|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 8, 2023 17:32:22 GMT
It depends, ethnic English people are white, but not all white people are ethnic English. We are progressing. The ethnic English are wholly within the white English group and Lammy is outside that group so if a reference is made to being ethnically English we can exclude Lammy. Being ethnically English requires whiteness in the first instance but they can live anywhere and be Nationals of anywhere but can still define themselves as English. Would you agree? I have never claimed that David Lammy was ethnic English, I've said he is English. They can still define themselves as ethnically English wherever they live. I don't think many people would recognise any kids they had after settling abroad as English even though they would be ethnically English. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 8, 2023 18:13:01 GMT
I suppose the former claims that the meaning drives language and the latter claims that language drives the meaning . There is no platonic form of an English person. There is only the concept of an English person. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an adult. There is only the concept of an adult. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, a 13-year-old was once an ‘adult’. But the idea of what an adult is has been reconceived). There is no platonic form of woman. There is only the concept of a woman. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an insane person. There is only the concept of insanity. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, homosexuals were once conceived to be insane). It makes no sense to ponder what an English person is. That will depend on time and place, and even then much will depend on the context, or, to use Wittgenstein's phrase, the language game being played. However it is language games that are being played to erase the English, as an ethnic group, from everyone's ken. As a first step you flood the country with people then you denigrate those who were there first and gradually remove all evidence of them existing through cultural changes and the revision of history. It is a time honoured process that peoples have been fighting for thousands of years |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 18:19:03 GMT
I suppose the former claims that the meaning drives language and the latter claims that language drives the meaning . There is no platonic form of an English person. There is only the concept of an English person. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an adult. There is only the concept of an adult. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, a 13-year-old was once an ‘adult’. But the idea of what an adult is has been reconceived). There is no platonic form of woman. There is only the concept of a woman. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an insane person. There is only the concept of insanity. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, homosexuals were once conceived to be insane). It makes no sense to ponder what an English person is. That will depend on time and place, and even then much will depend on the context, or, to use Wittgenstein's phrase, the language game being played. You could have just said yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 18:19:07 GMT
There is no platonic form of an English person. There is only the concept of an English person. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an adult. There is only the concept of an adult. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, a 13-year-old was once an ‘adult’. But the idea of what an adult is has been reconceived). There is no platonic form of woman. There is only the concept of a woman. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an insane person. There is only the concept of insanity. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, homosexuals were once conceived to be insane). It makes no sense to ponder what an English person is. That will depend on time and place, and even then much will depend on the context, or, to use Wittgenstein's phrase, the language game being played. However it is language games that are being played to erase the English, as an ethnic group, from everyone's ken. As a first step you flood the country with people then you denigrate those who were there first and gradually remove all evidence of them existing through cultural changes and the revision of history. It is a time honoured process that peoples have been fighting for thousands of years Shouldn't your post be in the conspiracy theory section? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 18:20:12 GMT
There is no platonic form of an English person. There is only the concept of an English person. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an adult. There is only the concept of an adult. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, a 13-year-old was once an ‘adult’. But the idea of what an adult is has been reconceived). There is no platonic form of woman. There is only the concept of a woman. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place. There is no platonic form of an insane person. There is only the concept of insanity. That concept can vary from time to time and place to place (for instance, homosexuals were once conceived to be insane). It makes no sense to ponder what an English person is. That will depend on time and place, and even then much will depend on the context, or, to use Wittgenstein's phrase, the language game being played. You could have just said yes. Do you agree? Or do you hold to the idea of platonic forms? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 8, 2023 18:23:47 GMT
We are progressing. The ethnic English are wholly within the white English group and Lammy is outside that group so if a reference is made to being ethnically English we can exclude Lammy. Being ethnically English requires whiteness in the first instance but they can live anywhere and be Nationals of anywhere but can still define themselves as English. Would you agree? I have never claimed that David Lammy was ethnic English, I've said he is English. They can still define themselves as ethnically English wherever they live. I don't think many people would recognise any kids they had after settling abroad as English even though they would be ethnically English. Which is the point he is not English he is British, that is his defined Nationality, legally. Entwining himself into an English identity usurps those who have an English identity. Wanting to be English is not the same as actually being English and English, as we have seen, is defined as the English people, howsoever that is defined mostly by the English. We allow Native Americans to define themselves and who is and is not Native American, we allow Aborigines to define themselves and we allow ethnic groups all over the world to define themselves, the English alone seem to be the sole people who are denied that right. The English were in India for three hundred years, sometimes about a dozen generations were born and bred in India, to the Indians they were still the English and to the English they were still the English. A land of birth does not change ethnicity unless you integrate as a step to allowing assimilation. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 18:23:53 GMT
