Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
German culture; I really like their traditional food. Also, I admire that Germany has almost always been a leader in technology and societal development.
If I had to choose a culture other than German, I would choose Icelandic. Once again I admire that country has been at the forefront of societal development.
I never called German food the most the most flavorful, but to call British food flavorful and then wurst or schnitzel "tasteless" is pretty hilarious.
You know nothing about German food either. Why are you so determined to comment on cuisine that you don't know anything about? If you love all things British, that is fine. But your experiences with other cultures is so limited that you have no legitimacy when criticizing them.
I never said it was flavourless, I said it was rather bland. A lot of European food is, yet I still like it.
And the concept of Brits having bad teeth is not an "American belief" though it is most certainly false. If you want the worst teeth, go look at Poland.
And please, let us know about this "great deal" you know about "miserable Germanics" that you must have been taught in school.
My second-cousing is half-German, half-English and lives over there and she says she can't wait to move over here when she can because we're so much friendlier over here. Also my friend went to Berlin and found the fritz to be their usual, grumpy, humourless selves. Also another friend of mine's mother used to live in Germany and found it irritating that they had a load of silly dogmatic rules and regulations. Your neighbours snitch on you if you break them. Also they consider Brits to be hilarious. This because they are very grumpy so we are strangely flippant to them.
"Everyone knows" is not an argument. The Germans don't consider themselves miserable. Many Germans support their level of regulations, and I have not seen any legitimate evidence about this "snitch" culture you have referred to. Do you have any actual evidence (not personal anecdotes)?
I'm going to say someone who actually lived in Germany for years has a story that's actually worth paying heed to.
Furthermore we are better than them because we kicked their sorry arse in two world wars. We really got to screw them over in 1919. Versailles was no less than the huns deserved.
Your culture is better than them because you won two world wars?
You realize that without Russia, you would have been completely annihilated in WW2, right?
And someone who grew up in one culture, then moves to a country with another culture, is not somehow an authority on the second culture.
Because she lived in Germany for many years and her mother was German. Therefore she knows more than you or I.
Also, I forget to say in my last argument. We beat the Germans in the battle of Britain and at El Alamein and Italy without Soviet aid. Also we and the French kicked the arses of the krauts in ww1 when the push over Russians succumbed to Bolshevism and surrendered. We destroyed them in the Somme and we crippled them through our naval blockade. We are the superior peoples. Germans are evil and always fail.
For your first sentence, did she grow up in Bavarian Culture? Bohemian? Franco-Germanic?
And winning battles is not winning a war. Without Russia, you and France would have been obliterated by the Nazi's, and eventually, so would the United States.
"We are the superior people" It's odd how much you sound like the people you are declaring evil. Declarations of a superior ethnicity are always quite horrifying.
I can't quite remember where in Germany she was from. Bohemian isn't German, it's Slavic as isn't Bohemian the old word for Czech?
Actually, we beat Germans in the battle of Britain before the Soviets were involved. Consequently, we had control over the sky as the British RAF had proved itself more effective than the Luftwaffe. Therefore a naval invasion of Britain by Germany was impossible. We had saved ourselves from the huns by our own merit. Like I said we are a great people.
I might be just a little bit fascist but I'm not Nazi-fascist. I do not believe in creating a master race, especially not by killing millions of innocents. I do not believe in the euthanization of disabled people. I am not against Jews, Blacks, Roma people etc and (for obvious reasons) not against gays. I don't think we have better genes I think we just have a better mindset and culture. I believe that the famous British stiff upper lip can get us through anything. I believe that, while the wheel of fortune is ever turning, the words "never will britons be slaves" is always true.
Bohemia is a part of Germany, and blends Slavic culture with Germanic.
Yet again, winning battles is not the same as winning wars. The Nazi's had pushed back Britain so effectively that the only thing you had left was your air force, which, without Russian pressure from the East, would have been overwhelmed when the combined powers of the Nazis came to bare. Firebombing would have made London look like Stalingrad.
And yes, you are certainly fascist (I am not using that as an insult, simply referring to the ideology). You believe you are a member of a sort of "master race", along with your "master culture". That is scary enough, even without the genocidal tendencies.
We won the battle of Britain in 1940. The USSR was not at war with Germany until 1941. With or without the Soviet Union, we prevented invasion. Instead it was us who dished out the firebombing in the end. We did a great job at Dresden. Tit for tat I say.
I do not agree with the master-race. I have non-white friends. Black people are becoming more British now as they have been here for several generations. I have no problem with them. It is first and second generation immigrants that I mainly have a problem with. Even then not all of them.
