There is no inductive logic in subjectivity.

What you find unpleasant to live in others won't.

Not liking the country you live in doesn't mean you seek to destroy it......What does that is following an alternative philosophy.

Did the striking miners seek to destroy Britain of course not. No, this is a question of culture and religion and extremism and mass communication.

This isn't a question of 'treat people well' and suddenly everyone is holding hands and no one follows divisive ideologies anymore.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Inductive logic is based on probability. The Principle of Uniformity of Nature. If x happens, y is likely to happen. Inductive arguments are never valid, although they are likely to be true based on what we can observe. Subjectivity has nothing to do with anything. The rest of your points I don't disagree with, but they are pulled from thin air and are not examples of anything I was saying. It seems to me you believe that the striking miners did not wish to destroy Britain simply because they are English, where a second generation disenfranchised Englishman today would seek to do so only because his parents were born in pakistan. That, plainly, is a ridiculous assertion.

Edited by sydtheeagle (28 Sep 2015 9.38pm)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Nor do I. And I agree with your point. Nonetheless, if you bother to read the many pages in this thread (hard going, I admit) you'll note that those who think Muslims, racists, people from Peckham and other minorities have something "to do with it" all happen to be right wingers.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

In much the same way as many on the left feel that anyone who runs a successful business is tax avoiding fat cat? but I digress the main problem for me is the apparent lack of respect for the uniform.

Pro USA & Israel

Good post. I appreciate the reasoned rather than emotional response and while I don't agree with a lot of what you've said, I do think your position is cogent. I will try to answer as best I can.

This is the only thing I really don't agree with. Yes, you're right -- as I said before -- that mass communications is the main difference between postwar society and today. But as I said, that merely fans the flames of resentment. It doesn't cause the resentment. So the point isn't really relevant to this argument as far as I can see if what we're arguing about is what's caused the resentment in society today.

Likely every minority has had resentment. But they haven't all handled it in the same way. This is where your point about mass communications comes in. It's easier to make a molotov cocktail when you can download a recipe from the Internet. Mass communications has made it easier for resentment to proliferate and become violent. I also think you need to note that while many and possibly all minorities have been burdened with some degree of resentment, an equal number have flourished. It's therefore not fair to conclude that all minorities = resentment and problems. The Asian American experience, for instance, has been one of considerable success and very little (if not no) resentment. It can be done.

See above. Of course there will be some resentment, but there will be some resentment in the indigenous classes of a country with or without immigration. Imagining a completely happy world is a pipe dream. The real question is whether immigration is the real cause of the resentment (as opposed to whether people want to believe it is.) I don't think so -- although that is not to say I believe that unfettered immigration is warranted. I also think, in this case, we need to distinguish between "immigrants" and "refugees", two different classes and it's the latter we are talking about at the present time.

I don't think I have said I want open borders (for the record, I recognise there needs to be some degree of control. It's what that degree is that we may differ on) and I don't think you can speak of "my version of the left" when you (and probably I) don't really know what that is. I don't blame society...I blame a very specific political party with a very specific economic policy for the breakdown of society we face today. I could argue, though you would disagree, that with investment in infrastructure rather than austerity, we could quickly ameliorate the housing crisis and more easily accommodate refugees. The argument is not so simple (on either side) that right and wrong can be distinguished with a single statement or observation. What you last line hints at is that where there is integration, experiences are better. That tells me that improving integration is the answer; not shutting the borders to refugees.

The English working class and refugees and/or immigrants are all people. If you better their lot in life by improving services, investing in housing and bettering social infrastructure, everyone benefits. You don't have to invest in or debate about one group or the other; the answer is the same for both. If you create a better society, everyone benefits. To that extent, I care about all because I think the same remedy that applies to the British working classes also applies to the refugee community. My belief is that we simply invest in or prioritize the wrong things/policies, which is why we end up with the fractured society we've got. Policy change (to the left) would remove a lot of the resentment problem (obviously, you will not agree with that.)

See above. I don't think that's true. What makes things worse are policies like austerity. The only people I point fingers at are those who pursue it.

Edited by sydtheeagle (29 Sep 2015 7.12am)

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Perhaps there should be a thread whereby people could identify which particular 'wing' they happen to be. It'd make life an awful lot easier.