Homosexuality....foreigners and muslims especially. This is a perfect example of mixing up facts and examples
1) 81% of the hatecrimes towards homosexuals was commited by native dutchmen, not MArrocans. I liked this example in other discussion so much I have these numbers in my head..So the focus is on intolerant muslim MArrocans which are scrtinised, but the facts tell a different story
2) researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims. They don't express themselves in the same way, because of political incorrectness. Also recently researched. Can look it up, if you like. Than you get the link.
Perfect example! Perfect! And you believed it were the muslims...Like most people btw.
Another nice link: homosexuality was heavily condemned because it was UNNATURAL. And now, the spread of species by mankind is also called unnatural and like muslims, a threat etc. Fact: mankind has always moved species around, knowingly and unknowlingly. Like Aboriginals and Dingo's, polynesians throughout the PAcific and we since 1500 or so, Oh...Arabs introduced the mongoose and the Genetcat, dates, figs and Romans Olives etcetc...It is what we do.
Besides: ecologist are the only scientist I know of who defend their right to use valueladen language in scientific studies, which is a clear indicator that they are not the unbiased researchers they should be in order to provide us objective data on the subject and let US as a society decide. Instead, they rvert to valueladen words about creatures and plants in which they judge them as bad (like: alien, pest, aggressive, prolofic, a threat, a danger, dangerous, killing, weed, smothering etcetc). Sax and Gaines in one link show you much more examples.
Historians do not decide what belongs in our culture, they can only signal changes and what has been gone and what not. Society decides if they like the change. Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do. They are very biased in general and it shows. The facts are against them and mounting.
So the Eucalyptus belongs in Australia? How about white people in SouthAmerica: shall we all kill them or take them back to Spain and Portugal?
North Americans: all back to Ireland, England, Holland etc? Mugabe thinks it is a good idea, as you might have seen..
Shall we eradicate all cultural influences on our countries, because a group of historians says it is better and new influences are badm, despite the fact that most of us like various cultures?
To show you some work of ecologists about this topic (critical work), here are some links of Dov Sax and others on the subject. They notice almost the same things I notice: the current trend of eradicating new species simply borders on xenofobia and is highly unscientific. I am currently writing a book on this topic.
A very short one by Mark Davis, a former fervent nativist ecologist.
http://sutroforest.com/2009/09/28/new-scientist-message-enhancement/
A rather harsh one, an opinion of scholar in the Jerusalem post with some good points (I think):
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=165872
Niceone on the double standards here. Native rats causing havoc on Queensland, but that is no problem...they are native! And then you are a- Okay! Welcome in the wonderfull, joyfull world of nativists!
http://www.savingpets.com.au/2010/01/page/2/
The best one of all: all extinctions researched by Dov Sax and Steve Gaines: the conclusion is clear. On continents newcomershave not caused asingle extinction through competition (in particular)!
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11490.full.pdf+html
And here is waht Sax and Brown have to saym in an exchange of scientific letters, about xenophobia and the scientific attidude of his collegues. The firstone is the last letter and the best one (there are three in total) in which they react to Cassey et al, who claim that ecologist DO have the right to judge and that they indeed are the ones to tel what should be done, based on their skills. They are wrong. Sax tells you why. Especially at page 483. I find this an excellent answer and very true.
http://www.brown.edu/Research/Sax_Research_Lab/Documents/PDFs/Biological%20invasions.pdf
If I like Eacalyptus, it is good. So it depends on what you like. There are however zero etinctions because of competition. If you don't like change, which is you right of course, it is not nice. But if Eucalyptus is stronger than other than that is nature.
Is it the soy or is it the monoculture of any plant? The problem here i habitatloss and has nothing to do with introduced species. And what does destrcution mean? Is there in fact no soil or has it changed?
Humans are the big problems if you like biodiversity, not any plant. 7 billion of us is a very big problem. Not any plant. If I would have planted potatoes, we would have a simlar problem.
