|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 12:59:22 GMT
Perhaps we could use our current race laws where intent is not necessary. So, there can be genocide even if there is no intention to eradicate a race? Is that what you're saying? I said perhaps. There can be racial hatred stirred up with no intent, perhaps genocide can be achieved with no actual intent. It was a consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:00:28 GMT
So, there can be genocide even if there is no intention to eradicate a race? Is that what you're saying? There can be racial hatred stirred up with no intent, perhaps genocide can be achieved with no actual intent. It was a consideration. Perhaps!!!! We're talking about genocide. Solid proof will be needed. You'll have to do a lot better than 'perhaps'. Present real evidence. A bigoted opinion is not evidence, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:10:28 GMT
Those people are random, any person can be affected. The race laws affect one group significantly more than any other. That is the difference. Quote a 'race law' that eradicates the 'ethnic English'. Positive action impacts the English negatively to a significantly greater degree than any other group. Seeking diversity and inclusion negatively impacts the English greater than any other group.. Specifically because diversity is increasing and as the proportion of the English falls they will be effectively reduced by the policy of seeking diversity and inclusion. If you have a bag of one hundred balls with ten black balls and 90 white balls and say you always want to have ten balls you pick out to represent the proportions present in the whole and at the same time you are adding one black ball and removing one white ball then the ten balls will always have to change to reflect the increased proportion of the black balls. This negatively impacts the white balls both in the ten balls and in the main bag of balls. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:13:36 GMT
Quote a 'race law' that eradicates the 'ethnic English'. Positive action impacts the English negatively to a significantly greater degree than any other group. Seeking diversity and inclusion negatively impacts the English greater than any other group.. Specifically because diversity is increasing and as the proportion of the English falls they will be effectively reduced by the policy of seeking diversity and inclusion. If you have a bag of one hundred balls with ten black balls and 90 white balls and say you always want to have ten balls you pick out to represent the proportions present in the whole and at the same time you are adding one black ball and removing one white ball then the ten balls will always have to change to reflect the increased proportion of the black balls. This negatively impacts the white balls both in the ten balls and in the main bag of balls. And positive action eradicates the 'ethnic English'? Really? Your posts are exaggeration and conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:22:04 GMT
I said perhaps. There can be racial hatred stirred up with no intent, perhaps genocide can be achieved with no actual intent. It was a consideration. Perhaps!!!! We're talking about genocide. Solid proof will be needed. You'll have to do a lot better than 'perhaps'. Present real evidence. A bigoted opinion is not evidence, by the way. In law you do not need solid proof of intent to stir up racial hatred all you need is to show that given all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to have been stirred up. Why would we need any difference in that given all the circumstances genocide (as defined) is likely to have been initiated. I have presented no opinion other than the evidence indicates a potential genocide. You can refute the evidence and so far you have accepted one small piece, if you try and refute the rest then 'perhaps' we will progress. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:24:50 GMT
Perhaps!!!! We're talking about genocide. Solid proof will be needed. You'll have to do a lot better than 'perhaps'. Present real evidence. A bigoted opinion is not evidence, by the way. In law you do not need solid proof of intent to stir up racial hatred all you need is to show that given all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to have been stirred up. Why would we need any difference in that given all the circumstances genocide (as defined) is likely to have been initiated. I have presented no opinion other than the evidence indicates a potential genocide. You can refute the evidence and so far you have accepted one small piece, if you try and refute the rest then 'perhaps' we will progress. There you go using the word evidence again. There is none. There is a bigoted inference. Nothing more. If the idea that genocide is occurring were reasonable, it would be prevalent outside far-right circles. It isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:26:27 GMT
Positive action impacts the English negatively to a significantly greater degree than any other group. Seeking diversity and inclusion negatively impacts the English greater than any other group.. Specifically because diversity is increasing and as the proportion of the English falls they will be effectively reduced by the policy of seeking diversity and inclusion. If you have a bag of one hundred balls with ten black balls and 90 white balls and say you always want to have ten balls you pick out to represent the proportions present in the whole and at the same time you are adding one black ball and removing one white ball then the ten balls will always have to change to reflect the increased proportion of the black balls. This negatively impacts the white balls both in the ten balls and in the main bag of balls. And positive action eradicates the 'ethnic English'? Really? Your posts are exaggeration and conspiracy theory. Well I take you back to the definition Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Positive action is merely one part in a series of measures. I see you are back to 'conspiracy theory'. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:28:45 GMT
