Music Talk Board

(06-07-2014, 09:31 AM)Mr Maps Wrote: [ -> ]Pit bulls are illegal here, in the Dangerous Dog Act, so it's statutory law, that was basically made because of the media reaction. Some ways, it seems bad ownership is more the cause than the breed type, but even then, as made clear by the examples above, that doesn't all ways lead to maulings. Of course, this me speculating based on anecdotal evidence, but maybe just some pitbulls are aggressive, but not the breed as a whole. It could be a mental illness they suffer from, possibly genetic, or even a genetic tendency to aggression, although that's difficult to tell.

I don't like the ban, but I see why they did it. It acts (if you pardon the pun) as a blanket cover to prevent (to some extent) the attacks, but equally, it seems more to be media pandering than anything. I mean, there are have been plenty of cases of other breeds attacking people. Dogs are animals, unpredictable and so i think it's entirely possible it's not a pitbull-only thing. I don't think the media, or the government, looked at the variables enough, instead just focused on one aspect. Difficult to say.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to require some license for owning pit bulls, instead of banning them? The problem isn't primarily the dogs, but shitty owners, so banning shitty owners seems like a better solution than banning a breed of dogs.

Yeah, that would've been my way of doing things, had it been my decision. IRRC, The Dangerous Dogs Act was an Order in Council (it's crazy rare for this to happen nowadays, generally only in emergencies) that was passed quickly to quell the outcry. I think, but I'm not 100% sure, I may be getting confused with something else. It think it was a full-on ban because of the huge media and public reaction, people were getting very anxious and the government had to be seen to be doing something.

Like you said, upbringing of the dogs seems to be a more affecting variable than the breed. They're not that different from other breeds - I mean sure, they were bred for aggression originally, but by and large that can be controlled with proper training. Thing is though, I don't think some people realise how much work a dog really needs, particularly breeds like Pitbulls, and so consequences like this happen.

It seems to me, the ban was pretty misguided. I think a license system would be more appropriate, but the problem with programmes to deal with shitty owners is resources; it was simply too expensive and laborious - and the situation was time-urgent - for the government to introduce a license system or some such for it to work. And of course, now the Act's in place, it's time-consuming to revert, particularly as there's a general election next year and people have largely pushed dog attacks to the backs of their minds, so there are more current issues the Tories need to pretend to deal with to win votes back from UKIP.

On a slightly different note...the UKIP seems so fucked. Like, how did a party that basically anti-immigrant and openly racist even gain votes?

(06-07-2014, 04:40 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]On a slightly different note...the UKIP seems so fucked. Like, how did a party that basically anti-immigrant and openly racist even gain votes?

Welllll, it's strange, in a way. I suspect it's to do with ignorance. People want someone to blame for the lack of jobs, so it might as well be immigrants. People focus on their anti-immigration policies and don't learn enough about the party as a whole, nor do they realise the impact UKIP policy will have.

Sure, being a member of the EU has it's drawbacks - like anything - but if we leave, costs of living will rise, because this country relies on imports (and we import more than we export) and without the EU to keep prices constant, prices are likely going to rise. Also, the EU courts take a much more modern and realistic approach to legislation and our system is slowly moving towards it. We leave the EU*, we'll probably be stuck with ridiculous, inaccessible and overly-complex statutes because of a fear of loopholes. EU law is more purposive - it can't have loopholes because it's about the purpose of the law, rather than what it literally says. I digress.

* I find it kinda funny that UKIP got 20% or so of the votes in the EU election last month, but they want to leave it

Some UKIP supporters were Conservatives before. These people seem to think the Tories have "gone soft", especially since the coalition government formed. They're simply not right-wing enough for some, so they turned to UKIP. UKIP also have advantages over the BNP, mostly due to funding - they're much more well-off than the BNP. They also have a slightly less racist and more "sophisticated" reputation compared BNP.
Politics has a very inaccessible-to-the-common-man feel over here, where people feel it's run by the upper classes who cannot relate to laypeople - and that is true - so the fact that Nigel Farage has this "I'm-just-an-average-guy-like-you" persona makes the party much more relate-able.

People want change. The last few years have seen barely anything done to actually move in any direction, partly due to the coalition. They want a Thatcher or a Blair in power, someone who will make bold decisions. The problem is, these people who want change are also people who want to stay the same themselves, so they blame immigrants.

Sometimes I think of America as being Britain 2.0 but with UKIP it's almost the other way around for the time being lol.

If UKIP ever wins a general election I will go into a self-imposed exile in northern Alaska or something (would say Siberia but I bet I'd have some visa issues). I know they won't though so it's all good. Anti-immigration sentiments come in waves. It came in the 80s and then piddled out (though it's never completely gone, of course).

Also, with your (Mr. Maps) comments about British politics as a whole, it's a very similar situation over here. I don't know how anyone is convinced by the acting put on by guys like Farage.

It's really bad that with UK politics I've started to see the Tories as being 'alright', and in US politics I've warmed up to moderate Republicans because compared to UKIP and all those groups these guys are closer to my views than their competitors are.

(06-07-2014, 04:40 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]On a slightly different note...the UKIP seems so fucked. Like, how did a party that basically anti-immigrant and openly racist even gain votes?

Think of how the anti-immigration sect of the Republican party (American equivalent to UKIP) gained votes. Mostly dumb rhetoric, playing on current, mostly unrelated issues, and exploiting the racism that is prevalent in both American and British society.

