|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 20:10:06 GMT
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. Which really does not answer the question do you accept the UN definition of genocide? It is easy enough to find.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 20:18:33 GMT
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. None of what amounts to genocide? I didn't say genocide had been completed / accomplished The logical endpoint of an attempt to reduce a group's numbers (per-se) is genocide. Ergo - the aim / intent to reduce a group's overall numbers is a genocidal intent. I think the notion of a homeland is important here for obvious reasons. Trying to reduce the numbers (or democratic influence) of Indians in China isn't necessarily genocidal, but doing the same to India clearly is.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 20:38:31 GMT
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. Which really does not answer the question do you accept the UN definition of genocide? It is easy enough to find. Cite their definition with a link.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 20:41:35 GMT
None of that equates to genocide. It doesn't come close. None of what amounts to genocide? I didn't say genocide had been completed / accomplished The logical endpoint of an attempt to reduce a group's numbers (per-se) is genocide. Ergo - the aim / intent to reduce a group's overall numbers is a genocidal intent. I think the notion of a homeland is important here for obvious reasons. Trying to reduce the numbers (or democratic influence) of Indians in China isn't necessarily genocidal, but doing the same to India clearly is. So, this 'genocide' won't involve mass graves, crematoria, or anything normally associated with genocide. You are talking about a completely different form of 'genocide', where, for example, two people of different race, more than likely married couples, decide to have children, and these children begin to outnumber people of Viking, Norman, Anglo-Saxon, etc., heritage? Nobody is actually killed, but just by interbreeding, these people are committing genocide?
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 10, 2023 20:46:54 GMT
Which really does not answer the question do you accept the UN definition of genocide? It is easy enough to find. Cite their definition with a link. No I am not going to direct you, go to their definition on your own as you will always say I directed you in error. The definition is freely available at the UN.
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Dec 10, 2023 21:51:12 GMT
None of that equates to genocide. It doesn't come close. None of what amounts to genocide? I didn't say genocide had been completed / accomplished The logical endpoint of an attempt to reduce a group's numbers (per-se) is genocide. Ergo - the aim / intent to reduce a group's overall numbers is a genocidal intent. I think the notion of a homeland is important here for obvious reasons. Trying to reduce the numbers (or democratic influence) of Indians in China isn't necessarily genocidal, but doing the same to India clearly is. So do you think the Windrush scandal was an act of genocide?
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 22:02:07 GMT
Cite their definition with a link. No I am not going to direct you, go to their definition on your own as you will always say I directed you in error. The definition is freely available at the UN. I went to their website, and this is the first thing that jumped out at me: HE SPECIFIC “INTENT” REQUIREMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE: The definition of Genocide is made up of two elements, the physical element — the acts committed; and the mental element — the intent. Intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not HE SPECIFIC “INTENT” REQUIREMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE: The definition of Genocide is made up of two elements, the physical element — the acts committed; and the mental element — the intent. Intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group ...,
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 22:04:03 GMT
So, what have you done to prove intent, Sandy?