The reasonable one.
As soon as you shut your mind to other ways of life, you immediately limit how knowledgeable you can be as a person. You limit innovation, your limit creativity, you limit human potential. You also just become a less interesting person, to be quite frank.
Kind of like when you repeat the same few catch phrases all the time (i.e. "yogurt-knitting").
I do enjoy how American you sound, considering how you view America.
I would say that as someone who believes and says what few others would dare to say, I am quite interesting compared to your average person who conforms to modern, liberal beliefs, such as yourself.
Yogurt-knitting is the perfect phrase for describing someone with awfully leftist liberal views. As Katie Hopkins' disciple I have to use such things to shame leftists and cut through the cotton wool that society is wrapped in by people such as you.
First, I do not conform to modern liberal beliefs. I'm not even liberal, I just associate as one because most people are not familiar with the differences between left-wing ideologies. I am a Social Democrat, oddly with many Libertarian tendencies.
The fact that you seek to "shame" those who you disagree with, rather than converse with them, explains a lot about how you go about your comments on this website, however. What do you hope to gain out of "shaming" others, as opposed to understanding them?
I am a Social Democrat
Ewww. So in over words you're a toned down Bolshevist.
What do you hope to gain out of "shaming" others, as opposed to understanding them? I aim to help balance out the sugar-coated bullshit in the world. I do understand them. I understand their idiocy. That's why I am shaming them.
No, I am not a toned down Bolshevist at all. Back to the whole "not understanding political ideologies" issue.
"I aim to help balance out the sugar-coated bullshit in the world. I do understand them. I understand their idiocy. That's why I am shaming them." Except you aren't, you are simply yelling at people and insulting them, which increases the amount of bullshit in the world. You clearly don't understand them, you understand caricatures of ideologies you do not adhere to, then apply said caricature to people. You do not understand their ideology, so you deem them all idiots. Even worse, you don't even want to or try to understand them BECAUSE they disagree with you. In shaming them, you shame yourself, as we all do when we shut our minds to different opinions.
Bolshevist is not a term that means "Extreme left", it is a name referring to a political group within Russia that adhered to very specific ideals and a specific ideology.
If anything, I am a diluted socialist, but that isn't accurate as I don't believe in the public ownership of capital and the means of production (not that modern day socialists do). Again, back to the whole not understanding political ideology.
And one can yell in a controlled manner.
"Socialism is diluted communism" No. Authoritarian Socialism is diluted Stalinist Communism, but that's about it in regards to your claim. Hybrid Socialism is not a diluted form of Communism in any way, Marxist Communism has nothing in common with socialism as you understand it, etc.
Socialism is still crap. They need to realize that while 200 years ago the poor where poor because they had rotten luck by being born into a class which they could not escape, now they are poor because of their own fault. They are poor now they are stupid and lazy. Now the classes are no longer fixed and theirs social mobility those who are poor are poor because they haven't worked to rise themselves out of poverty. If they really tried a working class child could excel in school and go to university and become a Doctor, a Lawyer, an Engineer, an Accountant, a Vet etc. It is their own fault they don't and end up being a hairdresser, a waiter or a waitress, a bricklayer or worse yet unemployed.
"Socialism is still crap" Some forms are, some aren't.
"now they are poor because of their own fault" Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.
"They are poor now they are stupid and lazy." He says, with compete knowledge of every person who is poor. Come on now, you have to know that isn't a reasonable thing to claim.
"Now the classes are no longer fixed and theirs social mobility those who are poor are poor because they haven't worked to rise themselves out of poverty." Social mobility in many countries is quite horrible, and the ones that have the best social mobility are the ones you are most likely to criticize (see Social Democracies in Scandinavia).
"If they really tried a working class child could excel in school and go to university and become a Doctor, a Lawyer, an Engineer, an Accountant, a Vet etc. It is their own fault they don't and end up being a hairdresser, a waiter or a waitress, a bricklayer or worse yet unemployed." That would be true if social mobility was a lot better than it was, but it isn't.
He says, with compete knowledge of every person who is poor. Come on now, you have to know that isn't a reasonable thing to claim. It's true. If they were intelligent and hard-working they would have gone further than poverty. You can't help where you're born in life but you can help where you move on to.
Social mobility in many countries is quite horrible, and the ones that have the best social mobility are the ones you are most likely to criticize
I mean in the 1st world where their is social mobility. Like in Britain.
That would be true if social mobility was a lot better than it was, but it isn't.
This is how good it is in Britain. In Britain everyone has an opportunity to excel in their education which gives them the chance of having a good career. I could explain how if you wish.