Like you can ask duthc people about the problems with muslims I guess...right. The problems in those countries have all come about when exactly??? I tell you: when Europeans came to those countries. Get rid of the Europeans and the problems are resolved (and the locals must live like in 1500). Won't happen.
I am vegetarian: soy is planted for animalfood. Don't eat animals, you do the Earht a great favour. Much less Co2 problems also. Meat is the single most problem for Co2 problems...Are you a vegetarian?
Besides: I buy biological food and food that supports small farmers.Nothing against them, but it is a bit of topic.
"And so leftwing people, who are very open and tolerant in general to cultural changes and despise the extreme right in politics and who want to get rid of immigrant (foreign people, races etc) show virtually the same intolerance when it comes to changes in nature."
I would prefer don't speak about this. You live in Holand. I don't thik that you need I explain you about islamic culture, and his traditions, and his conduct wiht homosexual people, or women people.
In "red neighboorhood" of Amsterdam muslims have attacked to homosexual guys.
Holland its a traditional tolerance country, but I know Amsterdam and Rotterdam and I think that with some "cultures" tolerance have limits.
See my remark above. There are very little problems with 95% of the muslims. I had a MArrocan girlfriend for a time. And I am 100% pro women rights and equality, but others have the right to think different and express themselves. It is called deomocracy. That does not stop when democracy gives way to developments I do not like. That is the start of a dictatorial regime. No thanks. And muslima's are protected here and there are more problems with them than Dutch girls, but still there are very few problems in total..
Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy.[/QUOTE]
Homosexuality....foreigners and muslims especially. This is a perfect example of mixing up facts and examples
1) 81% of the hatecrimes towards homosexuals was commited by native dutchmen, not MArrocans. I liked this example in other discussion so much I have these numbers in my head..So the focus is on intolerant muslim MArrocans which are scrtinised, but the facts tell a different story
2) researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims. They don't express themselves in the same way, because of political incorrectness. Also recently researched. Can look it up, if you like. Than you get the link.
Perfect example! Perfect! And you believed it were the muslims...Like most people btw.
Another nice link: homosexuality was heavily condemned because it was UNNATURAL. And now, the spread of species by mankind is also called unnatural and like muslims, a threat etc. Fact: mankind has always moved species around, knowingly and unknowlingly. Like Aboriginals and Dingo's, polynesians throughout the PAcific and we since 1500 or so, Oh...Arabs introduced the mongoose and the Genetcat, dates, figs and Romans Olives etcetc...It is what we do.
Besides: ecologist are the only scientist I know of who defend their right to use valueladen language in scientific studies, which is a clear indicator that they are not the unbiased researchers they should be in order to provide us objective data on the subject and let US as a society decide. Instead, they rvert to valueladen words about creatures and plants in which they judge them as bad (like: alien, pest, aggressive, prolofic, a threat, a danger, dangerous, killing, weed, smothering etcetc). Sax and Gaines in one link show you much more examples.
Historians do not decide what belongs in our culture, they can only signal changes and what has been gone and what not. Society decides if they like the change. Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do. They are very biased in general and it shows. The facts are against them and mounting.
So the Eucalyptus belongs in Australia? How about white people in SouthAmerica: shall we all kill them or take them back to Spain and Portugal?
North Americans: all back to Ireland, England, Holland etc? Mugabe thinks it is a good idea, as you might have seen..
Shall we eradicate all cultural influences on our countries, because a group of historians says it is better and new influences are badm, despite the fact that most of us like various cultures?
To show you some work of ecologists about this topic (critical work), here are some links of Dov Sax and others on the subject. They notice almost the same things I notice: the current trend of eradicating new species simply borders on xenofobia and is highly unscientific. I am currently writing a book on this topic.