You could have just said yes. Do you agree? Or do you hold to the idea of platonic forms? You seem to be claiming that language is at best subjective and at worst meaningless. I don’t believe that Dave with a big pair of bollocks is a woman or can be defined as a woman ..so no. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 8, 2023 18:28:31 GMT
However it is language games that are being played to erase the English, as an ethnic group, from everyone's ken. As a first step you flood the country with people then you denigrate those who were there first and gradually remove all evidence of them existing through cultural changes and the revision of history. It is a time honoured process that peoples have been fighting for thousands of years Shouldn't your post be in the conspiracy theory section? Conspiracy is akin to religion it is not rooted in any evidence. We have oodles of evidence that a concerted attack on the English as an existing ethnic group is being carried out culturally and historically and by those who claim it is non-existent. If the evidence points to a situation it is not just a theory it passes scientific evaluation. Is there any test or evidence you could present that refutes the theory? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 18:30:51 GMT
Do you agree? Or do you hold to the idea of platonic forms? You seem to be claiming that language is at best subjective and at worst meaningless. I don’t believe that Dave with a big pair of bollocks is a woman or can be defined as a woman ..so no. No. Once again, you've completely misunderstood. Is a 13-year-old an adult? In some cultures, a 13-year-old is an adult. The defining criterion is the ability to reproduce. In other cultures, a 13-year-old is not an adult. The defining criterion is mental maturity (which is deemed to occur around the age of 18). Which group is correct? Neither is objectively correct. Adulthood is a concept, a social construct, and, as such, it can vary from place to place and time to time. Is someone born with a penis a woman? In some groups someone born with a penis is a woman. The defining criterion is the bio-chemical make-up of the brain. In other groups, someone born with a penis is not a woman. The defining criterion is birth genitalia. Which group is correct? Neither is objectively correct. 'Womanness' is a concept, a social construct, and, as such, it can vary from place to place and time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 18:31:35 GMT
Shouldn't your post be in the conspiracy theory section? Conspiracy is akin to religion it is not rooted in any evidence. We have oodles of evidence that a concerted attack on the English as an existing ethnic group is being carried out culturally and historically and by those who claim it is non-existent. If the evidence points to a situation it is not just a theory it passes scientific evaluation. Is there any test or evidence you could present that refutes the theory? So, you think a group of people got together in a room and decided to wipe out the white race? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2023 18:33:28 GMT
Shouldn't your post be in the conspiracy theory section? Conspiracy is akin to religion it is not rooted in any evidence. We have oodles of evidence that a concerted attack on the English as an existing ethnic group is being carried out culturally and historically and by those who claim it is non-existent. If the evidence points to a situation it is not just a theory it passes scientific evaluation. Is there any test or evidence you could present that refutes the theory? I think they're trying to sabotage and close down the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 18:35:47 GMT
Conspiracy is akin to religion it is not rooted in any evidence. We have oodles of evidence that a concerted attack on the English as an existing ethnic group is being carried out culturally and historically and by those who claim it is non-existent. If the evidence points to a situation it is not just a theory it passes scientific evaluation. Is there any test or evidence you could present that refutes the theory? I think they're trying to sabotage and close down the thread. You would. It is legitimate to ask who is behind the conspiracy. If some form of conspiracy is at the centre of his argument, it would be remiss to simply skirt around that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 8, 2023 18:36:32 GMT
Conspiracy is akin to religion it is not rooted in any evidence. We have oodles of evidence that a concerted attack on the English as an existing ethnic group is being carried out culturally and historically and by those who claim it is non-existent. If the evidence points to a situation it is not just a theory it passes scientific evaluation. Is there any test or evidence you could present that refutes the theory? So, you think a group of people got together in a room and decided to wipe out the white race? It only takes more than one and I have not said 'the white race' I have said 'the English'. If two people think it would be a good wheeze to denigrate English culture it is a conspiracy, not a theory. Why they would do that is more difficult to ascertain but showing it is happening is not a problem, showing it is not happening should be easy if it is only a 'theory'. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 18:37:38 GMT
So, you think a group of people got together in a room and decided to wipe out the white race? It only takes more than one and I have not said 'the white race' I have said 'the English'. If two people think it would be a good wheeze to denigrate English culture it is a conspiracy, not a theory. Why they would do that is more difficult to ascertain but showing it is happening is not a problem, showing it is not happening should be easy if it is only a 'theory'. So, who has decided to wipe out 'the English'? Who formed that plan? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 18:41:10 GMT
You seem to be claiming that language is at best subjective and at worst meaningless. I don’t believe that Dave with a big pair of bollocks is a woman or can be defined as a woman ..so no. No. Once again, you've completely misunderstood. Is a 13-year-old an adult? In some cultures, a 13-year-old is an adult. The defining criterion is the ability to reproduce. In other cultures, a 13-year-old is not an adult. The defining criterion is mental maturity (which is deemed to occur around the age of 18). Which group is correct? Neither is objectively correct. Adulthood is a concept, a social construct, and, as such, it can vary from place to place and time to time. Is someone born with a penis a woman? In some groups someone born with a penis is a woman. The defining criterion is the bio-chemical make-up of the brain. In other groups, someone born with a penis is not a woman. The defining criterion is birth genitalia. Which group is correct? Neither is objectively correct. 'Womanness' is a concept, a social construct, and, as such, it can vary from place to place and time to time. You are like a religious cult member who has studied their own religious dogma for years and keeps telling everyone that THEY don’t understand every time the dogma is has found to be nonsense . We can call up down and down up according to your premise . Dave with a dick isn’t a woman darling . He is a biological man and refutes your idiocy of a totally subjective language thus. |
|