"It's true. If they were intelligent and hard-working they would have gone further than poverty. You can't help where you're born in life but you can help where you move on to." Again, that would only be true based on the quality of social mobility.
Seems to me that it is nowhere near as good in the U.K. as you are claiming.
First of all your source is subjective. The guardian is renowned for being a left wing rag. This data reflects the fact that the lower classes do not take the opportunities that social mobility allows them. It doesn't take into account the fact that these people had the opportunity to progress but didn't take it. It only proves my point that lower classes are lazy.
That isn't really what subjective means, and the Guardian did not publish or organize the study they reported on. Second, can you please explain how the study indicates that the lower classes do not take advantage of opportunities (social mobility does not allow people to take opportunities, social mobility comes about via opportunities).
"It doesn't take into account the fact that these people had the opportunity to progress but didn't take it. It only proves my point that lower classes are lazy." But where is the evidence of this?
No but the Guardian is probably manipulating the stats to prove their point as they are far from impartial. It might not indicate that lower classes don't take advantages of opportunities but it doesn't take into account that they don't. It only discusses how far lower-class people go in life. Not whether they had the opportunity or not. Therefore it is irrelevant.
It proves that despite lower classes having the opportunity to work hard in their education, go to university and subsequently get a good career, they don't take it. Because they are too lazy to be interested in doing any of that. Anyone in the UK can go to University regardless of their background. They don't bother going because it is hard work getting in and hard work staying on there.
Well anyone in the UK has the opportunity to go. It's not like the UCAS people are going to say "sorry you cannot be admitted to University because you're to chavy". That is my evidence. Whether you go or not is due to your own hard-work and whether you actually bother applying.
I don't even need any evidence for the fact that they did not have opportunities. The point is the statistics do not take into account that they may have had these opportunities but not taken them.
Like I said I do not need evidence. Unless the source actually disproves the fact that they may have not taken opportunities means it's irrelevant to what we are discussing.
The evidence is the fact that anyone in UK gets the opportunity to excel academically and go to university. That is all the evidence necessary to show that some people just don't take opportunities.
"24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though only 7% of the population do" Not an opportunity most have.
"Education is an engine of social mobility. But achievement is not balanced fairly - for the poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at all. For the richest, it's only 3%" Parental influence regarding education is one of the strongest factors.
"or achievment: 49% of the poorest will apply to university and get in, compared to 77% of the richest"
But I do love the whole "I do not need evidence" aspect of what you are claiming. It's always fun to make claims without evidence, isn't it? I mean those claims don't have much in the way of legitimacy without evidence, but it is still fun.
While debating GenericName, without providing sources for your opinions, it is often necessary to explicitly say "In my opinion", (IMO) to preface your comments. In this current thread of debate you have successfully associated well known facts with simple an logical causal connection. When GN demands citation, it is a tactic to discredit, rather than refute your argument directly.
As we say here in the colonies, "don't fall for that shit". :-)
Ah yes, the classic "my opinions follow common sense" tactic. When one ideology claims something, that ideology never really wants to back it up with any evidence because their arguments are prefaced on the idea that it is already true. No need to think about countless other possible causes for a certain outcome, you've got the one you believe, and there is no need to prove it :P
Forgot to address this:
"When GN demands citation, it is a tactic to discredit, rather than refute your argument directly."
When I ask for citation, it is because I question everything. What value is there in taking any conclusion for granted without any evidence being presented? What legitimacy is there in a belief not based upon actual evidence?
You are either intentionally or unintentionally missing the point, then refusing to substantiate your over-arching claims without any sort of statistical evidence, so I really don't see the point in continuing this conversation when I'd simply be asking for actual proof that they are not trying.
I do as well, and my experience differs from your experience. In my experience, many lower class individuals were unaware of social programs they were able to access, for example, and thus them not using said programs was not evidence of them being "lazy", but of being unaware.
So how can you justify making claims about millions of people without any statistical evidence, and with only personal experience of (at most) a thousand or so people?
I forgot to mention: "I would say that as someone who believes and says what few others would dare to say, I am quite interesting compared to your average person who conforms to modern, liberal beliefs, such as yourself." You'll grow out of the whole "I am going to say extreme things so I seem more unique". We all do.
I don't have these views just to be unique. I actually am, believe it or not, that much of a weirdo. Lots of people have these views. The difference is I have the balls to be honest about what I think. It's kind of strange how you think being right-wing is just a phase you grow out of. There is no correlation between age and political views as most my age are just working out their arses from their elbows. Most couldn't give a toss about politics, philosophy and history.