A very short one by Mark Davis, a former fervent nativist ecologist.
http://sutroforest.com/2009/09/28/new-scientist-message-enhancement/
A rather harsh one, an opinion of scholar in the Jerusalem post with some good points (I think):
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=165872
Niceone on the double standards here. Native rats causing havoc on Queensland, but that is no problem...they are native! And then you are a- Okay! Welcome in the wonderfull, joyfull world of nativists!
http://www.savingpets.com.au/2010/01/page/2/
The best one of all: all extinctions researched by Dov Sax and Steve Gaines: the conclusion is clear. On continents newcomershave not caused asingle extinction through competition (in particular)!
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11490.full.pdf+html
And here is waht Sax and Brown have to saym in an exchange of scientific letters, about xenophobia and the scientific attidude of his collegues. The firstone is the last letter and the best one (there are three in total) in which they react to Cassey et al, who claim that ecologist DO have the right to judge and that they indeed are the ones to tel what should be done, based on their skills. They are wrong. Sax tells you why. Especially at page 483. I find this an excellent answer and very true.
http://www.brown.edu/Research/Sax_Research_Lab/Documents/PDFs/Biological%20invasions.pdf
If I like Eacalyptus, it is good. So it depends on what you like. There are however zero etinctions because of competition. If you don't like change, which is you right of course, it is not nice. But if Eucalyptus is stronger than other than that is nature.
Is it the soy or is it the monoculture of any plant? The problem here i habitatloss and has nothing to do with introduced species. And what does destrcution mean? Is there in fact no soil or has it changed?
Humans are the big problems if you like biodiversity, not any plant. 7 billion of us is a very big problem. Not any plant. If I would have planted potatoes, we would have a simlar problem.
Like you can ask duthc people about the problems with muslims I guess...right. The problems in those countries have all come about when exactly??? I tell you: when Europeans came to those countries. Get rid of the Europeans and the problems are resolved (and the locals must live like in 1500). Won't happen.
I am vegetarian: soy is planted for animalfood. Don't eat animals, you do the Earht a great favour. Much less Co2 problems also. Meat is the single most problem for Co2 problems...Are you a vegetarian?
Besides: I buy biological food and food that supports small farmers.Nothing against them, but it is a bit of topic.
"And so leftwing people, who are very open and tolerant in general to cultural changes and despise the extreme right in politics and who want to get rid of immigrant (foreign people, races etc) show virtually the same intolerance when it comes to changes in nature."
I would prefer don't speak about this. You live in Holand. I don't thik that you need I explain you about islamic culture, and his traditions, and his conduct wiht homosexual people, or women people.
In "red neighboorhood" of Amsterdam muslims have attacked to homosexual guys.
Holland its a traditional tolerance country, but I know Amsterdam and Rotterdam and I think that with some "cultures" tolerance have limits.
See my remark above. There are very little problems with 95% of the muslims. I had a MArrocan girlfriend for a time. And I am 100% pro women rights and equality, but others have the right to think different and express themselves. It is called deomocracy. That does not stop when democracy gives way to developments I do not like. That is the start of a dictatorial regime. No thanks. And muslima's are protected here and there are more problems with them than Dutch girls, but still there are very few problems in total..
Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy.[/QUOTE]
"researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims."
Sorry, I don't think so. Holanda sempre fora una das naçoes mais tolerantes da Europa, mesmo cando a expulsao dos judeus de España (1492) e Portugal (1497) moitos judeus foran a Holanda, un descendente fora o filósofo BARUCH SPINOZA.
Holanda sempre foi pais de tolerancia religiosa e de habitos liberales en materias como sexualidade ou mesmo en materia de "sustancias", mesmo hoje é o único país onde o haxixe e marihuana sao legales.
"Arabs introduced the mongoose and the Genetcat, dates, figs and Romans Olives etcetc...It is what we do."
Nao sei se entendí. Os arabos introduzeran a mangosta e a geneta, sim, mais eles nao introduzeran os dateis, nem os figos nem os olivos. Dateis e figos ja houvera con os romanos, e os olivos fican aqui dende milenios, ainda hoje ha olivos con mais de 2000 anos.