Nothing, right? Your 'evidence' is that you simply don't believe those who say that immigration is motivated by humanitarian and economic drivers. That's not proof; That's a very dark form of cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 22:21:32 GMT
None of what amounts to genocide? I didn't say genocide had been completed / accomplished The logical endpoint of an attempt to reduce a group's numbers (per-se) is genocide. Ergo - the aim / intent to reduce a group's overall numbers is a genocidal intent. I think the notion of a homeland is important here for obvious reasons. Trying to reduce the numbers (or democratic influence) of Indians in China isn't necessarily genocidal, but doing the same to India clearly is. So, this 'genocide' won't involve mass graves, crematoria, or anything normally associated with genocide. You are talking about a completely different form of 'genocide', where, for example, two people of different race, more than likely married couples, decide to have children, and these children begin to outnumber people of Viking, Norman, Anglo-Saxon, etc., heritage? Nobody is actually killed, but just by interbreeding, these people are committing genocide? It depends on intent. If you are targeting one group in particular with policies intended to remove / reduce that strain, then you have a genocidal motivation for a policy. For instance, deciding that one group's territory belongs to everyone else is a form of targeting that group in particular and it is quite likely to end or reduce that group. This conversation came from a chat with Zany. He told me that if one group in particular didn't continuously pass their territory to people other than their children without limit, they were inhuman. I thought it quite neatly encapsulated a suicidal liability - a liability that makes that group's continued existence unsustainable.,
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 22:24:30 GMT
So, this 'genocide' won't involve mass graves, crematoria, or anything normally associated with genocide. You are talking about a completely different form of 'genocide', where, for example, two people of different race, more than likely married couples, decide to have children, and these children begin to outnumber people of Viking, Norman, Anglo-Saxon, etc., heritage? Nobody is actually killed, but just by interbreeding, these people are committing genocide? It depends on intent. If you are targeting one group in particular with policies intended to remove / reduce that strain, then you have a genocidal motivation for a policy. For instance, deciding that one group's territory belongs to everyone else is a form of targeting that group in particular and it is quite likely to end or reduce that group. This conversation came from a chat with Zany. He told me that if one group in particular didn't continuously pass their territory to people other than their children without limit, they were inhuman. I thought it quite neatly encapsulated a suicidal liability - a liability that makes that group's continued existence unsustainable., Here's how genocide is defined: EFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION: The current definition of Genocide is set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 22:26:58 GMT
It depends on intent. If you are targeting one group in particular with policies intended to remove / reduce that strain, then you have a genocidal motivation for a policy. For instance, deciding that one group's territory belongs to everyone else is a form of targeting that group in particular and it is quite likely to end or reduce that group. This conversation came from a chat with Zany. He told me that if one group in particular didn't continuously pass their territory to people other than their children without limit, they were inhuman. I thought it quite neatly encapsulated a suicidal liability - a liability that makes that group's continued existence unsustainable., Here's how genocide is defined: EFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION: The current definition of Genocide is set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Nothing comes close to what you claim. You might attempt to say that it is covered by (c) above (Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part). Don't bother. It has been held that this subsection relates to conduct which will cause a slow death, such as 'deprivation of food, medical care, shelter or clothing, lack of hygiene, systematic expulsion from homes, or subjecting members of the group to excessive work or physical exertion' cld.irmct.org/notions/show/173/conditions-of-life-calculated-to-bring-about-physical-destruction#
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 10, 2023 22:36:54 GMT
It depends on intent. If you are targeting one group in particular with policies intended to remove / reduce that strain, then you have a genocidal motivation for a policy. For instance, deciding that one group's territory belongs to everyone else is a form of targeting that group in particular and it is quite likely to end or reduce that group. This conversation came from a chat with Zany. He told me that if one group in particular didn't continuously pass their territory to people other than their children without limit, they were inhuman. I thought it quite neatly encapsulated a suicidal liability - a liability that makes that group's continued existence unsustainable., Here's how genocide is defined: EFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION: The current definition of Genocide is set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. what i described comes under C
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 10, 2023 22:38:25 GMT
Here's how genocide is defined: EFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION: The current definition of Genocide is set out in Article II of the Genocide Convention: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. what i described comes under C You've got to be kidding!
|
|
|
Post by BvL on Dec 10, 2023 22:51:09 GMT
The fundamental interest of the English lies in the creation, well-being and long-term sustainability of a society in which all of our English descendants will have the benefit of unencumbered title to their ancestral homeland and in which they will be able to give unlimited expression to the heritage bequeathed to us and them by our own ancestors, without interference, fear or hindrance from external interests.
Yeah!
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 11, 2023 4:28:10 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. I don't think you can take the moral high ground here on definitions of words. You claim language is fluid and society shapes meaning of what words mean. If the society on this forum believe there is some form of tacit genocide towards ethnic English people, you are probably the last person who is able to criticise their definition. You can't have it both ways. Man and woman are distinctively different, but that doesn't stop your misrepresentation of the facts. And for instance, you happily insult women who've had to fight for their rights, as they've had that to be taken away by Men with mental disorders believing they are women.
|
|