And positive action eradicates the 'ethnic English'? Really? Your posts are exaggeration and conspiracy theory. Well I take you back to the definition Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Positive action is merely one part in a series of measures. I see you are back to 'conspiracy theory'. It is a conspiracy theory. Without evidence, that is all it is capable of being. That or an article of far-right faith. So, how does positive discrimination* eradicate the 'ethnic English'? *Positive discrimination is entirely voluntary by the way - nobody can be forced to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:31:11 GMT
In law you do not need solid proof of intent to stir up racial hatred all you need is to show that given all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to have been stirred up. Why would we need any difference in that given all the circumstances genocide (as defined) is likely to have been initiated. I have presented no opinion other than the evidence indicates a potential genocide. You can refute the evidence and so far you have accepted one small piece, if you try and refute the rest then 'perhaps' we will progress. There you go using the word evidence again. There is none. There is a bigoted inference. Nothing more. If the idea that genocide is occurring were reasonable, it would be prevalent outside far-right circles. It isn't. You accepted positive action as impacting the English to a greater extent. I presented other evidence you seem not to wish to address any aspect of it and presenting some form of reasoned rebuttal. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:33:16 GMT
There you go using the word evidence again. There is none. There is a bigoted inference. Nothing more. If the idea that genocide is occurring were reasonable, it would be prevalent outside far-right circles. It isn't. You accepted positive action as impacting the English to a greater extent. I presented other evidence you seem not to wish to address any aspect of it and presenting some form of reasoned rebuttal. What evidence? You claim to have adduced circumstantial evidence, but you haven't. You're confusing a bigoted opinion with a reasonable inference from the facts. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:34:05 GMT
Well I take you back to the definition Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Positive action is merely one part in a series of measures. I see you are back to 'conspiracy theory'. It is a conspiracy theory. Without evidence, that is all it is capable of being. That or an article of far-right faith. So, how does positive discrimination* eradicate the 'ethnic English'? *Positive discrimination is entirely voluntary by the way - nobody can be forced to do it. Public bodies over 150 personnel are required to have an Equality Duty and this duty means positive action is a tool to meet the duty they are required to undertake. So yes the HR depts. are forced to consider it as part of their normal duties |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:35:30 GMT
It is a conspiracy theory. Without evidence, that is all it is capable of being. That or an article of far-right faith. So, how does positive discrimination* eradicate the 'ethnic English'? *Positive discrimination is entirely voluntary by the way - nobody can be forced to do it. Public bodies over 150 personnel are required to have an Equality Duty and this duty means positive action is a tool to meet the duty they are required to undertake. So yes the HR depts. are forced to consider it as part of their normal duties Where's the link to genocide? Have you forgotten that that's what we're discussing? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:37:48 GMT
You accepted positive action as impacting the English to a greater extent. I presented other evidence you seem not to wish to address any aspect of it and presenting some form of reasoned rebuttal. What evidence? You claim to have adduced circumstantial evidence, but you haven't. You're confusing a bigoted opinion with a reasonable inference from the facts. The evidence I presented and you ignored. If it is purely circumstantial then you will have no problem showing chapter and verse why it is not so. You have referred to 'bigoted opinion' now at least three times which is not a refutation. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:41:40 GMT
Public bodies over 150 personnel are required to have an Equality Duty and this duty means positive action is a tool to meet the duty they are required to undertake. So yes the HR depts. are forced to consider it as part of their normal duties Where's the link to genocide? Have you forgotten that that's what we're discussing? The link to genocide is given above contained in the parcel of evidence I presented to arrive at that conclusion. If you address that specific post then it would help. The side discussion above is because you said positive action was not forced on anyone, all I did was show that you were wrong in that assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:43:21 GMT
What evidence? You claim to have adduced circumstantial evidence, but you haven't. You're confusing a bigoted opinion with a reasonable inference from the facts. The evidence I presented and you ignored. If it is purely circumstantial then you will have no problem showing chapter and verse why it is not so. You have referred to 'bigoted opinion' now at least three times which is not a refutation. Something can only be accepted as evidence if it indicates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many explanations for immigration. Humanitarian and economic reasons are foremost. These stated reasons present reasonable doubt. Not only do they present reasonable doubt, they entirely dispose of the fantastic genocide theory. When we refer to 'reasonableness' we are referring to the standard of the ordinary person. If you need more convincing that your supposition of a genocidal motivation is not in keeping with the standard of the ordinary person, ask yourself why your theory hasn't gained traction outside a lunatic fringe of far-righters. |
|
