When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

[longfingernails]

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

Those differences are trivial. You would have to have a theory of characteristics deriving from particular 'types' for it to mean anything in the way you do. Like people with ginger hair having something else... Or with black skin having something else. Or other genetic 'types' having something else.

Is that what you believe?

Malik says
'There are certainly real genetic differences between human populations'

that is what I am saying, so I agree with him. I haven't had time to read the rest.

So are we all in agreemnet on that?

You might find it helpful to read the other link claig: it's a series of bullet points addressing ALL of the issues you raise.

You can't hone in on one part of Malik's argument as evidence for what you're claiming: you'd be missing out all the other bits that go with it which challenge what you're claiming.

Is the OP taking the piss?

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but the OP sounds like a troll.

I might be biased but I usually think that people who believe the following......

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history.

......aren't really up to thinking for themselves.

The BBC isn't neutral. However lfn is nuts about this. I am a patriot and I love the BBC and I love the panorama broadcast and the timing. It says, this is corruption and we want no part of it, whatever the cost. Lfn I know where you're coming from but you are wrong.

I am claoming that genes count and that families share genes and that is why they have a stronger bond than those who don't share those genes. That is why criminals like the cosa nostra are often family based since there will be a stronger bond between the group. Do you agree with that?

Patrotism is an inbuilt feeling which is a protection mechanism to protect the genes in a larger grouping, most often, historically, a grouping of shared genes but to a lesser extent than the family. that is where the drive for patriotism comes from, and that is why it is shared by teh majority of people, with some exceptions (quite often Marxists).
That is what I am claiming.

No. I absolutely and fundamentally do not agree with that. The mafia are linked by very dubious family links actually, most of which are fictional rather than 'blood'. The 'blood' they speak of is mostly symbolic with 'cousinships' invented for convenience.

But I can see you really don't want to engage with the actual, scientific evidence I am presenting you with, you want to rely on anecdotes and what we human scientists call 'availability heuristics': which means you want to use the explanation that seems most simple and most available to you, to explain the things you hope to be true.

That is not the same as actual truth however, which exists outside of what you would like to believe.

I bow out now, again: I see I am making no difference.

WilfShelf, you're obviously a scientist. What are these scientific facts that you say exist? I can only discuss the facts if I know what you are talking about. It turned out that you were previously talking about culture, when I was talking about genes.

this shows the familial structure (based on genes) which makes the Calabrian Ndrangheta such a cohesive crime network

'The principal difference with the Mafia is in recruitment methods. The 'Ndrangheta recruits members on the criterion of blood relationships resulting in an extraordinary cohesion within the family clan that presents a major obstacle to investigation. Sons of ?ndranghetisti are expected to follow in their fathers' footsteps, and go through a grooming process in their youth to become giovani d?onore (boys of honor) before they eventually enter the ranks as uomini d?onore (men of honor).'

Nope. You thought you were talking about genes but you were, in fact, talking about culture. You are refusing to accept that they are linked, and your defence against that link is that minor, trivial genetic differences exist. We all accept that, but we have also explained, many times, that genes do not explain as many things as you think they do. Please have a look at the link to the Channel 4 page. A professor of biology anthropology explains why the 'science' of race linked to oversimplified genetic explanations is spurious.

Blood relations will rarely betray their genetic cousins, unlike those who don't share the same genes. Patriotism is just a form of cohesion which tries to emulate this familial bond, and a country which loses its patritism will be defeated. That is why Marxists publish materials that are against patriotism, because they wish to destroy nations, and bring in international socialism.

WilfShelf I was talking about genes. To me it is irrelevant that the Chinese eat with chopsticks and we don't. That is culture. But if we were brought up in China, we would also eat with chopsticks, however, we would not have the same genes as the Chinese

Argh.

That is just nonsense. 'Blood relations will rarely betray their genetic cousins'

You know, right, that most murders and violent attacks are conducted within families? Most murdered children are murdered by parents or close family relatives?

It might be 'rare' in the context of all those who don't murder or attack their relatives but still, it's a bit of a flaw in the argument, no?