"(like: alien, pest, aggressive, prolofic, a threat, a danger, dangerous, killing, weed, smothering etcetc)."
Nao sao inventos dos cientificos ecologistas, sao palavras que identifican.
A vaca, o cabalo, o porco, sao "aliens" en America, a raza de cao DOBERMAN é agresiva e perigrosa, eu nunca senti que a raza de cao CHIHUAHUA fora perigrosa nem agresiva.
"Historians do not decide what belongs in our culture, they can only signal changes and what has been gone and what not. Society decides if they like the change. Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do. They are very biased in general and it shows. The facts are against them and mounting."
Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do.
Eles dao o aviso, mesmo é como se a una pesoa que fuma tabaco vose dize que deve ter coidado pois pode ter doenças respiratorias, mais vose pode deixar o tabaco ou vose pode continuar a fumar. Ninguen obliga, só avisan.
So the Eucalyptus belongs in Australia? How about white people in SouthAmerica: shall we all kill them or take them back to Spain and Portugal?
North Americans: all back to Ireland, England, Holland etc? Mugabe thinks it is a good idea, as you might have seen..
Nao é que MUGABE fizera eso en RHODESIA ha unos anos? os descendentes dos británicos foram expulsos de lá. Moitos "tornaram" para Gran Bretaña, embora a maioria nasceran en Rhodesia e nunca estiveran en Gran Bretaña.
En América nao é posivel, pois nao podemos comparar a colonisaçao dos británicos ou holandeses con a que fizeram os povos ibericos.
Os povos ibéricos fizeram mestizaje e fizeram melhorar a aquelas pesoas con cultura, os britanicos e holandeses nao fizeram eso.
Os britanicos e holandeses fazian apartheid (a palavra holandesa mais internacional). Eles nunca adaptaban a nova terra, eles vivean mesmo como na sua terra, eles nunca fizeram integraçao con os poboadores.
Mesmo INDONESIA, hoje ninguem fala holandés, tudos falan as linguas de indonesia e inglés, mais ninguem fala holandes.
Mesmo os pretos de Sulafrica poucos falan o afrikaans, ainda mais, no SURINAME moitos falam papiamento que é mais perto do portugues que do holandés.
Os pretos de Angola, de Cabo Verde, moitos chinos de Macao e tudos os brasileros falan portugues.
Os indigenas de Bolivia, de Peru, e Guatemala, embora falan sua lingua tambén falan español.
Nas antiguas colonias holandesas nao ha mestizos, só ha pretos, ou indonesios ou brancos.
Nas antiguas colonias dos povos ibericos ha eso, mais en moitas áreas ha mulatos e mestizos.
NAO COMPARAR O QUE FIZERAM OS HOLANDESES CON O QUE FORA OS TERRITORIOS DE ESPAÑA E PORTUGAL, FOI TUDO MOITO DIFERENTE, e acho que melhor.
HOJE OS TERRITORIOS "EX-IBERICOS" FICAN MELHOR QUE OS TERRITORIOS "EX-HOLANDESES".
O cono sul fica melhor que Sudafrica.
Suriname pode ser o peor da Sulamerica.
Indonesia fica peor que Bolivia (o menos desenvolvido de Sulamérica)
Nao é tema para fazer comparaçoes, mais esto é para olhar que nao tudos fizemos as mesmas coisas, nem foramos iguais.
As diferencias sociologicas-etnicas, entre Sulafrica e Brasil ou Cuba sao moito grandes. No Brasil e Cuba nao ha as diferencias raciais de Sulafrica, no Brasil ha diferencias sociais (en Cuba oficialmente nao ha diferencia social nenhuma) mais no Brasil ha brancos que moran en favelas, e pretos que moran en boas casas, e en Cuba tanto pretos como brancos sao iguais, iguais de pobres, mais iguais.
Na Sulafrica eso nao acontece, ninguem branco mora nos township, e ninguen preto mora nas áreas residenciais.