(06-08-2014, 03:10 AM)carlcockatoo Wrote: [ -> ]Think of how the anti-immigration sect of the Republican party (American equivalent to UKIP) gained votes. Mostly dumb rhetoric, playing on current, mostly unrelated issues, and exploiting the racism that is prevalent in both American and British society.

We really don't have a large anti-immigrant section...

There's a few senators/representatives who are that way, but the national party line is generally more towards the moderate side on those issues.

(06-08-2014, 03:58 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]We really don't have a large anti-immigrant section...

There's a few senators/representatives who are that way, but the national party line is generally more towards the moderate side on those issues.

UKIP only has like three seats in Westminster too. There's still a large anti-immigration base in both countries, in the US we just cover it all up with this 'we are built on immigration... we just don't like lol' rhetoric, though I've been seeing this in the UK too (I specifically saw Farage use the same statement I hear in the US all the time during a Scottish independence debate). It's there in the US, they just present it under a different guise.

Remember everything I've said about the Arizona state legislature in this thread?

Edit: Okay now I can come back to this thread. 8)

I am actually more concerned for UK immigration at the moment. The system itself is still better than the US system in some ways, but in most ways it's just as bad since the reforms since 2010 (during the last Labour government I would have said that it's better in most ways, and I have numerous posts on this topic at the beginning of the thread). The overall surge in anti-immigration thought is what's more worrying, though I think that it will piddle out. I can't find it, but I found a poll similar to the Gallup immigration poll on US immigration, but it compared around 15 different countries (don't remember the sample size but it was relatively large). Over the past few decades, anti-immigration sentiments have more pronounced up and downs in the UK- which is in part why I'm confident UKIP's current popularity will not last long. In the US, the peaks are less drastic, but overall the anti-immigration sentiment is always there in a larger capacity, when analysing public opinion over the past few decades. This is why I get annoyed when Americans try to pull the same thing some UKIP supporters pull and use the 'we are built on immigration that must mean there is no anti-immigration sentiment lol' idea, which is really just a cover up.

Currently we are seeing a turnaround in US public opinion where more people are supportive of immigration, but that large anti-immigration sentiment is still there. I hypothesise it has a lot to do with region, which explains why Arizona is so much dumber than the rest of the country about it.

Here's just the US (I'm sure most people have seen this): http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

lol, and since I'm drawing all these US-UK comparisons, all the far-right people I have on bookface (unimportant to my point but amusing in a sad way) decided it's cool to like the UK now and keep posting Britain First stuff. I finally looked at that page and...



Before you were all dumb liburals, UKIP made you cool again.

Street defence lolololo

Okay I just got reminded that the Golden Dawn exists. UKIP and far-right Republicans aren't even that bad, though if we were as fucked as Greece we might not be much better.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju...CMP=twt_fd

We got a leaflet through our door sometime before the MEP election, I think it was for the BNP. Anyway, my favourite line was "a burka has no place in a FREE democracy, so it must be BANNED" (capitalisation and all). Sound logic guys.

Hmm...maybe they should have explained WHY it has no place. I mean, might as well ban certain haircuts while you're at it.

"Being bald has no place in a FREE democracy, so it must be BANNED!" /infallible logic

(06-08-2014, 09:56 AM)Mr Maps Wrote: [ -> ]We got a leaflet through our door sometime before the MEP election, I think it was for the BNP. Anyway, my favourite line was "a burka has no place in a FREE democracy, so it must be BANNED" (capitalisation and all). Sound logic guys.

That's usually the kind of logic I hear on behalf of liberals here.

Sometimes it's regarding Federalism, but very recently it was about the burka.

Actually, come to think of it, I think most Nationalists in my province are deluded. I get why a lot of them are such (mostly to protect the culture and language - we have a law since 1977 that bans using any other language than French (e.g. English) in stuff like logos for stores except in autochthonous regions - I'm not against it but I hardly consider that "liberal"), but I hardly think making Quebec its own country is a smart move in any way shape or form. I'm not even sure Nationalists are against immigration - I've never heard anything on that manner (mind you, I go to school near Quebec City, which is far less multicultural than Montreal, and seems more Nationalistic than Montreal).

On topic, if you're going to be against the burka, at least have the spine to admit you're right-wing, if not at least just for that sort of thing. It's not like being right-wing is a crime against nature or anything.

(06-08-2014, 02:53 PM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm...maybe they should have explained WHY it has no place. I mean, might as well ban certain haircuts while you're at it.

"Being bald has no place in a FREE democracy, so it must be BANNED!" /infallible logic

:haha:

That would actually approximate Britain to North Korea on their stance regarding haircuts.

The only difference between baldness and the burka one could argue is that baldness isn't a matter of choice. Not that it matters all that much.

(06-08-2014, 04:17 AM)carlcockatoo Wrote: [ -> ]Okay I just got reminded that the Golden Dawn exists. UKIP and far-right Republicans aren't even that bad, though if we were as fucked as Greece we might not be much better.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju...CMP=twt_fd

I'm surprised parties like Golden Dawn exist today.

Maybe it's because Canada, but we don't have anything comparable to Golden Dawn or far-right Republican parties as far as I'm concerned.

PS: I need to re-iterate that I am not well-versed in politics or the political situations of the world, even my own, so I might be rambling nonsense at the moment.