How my views on Immigration have changed since arriving at University (Politics)

Just to clarify before we start – I have never been a Racist or disliked the idea of other people coming to our country to live and work here; so do not get that impression.

However, when I lived in Christchurch I seemed to pick up a peculiar sense of what Immigration actually is.

Christchurch is quite possibly the most culturally un-diverse place I have ever been; it frankly is a sea of white old people living out their retirement.

Because I never was in contact with Immigration I always just thought about the politics and numbers and drew my opinions from that. I always thought that public services would get overused and stretched if immigration continued at a high rate.

I always thought that perhaps our culture would be somewhat lost; and that pubs would close down, and things we associate with British culture may begin to become few and far between in out towns and cities.

About a year ago I even went through a phase of thinking that the EU was a bad thing; and thought though they were always highly questionable UKIP weren’t that bad.

But how things have changed now I have actually seen what Immigration does.

I now go to Southampton University; and it is probably one of the most culturally diverse places I have been.

Many students from different countries go to Southampton University to get an education; and to try to make the best of them-selves, just like we do.

Here are some things I have noticed.

Immigrants actively want to be here

Immigrants who have made the move are coming here for a better life; and to work hard and to try to make something of their lives.

They tend to work extremely hard, as obviously they have given up their ENTIRE culture to be here, so obviously they are tenacious enough to try to make it work.

Sometimes I guess they find it hard to fit in at the start – but it is very small-minded to expect immigrants to change their culture fluidly and to not miss their culture. For instance if we moved to China the culture shock would be Immense.

The fact they bring some of their culture here is fantastic

In Southampton there are areas where the cultures change – from Muslim areas to Chinese areas to Indians and Europeans. There are many different cultures here.

I cannot express how INTERESTING this makes living in comparison with Christchurch.

There are so many new things to talk about and try; and it is fantastic.

I’m going to a Sushi bar soon – I’ve never tried sushi properly before, but It’s going to be a good experience!

It does not affect our English Heritage

I used to be worried that these areas would expand so that no pubs would be available or no Fish and Chips stores would be present (for instance). However this is just not the case, there are plenty of Pubs around, and plenty of things which we have inherited from our previous culture. We have only ENRICHED our culture with theirs.

This is the way the world was meant to be; many languages being spoken, many people engaging together and breaking down the social and cultural walls which divide us from other countries.

I find it amusing the way I used to think about Immigration.

It was so un-informed, I guess I used to read papers and see news stories and I had no other way of thinking about Immigration.

Don’t listen to the media and Mr Farage.

Immigration is the bee’s knees; it puts more into our culture and economy than it could ever take out.

Rant Over.

Why Religion and the Law should never mix. (Politics, Philosophy)

I understand that this topic could be deemed as controversial by some; but it is a post I have been meaning to put up for a while. 

I assure you I have nothing against specific religions, but only on their effect on the law.

Let me start by explaining what I feel discrimination is (you will have to bear with me for a moment),

Discrimination is where you treat one group of a society different to another group in a society based only upon a factor which cannot be changed by the group in question.

In this post I will make the assumption that religion is a factor which cannot be changed by people, (although it obviously can, but the belief is so strong that it must be assumed that they cannot).

The question I would pose is how would we go about treating all religions equally in society?

How would we not discriminate against any specific religion?

If laws are passed in a country which are dependent on whether you are part of a religion or not, and they give you rights which any other part of society would not have had in the same situation, I would call it discrimination.

Well it’s all very well saying that it’s discrimination, but what can we do to stop this discrimination?

Well we can’t start treating religions differently to one another in the law, so why don’t we discard religion within the law?

After all if there is no religion in place within the law then all the religions will be treated equally.

At this point I would expect somebody to say “Hey, what about Atheism? If there’s no religion in the Law then that will favour the religion of Atheism over others?”

Unfortunately this shows a gross misunderstanding of the word atheism. Atheism means your non-religious. It is the lack of religion and that means it is not one in itself. Actually without the presence of religion, being an atheist means absolutely nothing at all.

Here’s a metaphor to explain –

For a photo-shoot you have 5 lighting colours to choose from. Tom wants to use the Blue filter, Barry wants to use the Red filter, Fred wants Orange, Jess wants Green and Hannah wants Yellow. How do you make sure that you treat all the people equally?