And as for the bloody mafia, leaving aside that the familial structure you cite there is the exception in mafiosi recruitment, they're murdering each other all the time: slightly belying the notion of 'not betraying blood relations'

Yes, 'we' would not have the same genes as the Chinese. But I return right back to my original question: which 'we' are we talking about? You, individually, might well, actually have genes that are more similar to your Chinese neighbour, than your English friend, who also happened to live in China.

yes they do, but is rarer than those who are not genetically linked. That is why the Ndrangheta are more cohesive than the Mafia. They don't recruit like they do for fun, they know it works. They are not scientists carrying out an experiment, they are in a life and death struggle where mistakes cost lives.

Most of these terrible stories of babies beaten to death are done by boyfriends and not the genetic father.

They murder other mafia clans and other crime families, they don't murder their own families.

'You, individually, might well, actually have genes that are more similar to your Chinese neighbour, than your English friend, who also happened to live in China.'

is that what the professors say?

Yes. It. Is.

God help our students

You know, claig, I imagine people said the same kind of thing when Copernicus discovered the universe didn't revolve around the sun.

Either you accept science; or you don't. Racists, and those who innocently and ignorantly support views that are racist, even if they don't realise they are, usually don't support science. I return to my original claim about being a bit thick. Clearly not a lot thick - you're prepared to engage and debate. But you're not prepared to look at the facts if they don't agree with your worldview.

If you can present to me some properly scientific evidence for the existence of the things you're claiming, I'd be happy to read it. Credible, university scientists with published information that has been peer reviewed. Show me where the evidence is for the things you claim.

I am not a scientist and I don't have the faith that you have in scientists. Do you remember the Chief Medical Officer and his doom-laden predictions of how many of us would die from swine flu and how he urged us to take the injection. Did you believe him and his evidence-based research?

I haven't got any scientific evidence becuase I base my understanding on my own opinions and experiences and understanding. But you are a scientist. If you present me with a scientific factual argument, I will quite possibly be able to debate it if I see any flaws in it.

LFN I have not read all of this thread but your OP is..... how can I put it.

I know, complete and utter bullshit.

If I did not know better i would think this is a wind up but having read many of your posts I realise it is not.

The monarchy, FFS who the hell voted for them, bunch of ponces, at least I can vote out a president I dont like. I OBJECT to beiong anyones subject.

The military, revere no, respect yes although some of the alegations about some of them is worrying.

The BBC is a voice of reason compared to Sky as for being far left have you lost your mind. Wither and die dont be bloody stupid, to be replaced with what, Fox News, idiot.

As for the Guardian it is the best paper in the UK.

Britain, the best country in the world, yes it could be but it is to class ridden and the "manegerial" and upper echelons have an attitude of self entitlement that ruins things.

I suspect if you had your way we would revert ot a nation of forelock tuggers who "knew their place" thank god those days are over.

I have presented you with some. The link to the Channel 4 programme presents a summary of the position of biological anthropology (not my field). You haven't responded to any of the facts there.

And yes, actually, I do believe the CMO was right about swine flu, because I understand a bit about how to assess the evidence they were using to make their health policy judgements. The issue over swine flu wasn't a black/white definition, as so much complex knowledge isn't either. We didn't either have SF or not in the way you mean: we did have SF but it proved to be a mild and self-limited circulation, which the CMO and World Health Organisation at others predicted as one of many possibilities: that is how medical science works.

I also think they're right to still be on alert for mutations of swine and bird flu: it hasn't 'gone away' as a risk.

I completely accept you base your knowledge on your own experience and opinions. People do, including me. But what if they are wrong? That is the job of academic knowledge: to provide answers when common sense won't do.

Claig - You are a pre-Enlightenment thinker - closer to Plato than to Descartes. You prefer to accept the conclusions you form based on thinking about stuff, rather than evidence and rational analysis.

You would really have been much happier in the 14th century.

I meant 'earth' by the way, on the Copernicus thing

Just typed too many versions and edited badly