OLHANDO PARA SULAFRICA E BRASIL/CUBA, UNA PESOA VE QUE NAO TUDOS FORAMOS IGUAIS, NEM FIZERAMOS MESMAS COISAS.
NAO COMPARAR IBEROAMERICA CON O QUE FIZERAM BRITANICOS OU HOLANDESES.
Shall we eradicate all cultural influences on our countries, because a group of historians says it is better and new influences are badm, despite the fact that most of us like various cultures?
MESMO ESO ESTAMOS A FAZER DENDE HA SECULOS.
Dende ha seculos estamos a fazer eso. Nao conhezo tanto a lingua portuguesa, mais tambén acho que é asim.
Na lingua castelhana cando ha dous palavras para una coisa, una áraba e outra latina, sempre debemos tomar a latina.
HOJE A POBOAÇAO JA EN MOITAS OCASIOES NAO CONHECE A PALAVRA ARABA, E SÓ CONHECE A LATINA.
EXEMPLOS DE PALAVRAS QUE SAO MESMA COISA.
PISCINA/ALBERCA (swiming pool)
HUCHA/ALCANCIA (piggy bank)
CASTILLO/ALCAZAR (castle)
TERRAZA/ALCOBA (terrace).
Sempre a palavra latina fora preferida, pois precisabamos de LIMPAR A LINGUA, e hoje mesmo ha muitas palavras que a poboaçao nao conhece, como as palavras ALBERCA e ALCANCIA, que maioria nao conheze e tudos dizen PISCINA e HUCHA.
Oficialmente na lingua española ha un 8% de arabismos, mais na lingua diaria os arabismo nao sao nem o 2% pois mitade de total de arabismos ja só fican en diccionarios, pois a poboaçao esqueceu por a educaçao recibida, e por que era obligatorio dende ha 500 anos LIMPIAR A NOSA LINGUA.
Is it the soy or is it the monoculture of any plant? The problem here i habitatloss and has nothing to do with introduced species. And what does destrcution mean? Is there in fact no soil or has it changed?
ITS THE SOY.
Gostaria de lembrar que no Sul de España e no Sul de Italia ha moitas áreas que sao monocultivo de OLIVOS, tudo olivos, sempre olivos.
Gostaria de lembrar que no Suleste de Portugal ha moitas áreas que sao monocultivo do SUFREIRO (Quercus suber).
Nao ha problemas con os monovultivos de olivos nem con as áreas onde practicamente tudo sao sufreiros, pois eles aqui sao nativos e autoctonos.
Mesmo en Holanda houvera sempre áreas con monocultivos de Tulipan (tulip), e holanda fizera grande negocio con eles, e nao ha problema nenhum na terra.
Por soposto, fico de acordo que quem levara a soya (soy) a Sulamerica (o ser humano) é o principal culpavel, sen duvida nenhuma.
"Humans are the big problems if you like biodiversity, not any plant. 7 billion of us is a very big problem. Not any plant. If I would have planted potatoes, we would have a simlar problem."
Estranho dizer eso cando moras en Holanda.
Nao estou seguro mais aprox. estes sao os dados:
Holanda: 40.000 km2 e 16.000.000
Belgica: 35.000 km2 e 10.000.000
Suiza: 45.000 km2 e 5.000.000
Dinamarca: 45.000.000 km2 e 5.000.000
Holanda+Belgica+Suiza+Dinamarca= 165.000 km2 e 36.000.000
URUGUAY
175.000 km2 e 3.500.000
URUGUAY é como 4 holandas, mais ten 4'5 vezes menos a sua poboaçao.
URUGUAY é mais grande que holanda belgica suiza e dinamarca tudos juntos, mais ten a décima parte de poboaçao.
PARAGUAY
400.000 km2 e 8.000.000
10 vezes mais grande que holanda e mitade de poboaçao que ela.
