|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 21:17:26 GMT
If you don't think it's being committed, just say so. You can either have a pointless back-and-forth to no end, or you can simply state that you don't believe genocide is occurring. Save us all a lot of bother and just say it. It will take one short sentence. So we both agree that I never claimed that genocide was being committed . So why have you repeatedly accused me of claiming this when I have done nothing of the kind ? Did you do this maliciously or was you incapable of following a simple premise ? Well, you certainly gave that impression. There are others on this thread who clearly do think it's genocide. I'm glad you think their position is preposterous. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 21:19:31 GMT
If you don't think it's being committed, just say so. You can either have a pointless back-and-forth to no end, or you can simply state that you don't believe genocide is occurring. Save us all a lot of bother and just say it. It will take one short sentence. So we both agree that I never claimed that genocide was being committed . So why have you repeatedly accused me of claiming this when I have done nothing of the kind ? Did you do this maliciously or was you incapable of following a simple premise ? By the way, if you haven't been arguing that genocide is occurring, what exactly have you been arguing? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 21:20:04 GMT
So we both agree that I never claimed that genocide was being committed . So why have you repeatedly accused me of claiming this when I have done nothing of the kind ? Did you do this maliciously or was you incapable of following a simple premise ? Well, you certainly gave that impression. There are others on this thread who clearly do think it's genocide. I'm glad you think their position is preposterous. I never said the position is preposterous either . You seem to have a habit if attributing views on other people . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 21:21:02 GMT
Well, you certainly gave that impression. There are others on this thread who clearly do think it's genocide. I'm glad you think their position is preposterous. I never said the position is preposterous either . You seem to have a habit if attributing views on other people . Right, so you believe there's merit in the argument that genocide is occurring? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 21:23:54 GMT
So we both agree that I never claimed that genocide was being committed . So why have you repeatedly accused me of claiming this when I have done nothing of the kind ? Did you do this maliciously or was you incapable of following a simple premise ? By the way, if you haven't been arguing that genocide is occurring, what exactly have you been arguing? Is a slow demise of an ethnic group encouraged by social pressure a form of genocide ? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 8, 2023 21:26:24 GMT
By the way, if you haven't been arguing that genocide is occurring, what exactly have you been arguing? Is a slow demise of an ethnic group encouraged by social pressure a form of genocide ? No. A mixed race couple who voluntarily have a child are not engaged in genocide. If you want to use ridiculous analogies, wouldn't suicide be more appropriate if your unsupported claim of societal pressure is true? After all, I'm assuming at least some of this pressure is coming from members of the white community. That said, I wouldn't recommend the use of the word suicide either. It's almost as ridiculous as the genocide claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 21:37:38 GMT
Is a slow demise of an ethnic group encouraged by social pressure a form of genocide ? No. A mixed race couple who voluntarily have a child are not engaged in genocide. If you want to use ridiculous analogies, wouldn't suicide be more appropriate if the pressure is coming from members of the white community? I wouldn't recommend the use of the word suicide either. It's almost as ridiculous as the genocide claim. I remember reading a few years ago about a university professor claiming that the best thing white men could do for the world was to commit suicide . So at least one ‘ educated ‘ man thinks it’s not so ridiculous. The question was hypothetical. We know that other societies try to influence the mixing of ethnic groups and we know that the UK did a few decades ago. So why is societal influence on inter breeding ethic groups so ridiculous a concept? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 8, 2023 21:39:41 GMT
It depends on the numbers and we know the numbers were very large and against the direct wishes of the electorate, so manipulation of a populace was what occurred and it is manipulation that is the comparison with the Nazis No, it doesn't depend on the numbers. In order for there to be manipulation, there has to be actual manipulation. Just as in order for there to be genocide, there has to be actual genocide. Where's the manipulation and where's the genocide? If you have a bag of balls with 100 balls ten of which are black the the chances of pulling out one white and one black is approx 9% if you change the black balls to 20 then the chance changes to approx 16% if my calcs are correct. Increasing chances of an event is manipulation. Obviously that is a random event and many other factors play a part but in straight terms one is manipulating the odds in favour of a specific event. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 8, 2023 21:46:06 GMT
Is a slow demise of an ethnic group encouraged by social pressure a form of genocide ? No. A mixed race couple who voluntarily have a child are not engaged in genocide. If you want to use ridiculous analogies, wouldn't suicide be more appropriate if your unsupported claim of societal pressure is true? After all, I'm assuming at least some of this pressure is coming from members of the white community. That said, I wouldn't recommend the use of the word suicide either. It's almost as ridiculous as the genocide claim. But thousands may be most especially if they are deliberately increased proportionally and encouraged to live in a multiracial society. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 8, 2023 21:52:20 GMT
Ok . For the sake of debate .
