|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 13:44:53 GMT
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. fair enough. Can you provide a link to support the above. I'm glad we agree that positive discrimination is not genocide or anything like genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 13:51:34 GMT
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. Evidence can be anything that strengthens the case and make the whole beyond reasonable doubt. So the evidence has to be unpicked bit by bit. The whole point as regards genocide is that it is a cumulative process and it is important to recall that the forces of law, order, justice and representation have been co-opted into the process through 'reasonable' grounds. Which was the point Orac made several times I believe. The evidence is that in the main the English people are disadvantaged in their own homeland by all the laws, policies and actions undertaken by the forces of law order, justice and representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 13:58:47 GMT
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. I think it's a bit of side issue whether genocide rests only on some explicit intent - that is, if you nuke a group to extinction you have not committed genocide despite the group being gone because you were also engaging in a war? (uncertain). I think this is a side issue because the genocidal intent of the 'multicultural project' is regularly communicated. If you support policies that can be reasonably expected to reduce a groups numbers, or democratic influence, in their homeland and you celebrate (or anticipate / wish) that reduction, then there isn't that much mystery about your intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 14:09:52 GMT
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. Evidence can be anything that strengthens the case and make the whole beyond reasonable doubt. So the evidence has to be unpicked bit by bit. The whole point as regards genocide is that it is a cumulative process and it is important to recall that the forces of law, order, justice and representation have been co-opted into the process through 'reasonable' grounds. Which was the point Orac made several times I believe. The evidence is that in the main the English people are disadvantaged in their own homeland by all the laws, policies and actions undertaken by the forces of law order, justice and representation. At best, that's evidence of discrimination. Genocide and discrimination are worlds apart (that's assuming it is even discrimination). My point from the very beginning has been that none of you actually believes genocide is occurring. You've chosen the word genocide because you believe it gives gravitas to your position. It does no such thing. It is a blatantly obvious misrepresentation of the facts, an insult to actual victims of genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 14:12:19 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. I think it's a bit of side issue whether genocide rests only on some explicit intent - that is, if you nuke a group to extinction you have not committed genocide despite the group being gone because you were also engaging in a war? (uncertain). I think this is a side issue because the genocidal intent of the 'multicultural project' is regularly communicated. If you support policies that can be reasonably expected to reduce a groups numbers, or democratic influence, in their homeland and you celebrate (or anticipate / wish) that reduction, then there isn't that much mystery about your intentions. Some criminal offenses require mens rea (intent). Others don't. The general rule is that serious offenses will always require intent. There can be no more serious crime than genocide. It would be extraordinary if genocide, of all things, could occur without intent. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 16:42:00 GMT
Evidence can be anything that strengthens the case and make the whole beyond reasonable doubt. So the evidence has to be unpicked bit by bit. The whole point as regards genocide is that it is a cumulative process and it is important to recall that the forces of law, order, justice and representation have been co-opted into the process through 'reasonable' grounds. Which was the point Orac made several times I believe. The evidence is that in the main the English people are disadvantaged in their own homeland by all the laws, policies and actions undertaken by the forces of law order, justice and representation. At best, that's evidence of discrimination. Genocide and discrimination are worlds apart (that's assuming it is even discrimination). My point from the very beginning has been that none of you actually believes genocide is occurring. You've chosen the word genocide because you believe it gives gravitas to your position. It does no such thing. It is a blatantly obvious misrepresentation of the facts, an insult to actual victims of genocide. Discrimination has to be part of genocide. So evidence of discrimination is a first step. If that discrimination will lead to a specific outcome, which logically it must, and if that logical outcome is the eventual extinction of an ethnic group in their homeland I am not sure what else to call it. If discrimination continues what will be the outcome? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 16:44:10 GMT
I think it's a bit of side issue whether genocide rests only on some explicit intent - that is, if you nuke a group to extinction you have not committed genocide despite the group being gone because you were also engaging in a war? (uncertain). I think this is a side issue because the genocidal intent of the 'multicultural project' is regularly communicated. If you support policies that can be reasonably expected to reduce a groups numbers, or democratic influence, in their homeland and you celebrate (or anticipate / wish) that reduction, then there isn't that much mystery about your intentions. Some criminal offenses require mens rea (intent). Others don't. The general rule is that serious offenses will always require intent. There can be no more serious crime than genocide. It would be extraordinary if genocide, of all things, could occur without intent. Do the race laws as regards stirring up racial hatred require intent? I know genocide requires intent, I was only making a suggestion in the context of your comment. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 17:06:09 GMT