I never claimed being right wing is a phase you grow out of (and you say I was the one to twist words :P), I said having extreme views (Fascism in your case, it used to be Communism in mine) is. Many political inclined teenagers adopt extreme views that then tone down the older they get. Hopefully, your disdain for others and your refusal to open your mind to differing opinions and ideologies will follow that path.
Politically inclined teenagers are very few and far from in between. The few I know are all Centre-left to perhaps slightly right-wing at the most. Also I would say being close minded is more a trait of being old than young. I think I am like a conservatively minded old person stuck in a 15 year old's body. As I get older I will probably be more so. I will always disdain others. People are so shitty. I'm never going to start loving other cultures and forget my own because I'm not young anymore.
"lso I would say being close minded is more a trait of being old than young. " Depends on the method of closed mindedness. When one is a teenager, they believe they already know everything, and thus they close their mind to new ideas. Then you get older and realize your mistake, until you become significantly older and go back to thinking you already know everything.
"I will always disdain others. People are so shitty. I'm never going to start loving other cultures and forget my own because I'm not young anymore." We all think we will stay the same way we were when teenagers. Few people ever do. And you do not need to forget your own culture in order to learn about others. Many people love their culture even more once they learn to respect other cultures as well. Leaving jingoism behind does not mean you have to stop being patriotic.
I will give up being a "jingoist" when I no longer have a need to. When London isn't less than a half British, when the Polish and Nepalese kids learn our language and make an effort to get to know us, when the Muslims stop sharia thumping, when America stops polluting us with its consumerist crap.
British culture. It is very diverse.
You have England with it's fabulous breakfasts, roast dinners and interesting literature and history and of course is the birth place of the world's most widespread language. Then of course you have London with all of it's cultural attractions.
You have Wales with it's quirky but awesome culture and it is a really natural place. You also have Scotland which has haggis which is amazing and also they invented the deep fried mars bar and their accent is so entertaining.
Britain also has fish and chips which is lovely.
Diverse is a very strange term to use for British culture. The only diversity is between the "Anglo" culture (though that isn't the most accurate term for it) and the Gaelic culture groups of Scotland and Wales. Compared to places like China, the United States, Russia, that makes British culture fairly one-note.
Wales is not Gaelic. It's Celtic but not Gaelic. Gaelic means Irish but the Scottish are considered Gaelic because the Scots originated from Ireland and migrated there many centuries ago. Welsh people did not originate from Ireland so they are Gaelic in neither ethnicity, culture or language.
Like you said there is a huge difference between English Culture and Scottish and Welsh culture therefore it is diverse. Much more diverse than American culture because there is no such things as "American culture".
Yes, that was my mistake, I intended to say Celtic, not Gaelic. Rookie mistake on my part.
Additionally, "American Culture" does note exist as a singular entity because it is made up of British Culture, German Culture, Spanish Culture, French Culture, Etc. It is the most diverse "culture" in the world, for better or worse.
And Scottish and British culture are not hugely different, even when compared to neighbors like British culture and French culture. There are differences, sure, but hugely different is a bit of a stretch, especially for two countries that have been somewhat integrated for quite a long period of time.
Regardless, the point of the thread was to do a culture other than your native culture.
Precisely my point. America has no culture of it's own. Only a patchwork of foreign cultures that are not its own so therefore do not qualify as American culture.
To say "Scottish and British culture are not hugely different" is ridiculous as Scotland is in Britain. I believe you were meaning to say "Scottish and English culture are not hugely different." I disagree. If they were just like us then 45% of them wouldn't have voted to leave the UK last year.
It wasn't even mentioned in the description to do another culture. I like my culture and I'm not going to pretend that I don't for the sake of seeming open-minded and modern.
Copying other peoples culture is not your own culture.
Differences between culture:
They like working-class humour e.g. Billy Connoly and much of ours is middle class e.g. monty python and faulty towers
They were kilts and we don't
They like bagpipes, we don't
They eat haggis, we eat roast meat.
They are more on the left than us, generally speaking
1. Slight differences in humor is not "huge".
2. Are you claiming most Scots wear kilts?
3. Bagpipes are a traditional instrument, not sufficient for a "huge" difference.
4. They also eat roast meat.
5. A slight political difference is hardly a huge cultural difference.
So your "huge difference" is pointing to their antiquated cultural dress and instruments, a slight difference in humor (one that could be observed simply within different parts of England no less), and a slight difference in political alignment.
Not quite the "huge difference" you claimed :P