The only way is to turn out the light.

So to continue my metaphor to stop discrimination in this country due to laws with religious clauses is to “turn out the lights”. Then EVERYONE will be treated the same and EQUALITY will be achieved.

This is why Religion and the Law should never mix.

Here are some examples;

I saw on the television a few months ago the story of a woman who wore a cross to work for many years round her neck and she worked with heavy machinery. Due to health and safety grounds she was told that she could not wear the necklace anymore as it may get stuck in the machine.

She claimed she needed to wear the cross on religious grounds; and I believe eventually was allowed to.

Now, this seems harmless enough, but where does that leave the rest of the people in her workplace? What If they really wanted to wear a picture of their wife/husband around their neck? How about a special ring?

How about ID cards? If you say that it’s on religious grounds you can cover up your face as much as you like, with what you like. Does the rest of the population get that privilege? No? Why not? I guess probably because an identification card is used to identify you, and if you cannot be identified then it renders the identity card completely useless?

I look forward to everyone’s inevitable comments.

What the Scientific Method is and why I believe in it. (Science)

It is fair to say that at some-point in your life you will have to believe something to be true; but what to we base that upon? 

How do we define what is real or what is the truth against those ideas which are false?

We really only have 2 ways we can decide what is true and what is false and that is by;

Or

I will now explain to you why the Scientific Method is something I personally believe in; and perhaps to convince you to change how you approach believing or not believing in a hypothesis.

The first stage of the Scientific Method is the part where a person makes up a hypothesis about a certain natural phenomenon.

It is important to understand that anybody can form a hypothesis about anything; you need no qualifications to form a hypothesis, and you need no evidence to tell people all about it.

Untested hypothesis are not legitimate hypothesis until the point they are tested.

The second part is testing; and to sum it up quite clearly I quote Richard Feynman –

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

So unfortunately if any of the information observed disagrees with your hypothesis I’m afraid it has to be scrapped or changed to agree with the evidence at hand.

However, If the evidence you have acquired does fit the hypothesis you had then fantastic your hypothesis is accepted as folk-lore!

OH WAIT; no it isn’t.

I’m afraid this isn’t how science works. If it was then we would have to put all our faith in the skills of one person or group conducting one set of experiments to prove one part of the hypothesis they have made.

We now go into something called peer-review.

Peer review is when your hypothesis and results are tested by other scientists who redo the same experiment you have, try new experiments and thoroughly try to disprove your theory.

This process is never finished and is in constant use with ALL THEORIES at ALL TIMES.

So if peer review is never surpassed by a hypothesis how do we end up knowing things about the world?

In science we know that “facts” are in fact “accepted theories”. Accepted theories are theories which support more evidence than any other theory related to the same topic which explains the same phenomenon. 

Some accepted theories are ahead of their rival theories by a long way – such as Evolution, and are hence referred to as factual. However some theories are so close to each other in terms of how much they explain that it is hard to differentiate between them for example M-theory (string) and Quantum loop gravity theory.

All accepted theories are constantly peer reviewed and scrutinized (after all disproving a theory is a large scientific achievement) – so all accepted theories must continue to provide answers to evidence provided by the peer review scientists.

This is a method which is rigorous and well thought out. It gives us a platform on which to base what is real and what is not by working with hypothesis.

I believe in the Scientific method more than Faith because the scientific method is based on observation, evidence and scrutiny whereas faith is defined as believing in things without evidence.

I personally see no reason not to believe in the Scientific Method in every circumstance.

However some people still deny or don’t understand the scientific method because it’s answers sometimes do not suit them, here are some examples of things people say and why they are not true.

·         Event A happened a long time ago and you were not there to observe it; therefore you do not know what happened.

o   Though we cannot be certain what happened in Event A we can try to find evidence using what remains of Event A to prove a hypothesis of what happened at Event A and then we can use the scientific method to find an accepted theory. Alternatively we could not investigate Event A, but then we cannot say anything about Event A at all.

·         E.g Evolution is “just a theory”

o   Yes, but it is the accepted theory; so to say Evolution is untrue you must find a new theory which explains more phenomena than evolution and then that will become the accepted theory. You'll get a Nobel prize probably.

Or my personal favourite;

·         I just “know” it’s not true

o