'up' the credibility of those involved (some of americas finest minds). The theatrical presentation is on top of an apparently very theatrical speech 'the destruction of america', which is clearly a 'worst case' viewpoint.
Of course I was not present at the Immigration Overpopulation Conference in Washington, D.C. I think it's a stretch to call the speech "deliberately theatrical," when you were not there. Of course, you did state it "seems" which indicates to me your own "filter" may be at work. (See your reference to a "recent scientific study" below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
It seems obvious to me that the 'author' of this account (whoever that is) is clearly not impartial and is deliberately presenting a version of the story to re-inforce his 'point'. I suspect it was original published in a 'anti illegal immigration' setting - website or journal. Perhaps you can explain where it comes from?
The speech is what it is, are you suggesting the author of the story changed the verbiage of the former Governor's speech? Is there something inherently wrong with enforcing or re-enforcing ones point? The speech, as far as I've been able to discover, was "Collected on the Internet in 2005." My reference is: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
My question to you is - do you accept and understand this observation?
I understand your observation and contend, once again, your own personal filter is at work. (See your reference to a "recent scientific study" below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
There was a recent scientific study that proved that people are far less discerning when analyzing information which re-enforces their own beliefs and that they will actually 'filter out' information which does not support them.

This is done unconciously and I do genuinely wonder if you can accept the biased and theatrical nature of the account?
Again, I doubt seriously the author changed former Governor Lamm's speech to make it more theatrical. The speech was read, after all, at an "Immigration Overpopulation Conference," held in our nation's capital last year. Do you actually believe that there would have been a conference in Washington, D.C., our Nation's capital, on "immigration overpopulation" if there were no immigration overpopulation problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
2. The basic premise - 'the destruction of america' - is a 'doomsday scenario'. It's a scary thought - what could be worse than the destruction of the country you love. However, it's also an extreme view. The reality has to be that america will not be 'destroyed'. It will still exist, but ultimately aspects of american society may change in ways that you and others find unpleasant.
The original title of the article was "A Frightening Analysis." I feel both titles are appropriate. However, it may be more accurate to name it: The Destruction of America as We Know It.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
None of the bi-lingual countries mentioned have actually been 'destroyed', they may have their own issues, but many of these are deep rooted and much more complicated than just the language issue. The UK is actually bi-lingual (well Wales anyway) and it's not the end of our society - it just makes the road signs more expensive.
Of course none have actually been "destroyed." However, they sure do have "issues" as you call them. Former Governor Lamm addressed six separate topics of which only one made reference to language.

I've uploaded a few articles for you to peruse regarding some of those "issues." I would urge you to at least open and scan them before you respond. And by the way, all you need to is Google "Cost of Illegal Immigration" in your browser and you'll find a wealth of information on what's happening here with regard to this topic. The costs extend WAY beyond road signs. Way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
So this argument is 'fear based' - the speakers and the author want to provoke a reaction by 'playing on' the fears of the audience. This is quite a manipulative tactic and is by nature 'reactionary' - by that I mean that these methods are only used when campaigning against (reacting to) something.
The former Governor made a speech, it was not a debate. I agree there may be some implied "fear this," however the bulk of his speech was based on fact, not fiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
On this basis the entire strategem is a negative one. It says - be afraid - listen to us or very bad things will happen. It seems to be a very different situation, but the BNP in the UK (British National Party) who are without doubt a bunch of xenephobic racists, emply similar tactics.
I disagree strongly that it was a negative stratagem. The speech was based almost 100% fact. I resent your implication, too, that those of us that are tired of paying the cost of illegal immigration and want our borders controlled are "xenophobic racists." There are, of course, some that are racist. But to call every tax paying American citizen that opposes open borders a xenophobic racist is, to me, offensive. That, my friend, is offensive. Don't you think that using the phrase "xenophobic resist" is overly dramatic and extreme? I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
For example - look at this article - they consider that the muslim community AS A WHOLE should apologise for the actions of the people arrested in the recent police action in the UK:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1079
I read the article and I agree that the Muslim community should step up and denounce what these radical Muslim extremists are doing. Why wouldn't they? I find it appalling that they don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
Can you see that they are deliberately trying to 'blame' the muslim community as a whole for the attempted bombings and in doing so bolster up support for their position? This is a racist tactic (carefully disguised) simply because the vast majority of muslims are clearly just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives and would have no truck with terrorism, but the allegation is that this is somehow their fault JUST BECAUSE the are muslim. There have been posts on this forum which make the same point - one muslim is bad - so ALL muslims are bad - cleearly this is bollocks, but it plays to peoples insecurities. This is how racism works.
No, I do not see they are trying to blame the "Muslim community as a whole." Not at all, not by any stretch. The world's Muslims should be speaking out to denounce this radical behavior. Absolutely. And to call someone "racist" because they believe an apology is due is nuts. No one that I know of believes that because one Muslim is bad they are all bad; this viewpoint is dramatic and extreme. I haven't read anything here that implies that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
These people are VERY smart VERY dangerous and extremely manipulative - and they prey on fear.

Do you recognise that the article you posted plays on fear in a similar way? If so - does it trouble you or do you just see it as a legitimate way to get your argument accross?
No, simply because it was based on history. History ignored is history that will be repeated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by needforspeed
I am not trying to disuade you of you beliefs - I am just trying to see if you can understand why they might trouble other people and for my own benefit try to understand if you can see the same propagandist tactics that I can.
I believe that you believe what you believe. Our life paths are different. Your experiences and "truths" are different from mine. So sure, I can see how you might view the article on the former Governor's speech as propaganda. I can see that.

Last edited by CMD; 08-20-2006 at 04:18 PM.