Does a conscious effort to encourage the UK to be a ‘ melting pot’ of ethnic groups equate to
Genocide ..intentionally destroying part or all of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, by killings people orby other methods?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 0:47:00 GMT
No. A mixed race couple who voluntarily have a child are not engaged in genocide. If you want to use ridiculous analogies, wouldn't suicide be more appropriate if the pressure is coming from members of the white community? I wouldn't recommend the use of the word suicide either. It's almost as ridiculous as the genocide claim. I remember reading a few years ago about a university professor claiming that the best thing white men could do for the world was to commit suicide . So at least one ‘ educated ‘ man thinks it’s not so ridiculous. The question was hypothetical. We know that other societies try to influence the mixing of ethnic groups and we know that the UK did a few decades ago. So why is societal influence on inter breeding ethic groups so ridiculous a concept? Don't worry about that. A child is a child. There's no need for anyone to go saying that there's anything negative about him or her just because his or her parents belong to a different race. He or she isn't a product of some sort of genocidal plan. Let's agree on that, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 0:51:41 GMT
No, it doesn't depend on the numbers. In order for there to be manipulation, there has to be actual manipulation. Just as in order for there to be genocide, there has to be actual genocide. Where's the manipulation and where's the genocide? If you have a bag of balls with 100 balls ten of which are black the the chances of pulling out one white and one black is approx 9% if you change the black balls to 20 then the chance changes to approx 16% if my calcs are correct. Increasing chances of an event is manipulation. Obviously that is a random event and many other factors play a part but in straight terms one is manipulating the odds in favour of a specific event. In order for there to be manipulation, there has to be a manipulator. Who is the manipulator? And what is the motive? This has the appearance of an absurd conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 9, 2023 7:54:18 GMT
It's racist when you don't do it...  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 9, 2023 8:14:06 GMT
There seems to a vague notion afoot that there is a conspiracy working to bring about the demise of the English people.
There's no such thing, at least not any more, for the very simple reason that there doesn't need to be one with the system working perfectly well on autopilot.
What we have today is a good old-fashioned Kulturkampf between two implacably opposed and mutually antagonistic Weltanschauungen (don't worry our resident Wittgenstein authority will be along shortly to translate): ethno-nationalism and universalism.
Universalists consider a resurgent English nationalism the most serious threat to their vision of a coffee-coloured multicultural Utopia in which persons of every colour and gender will be able to throw off their shackles and free themselves from the clammy grip of their oppressors. They understand that an ersatz Britishness is an indispensable safety feature for those of foreign extraction, providing an umbrella coverage for those unable to legitimately lay claim on an Englishness based on a deeply-rooted ancestral connection to the land. The best way, in their view, to counter the threat is to denigrate and deprecate Englishness at every opportunity and to strenuously deny any linkage between people and place. While at the same time, of course, insisting that an English identity is such a fungible and portable commodity that it can be adopted by anyone and everyone, regardless of provenance or ancestry, and simply for the asking. The theory being that if you make something cheap enough it soon becomes of little value.
But it's not a conspiracy, it's in their DNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 9, 2023 8:30:14 GMT
There seems to a vague notion afoot that there is a conspiracy working to bring about the demise of the English people. There's no such thing, at least not any more, for the very simple reason that there doesn't need to be one with the system working perfectly well on autopilot. What we have today is a good old-fashioned Kulturkampf between two implacably opposed and mutually antagonistic Weltanschauungen (don't worry our resident Wittgenstein authority will be along shortly to translate): ethno-nationalism and universalism. Universalists consider a resurgent English nationalism the most serious threat to their vision of a coffee-coloured multicultural Utopia in which persons of every colour and gender will be able to throw off their shackles and free themselves from the clammy grip of their oppressors. They understand that an ersatz Britishness is an indispensable safety feature for those of foreign extraction, providing an umbrella coverage for those unable to legitimately lay claim on an Englishness based on a deeply-rooted ancestral connection to the land. The best way, in their view, to counter the threat is to denigrate and deprecate Englishness at every opportunity and to strenuously deny any linkage between people and place. While at the same time, of course, insisting that an English identity is such a fungible and portable commodity that it can be adopted by anyone and everyone, regardless of provenance or ancestry, and simply for the asking. The theory being that if you make something cheap enough it soon becomes of little value. But it's not a conspiracy, it's in their DNA. Who has said that English identity can be adopted by anyone and everyone? I've not seen anyone on this thread say any such thing. |
|