ARGENTINA
2.500.000 km2 e 40.000.000
Mesma poboaçao que España mais en un territorio 5 veces mais grande.
BOLIVIA
1.000.000 km2 e 9.000.000
Aprox. a poboaçao portuguesa en un territorio 10/11 vezes mais grande.
SI VOSE OLHA PARA SULAMERICA, VOSE PODE COMPROVAR UNA COISA
SULAMERICA É UN ÁREA CON MOITO POUCA POBOAÇAO, EN RELAÇÁO AO TERRITORIO.
Mesmo o Brasil ten pouca poboaçao, embora sejan perto dos 200 milhoes.
Sao 200 milhoes en un área como 90 vezes Portugal ou 200 vezes holanda.
Like you can ask duthc people about the problems with muslims I guess...right. The problems in those countries have all come about when exactly??? I tell you: when Europeans came to those countries. Get rid of the Europeans and the problems are resolved (and the locals must live like in 1500). Won't happen.
Eu nao tenho complejo de culpavel nenhum embora haja moitas pesoas en Europa que pensan que eles sao culpaveis de o pasado histórico, mais eu nao penso asim.
E esa teoria penso que esta moito ben na holanda, na Alemanha, na Gran Bretana, ou mesmo na França, mais,..........................lembra que estamos en un foro portugues e eu sou español.
Para nos a historia nao é asim, nos nao foramos a esas naçoes, foram eles que estiveram por ca, mais de 500 anos no sul de Portugal e mais 700 no Suleste de España.
Esas teorias de que nos foramos para as suas naçoes sao validas lí, sao boas para os holandeses, alemaes, franceses, britanicos, mais nao para nos.
Os musulmaos falan do imperialismo europeo, mais por estas terras foram eles os que fizeram imperialismo.
Nos nao foramos para eses paises, foram eles que vinheram por cá. Nao esquecer que este e foro portugués, as palhasadas de "pobo invadido, povo escravizado e pobo roubado" que fazen os musulmanes sao validas para holanda ou frança ou outros paises de por lá, mais esas palhasadas aqui nao sao validas.
Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy
No último fico de acordo, os USA sempre estao a procurar "enemigos".
Os españoles foramos os seus grandes "enemigos" en 1898.
Despois foram os pobos de "latinoamerica" e os seus dictadores.
Despois foram os alemaes na II WW
Tambén foram os japoneses.
Despois tamben os vietnamitas (guerra de vietnam)
Tambén foram os rusos (ata 1990)
Mais tamben foram os serbios (finais do S.XXI).
Hoje pareze sao os musulmaes.
Sim, en esto vose ten razao, mais gostaria de lembrar que eses mesmos musulmaes levan 60 anos a dizer que tudos os judeus sao terroristas, levan 60 anos a dizer que os judeus sao asesinos, levan 60 anos a fazer "criminalizaçao" dos judeus.
Agora USA esta a fazer mesma coisa con eles, mais eles agora nao gostan de eso, cando estao a fazer eso con os judeus dende ha 60 anos.
Acredito que esta conversa ja ha tempo que fora para OFF TOPIC, e estamos a perder o sentido original do tema.
Acredito que a conversa derivo en outras coisas que dao para outros topics de OFF TOPIC, mais no tema a falar, e para nao entrar ainda mais en temas "políticos" gostaria dizer que a soja (soy) ou ecualipto sao plantas agresivas, que destruien os habitats e a vida de moitas pesoas na Sulamerica, pois expulsan da suas terras.
Fico de acordo que o problema nao é o eucalipto nem a soya, pois sao plantas como as outras, o problema é cando o home leva esas plantas a territorios e áreas onde nao sao nativas, entao ha un grande problema, e esas plantas convertense en expansivas e destruien os chaos e a natureza.
Como eu estou a dizer gosto do eucalipto (mais en Australia).
Mais o culpavel primeiro é sempre o ser humano, que esmaga con moitas coisas e con a natureza.