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. fair enough. Can you provide a link to support the above. I'm glad we agree that positive discrimination is not genocide or anything like genocide. In line with all else it is the sum total of evidence that counts. If each bit of evidence shows some disadvantage to the English then it strengthens the genocide case. Here is an easy one and illustrates the point on a smaller scale. In East London post WW2 the population was largely English with a good smattering of Irish and Jews. Social housing was constructed to take the place of the slums and the war damage. In increasing numbers immigrants with families were allowed to come to the country and in East London the residents found that their own children could not get social housing as the immigrants had a greater need with larger numbers of children and or dependants, so large areas of inter-related families with support networks for child care and adult care were broken up. This continued through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and was referred to as white flight although a closer definition would be white expulsion. With the break-up of family networks within a defined area and the difficulty with child care the birth rate of the English decreased whilst the social housing rules changed to allow close family ties in a given area to be considered for social housing allowing family networks once again to become important but with different ethnic groups being in residence. What happened in East London was not an isolated series of events. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 17:36:13 GMT
fair enough. Can you provide a link to support the above. I'm glad we agree that positive discrimination is not genocide or anything like genocide. In line with all else it is the sum total of evidence that counts. If each bit of evidence shows some disadvantage to the English then it strengthens the genocide case. Here is an easy one and illustrates the point on a smaller scale. In East London post WW2 the population was largely English with a good smattering of Irish and Jews. Social housing was constructed to take the place of the slums and the war damage. In increasing numbers immigrants with families were allowed to come to the country and in East London the residents found that their own children could not get social housing as the immigrants had a greater need with larger numbers of children and or dependants, so large areas of inter-related families with support networks for child care and adult care were broken up. This continued through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and was referred to as white flight although a closer definition would be white expulsion. With the break-up of family networks within a defined area and the difficulty with child care the birth rate of the English decreased whilst the social housing rules changed to allow close family ties in a given area to be considered for social housing allowing family networks once again to become important but with different ethnic groups being in residence. What happened in East London was not an isolated series of events. Where were the bodies buried? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 19:33:57 GMT
In line with all else it is the sum total of evidence that counts. If each bit of evidence shows some disadvantage to the English then it strengthens the genocide case. Here is an easy one and illustrates the point on a smaller scale. In East London post WW2 the population was largely English with a good smattering of Irish and Jews. Social housing was constructed to take the place of the slums and the war damage. In increasing numbers immigrants with families were allowed to come to the country and in East London the residents found that their own children could not get social housing as the immigrants had a greater need with larger numbers of children and or dependants, so large areas of inter-related families with support networks for child care and adult care were broken up. This continued through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and was referred to as white flight although a closer definition would be white expulsion. With the break-up of family networks within a defined area and the difficulty with child care the birth rate of the English decreased whilst the social housing rules changed to allow close family ties in a given area to be considered for social housing allowing family networks once again to become important but with different ethnic groups being in residence. What happened in East London was not an isolated series of events. Where were the bodies buried? Which sums it up nicely, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 19:43:02 GMT
Where were the bodies buried? Which sums it up nicely, thank you. No bodies, then? Where are the mass graves from the positive discrimination legislation? You've exploited the word genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 20:00:01 GMT
I think it's a bit of side issue whether genocide rests only on some explicit intent - that is, if you nuke a group to extinction you have not committed genocide despite the group being gone because you were also engaging in a war? (uncertain). I think this is a side issue because the genocidal intent of the 'multicultural project' is regularly communicated. If you support policies that can be reasonably expected to reduce a groups numbers, or democratic influence, in their homeland and you celebrate (or anticipate / wish) that reduction, then there isn't that much mystery about your intentions. Some criminal offenses require mens rea (intent). Others don't. The general rule is that serious offenses will always require intent. There can be no more serious crime than genocide. It would be extraordinary if genocide, of all things, could occur without intent. If you support policies that can be reasonably expected to reduce a groups numbers or democratic influence in their homeland, and you celebrate (or anticipate / wish) that reduction, then there isn't that much mystery about your intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 20:02:09 GMT
Some criminal offenses require mens rea (intent). Others don't. The general rule is that serious offenses will always require intent. There can be no more serious crime than genocide. It would be extraordinary if genocide, of all things, could occur without intent. If you support policies that can be reasonably expected to reduce a groups numbers or democratic influence in their homeland, and you celebrate (or anticipate / wish) that reduction, then there isn't that much mystery about your intentions. None of that equates to genocide. It doesn't come close. Where are the mass graves, crematoria, etc.? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 20:02:17 GMT
Which sums it up nicely, thank you. No bodies, then? Where are the mass graves from the positive discrimination legislation? You've exploited the word genocide. So I suppose the only question I can ask at this point is do you accept the UN definoition of genocide which includes the stand alone definition "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" If you do then bodies are not needed. If you do not then what definition serves best? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 20:04:53 GMT
No bodies, then? Where are the mass graves from the positive discrimination legislation? You've exploited the word genocide. So I suppose the only question I can ask at this point is do you accept the UN definoition of genocide which includes the stand alone definition "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" If you do then bodies are not needed. If you do not then what definition serves best? Cite the statute or whatever it is. I'd love to see a statement from the UN that says that voluntarily interbreeding with another race is genocide. If it were genocide, some nutjob far-right group would have litigated before an international court. |
|
