|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 9, 2023 21:21:56 GMT
Sounds like something you are unqualified to comment on, so if you can't provide a source for your assertions I'd make a retraction if I were you. This is the Mind Zone not the Members Bar. Quickest and easiest way to cover your tracks is to use the Delete function. I suggested that you ask the professionals, which was good advice, but you choose to ignore it preferring to insult me! That doesn't do your reputation any favours. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 21:22:32 GMT
Your defence, if it can be called that, is of your usual calibre. It wouldn't pass the man on the Clapham omnibus test. No big deal. Ok . What self contradiction? See above. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 9, 2023 21:23:23 GMT
Ok . What self contradiction? See above. So what was the contradiction darling ? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 9, 2023 21:28:15 GMT
Sounds like something you are unqualified to comment on, so if you can't provide a source for your assertions I'd make a retraction if I were you. This is the Mind Zone not the Members Bar. Quickest and easiest way to cover your tracks is to use the Delete function. I suggested that you ask the professionals, which was good advice, but you choose to ignore it preferring to insult me! That doesn't do your reputation any favours. I don't need a 'professional' to tell me there is no such thing as 'English DNA'. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2023 21:28:27 GMT
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and has resulted in many's a successful prosecution. A reasoned refutation of why the evidence is irrelevant in your view would be a good start however it is not each item in isolation that tells the tale it is the outcome that has ensued that helps the case. There may be no intent anywhere to eradicate something but if the result is still eradication then when it is noted it is stopped and if it is not then intent has to be suspected. What you have presented as evidence is nothing more than self-serving inference. It is irrelevant because no good faith actor could reasonably reach the conclusion that genocide is the intention of a group or groups acting for what they have stated to be humanitarian or economic reasons. The presumption of innocence requires that you adduce something, other than a bigoted opinion, as evidence to support your claim. A bigoted opinion is not, nor has it ever been, circumstantial evidence. Ah some effort at last. The question that should be asked is what is the outcome of all the actions underway and who does it negatively affect the most and have they initiated and supported those actions. The answers are clear, all the laws and policies affect negatively the English the most. Large scale immigration affects the English the most in total within their own homeland with significant demographic change occurring, the laws as regards diversity and inclusion affect the English in total the most as diversity is increasing and the English are declining. The positive action laws affect the English in total the most. Now as regards support for these actions the large scale immigration has been opposed by the English for at least 60 years, and probably longer, as almost every election clearly indicates, so there is no English democratic mandate for what has occurred in fact there has been clear English opposition to it. The imposition of a multicultural country has had no democratic mandate and was clearly opposed by the English whose culture has been denigrated, banned and belittled as often as possble frequently by some English themselves who believe they are being inclusive. Like the chap who said openly he celebrates Diwali and Eid with his fiends of the relative religions but refers to the Christmas holidays as winterval. He seems to be a lost cause. This is all evidence as it is what is occurring. The important bit the sum total of all of this will have an effect and that effect will be the gradual demise of the English as the majority ethnic group in their homeland. If it was climate change you would call it settled science. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 21:30:53 GMT
What you have presented as evidence is nothing more than self-serving inference. It is irrelevant because no good faith actor could reasonably reach the conclusion that genocide is the intention of a group or groups acting for what they have stated to be humanitarian or economic reasons. The presumption of innocence requires that you adduce something, other than a bigoted opinion, as evidence to support your claim. A bigoted opinion is not, nor has it ever been, circumstantial evidence. Ah some effort at last. The question that should be asked is what is the outcome of all the actions underway and who does it negatively affect the most and have they initiated and supported those actions. LOL! You feel justified in floating a far-right conspiracy theory about genocide here just because some people are negatively impacted by a government policy? Is the government trying to kill everyone who is negatively impacted by their policies? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 9, 2023 21:44:40 GMT
The question still remains that if an ethnic group is eradicated through social reconstruction, is it an act if genocide ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 9, 2023 22:13:25 GMT
Mod Notice.
OK - I am reposting the specific rules relating to this section of the forum as some of you seem to have forgotten them. Take this as a warning and think before you post.
Additional Rules (Apply to Mind Zone only).
- No swearing, be respectful at all times.
- Avoid mocking/joking responses / images / one liners.
- Ad hominem arguments are not allowed. If you are unsure what these are, google it yourself, or see here.
- Stay on topic with the OP - Do not drift off topic and discuss something unrelated to the OP. (e.g. no whataboutery).
- Any assertion or claim that is made, must provide a source to support it or declare itself an 'opinion'.
Moderation
- All existing forum rules remain in effect and moderation for breaking general forum rules remains the same.
- The above rules apply to only this forum and moderation may range from a polite request you stop, to having your ability to post in this channel removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 8:57:42 GMT
The intent to reduce the numbers or relative preponderance of a group in their homeland is imho genocidal.
The logical end point of that intent (if persistently pressed) is extermination of that group.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 10, 2023 9:12:56 GMT
Perhaps those who claim to be English, should, if they haven't already, have their DNA checked. I claim to be English (4th generation) but most of my DNA is Scottish followed by Scandinavian and a touch of Irish. Edit: Cartertonian has just reminded me about what I feel, and I have felt for a long time to be European. Me too. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 10:01:31 GMT
The intent to reduce the numbers or relative preponderance of a group in their homeland is imho genocidal. The logical end point of that intent (if persistently pressed) is extermination of that group. So, sending immigrants to Rwanda is a genocidal act? After all, it will reduce the 'relative preponderance' of Rwandans in their homeland. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 10:07:07 GMT
The intent to reduce the numbers or relative preponderance of a group in their homeland is imho genocidal. The logical end point of that intent (if persistently pressed) is extermination of that group. So, sending immigrants to Rwanda is a genocidal act? After all, it will reduce the 'relative preponderance' of Rwandans in their homeland. If the intent is to r ub the Rwandan's noses in diversity and reduce their influence, sure. If we start to see politicians crowing about how they have made Rwandans a minority in parts of their own country, the alarm bells should go off |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2023 10:07:32 GMT
I suggested that you ask the professionals, which was good advice, but you choose to ignore it preferring to insult me! That doesn't do your reputation any favours. I don't need a 'professional' to tell me there is no such thing as 'English DNA'. You are entitled to your OPINION. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 10, 2023 10:12:33 GMT
So, sending immigrants to Rwanda is a genocidal act? After all, it will reduce the 'relative preponderance' of Rwandans in their homeland. If the intent is to r ub the Rwandan's noses in diversity and reduce their influence, sure. If we start to see politicians crowing about how they have made Rwandans a minority in parts of their own country, the alarm bells should go off IMO intended or not, the result would be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 10:12:46 GMT
So, sending immigrants to Rwanda is a genocidal act? After all, it will reduce the 'relative preponderance' of Rwandans in their homeland. If the intent is to r ub the Rwandan's noses in diversity and reduce their influence, sure. And how will we determine what the intent is? Will we use the far-right method of simply projecting our prejudices? Or will we seek solid evidence? Of all the crimes, genocide must surely be the worst. Naturally, then, a high standard of proof will need to be set. So, what will count as evidence of this 'intention'? Official government documents? Tape recorded conversations? What? I'm sure we agree that mere speculation or self-serving inference won't be adequate. |
|
