|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 9:28:08 GMT
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. I can have it both ways. If you want to claim there is a form of genocide that doesn't include mass graves or crematoria go right ahead. If you want to claim that a mixed race couple in a committed relationship who have a child together are committing genocide go right ahead. If you can get enough people to use that word in that way, then that is the meaning the word will take. But let's not kid ourselves. The people who use the word in that way are on the far-right. They're a small detested group. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 9:33:25 GMT
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. I can have it both ways. If you want to claim there is a form of genocide that doesn't include mass graves or crematoria go right ahead. If you want to claim that a mixed race couple in a committed relationship who have a child together are committing genocide go right ahead. If you can get enough people to use that word in that way, then that is the meaning the word will take. But let's not kid ourselves. The people who use the word in that way are on the far-right. They're a small detested group. You keep confusing the claim and, now you have been corrected several times, it seems sure you are determined to do so quite deliberately (ie create a strawman)Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number , or total democratic influence, of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 9:34:22 GMT
I can have it both ways. If you want to claim there is a form of genocide that doesn't include mass graves or crematoria go right ahead. If you want to claim that a mixed race couple in a committed relationship who have a child together are committing genocide go right ahead. If you can get enough people to use that word in that way, then that is the meaning the word will take. But let's not kid ourselves. The people who use the word in that way are on the far-right. They're a small detested group. You keep confusing the claim and, now you have been corrected several times, it seems sure you are determined to do so quite deliberately (ie create a strawman)Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? Your definition of genocide is a million miles away from the UN's definition. It has the appearance of a darkly cynical attempt to exploit the visceral emotions that surround actual genocide. Nobody's buying it, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 9:36:58 GMT
You keep confusing the claim and, now you have been corrected several times, it seems sure you are determined to do so quite deliberately (ie create a strawman)Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? Your definition of genocide is a million miles away from the UN's definition. You did it again. I'm not defining genocide itself, I'm talking about genocidal intent. You avoided the question for a good reason |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 11, 2023 9:38:16 GMT
You keep confusing the claim and, now you have been corrected several times, it seems sure you are determined to do so quite deliberately (ie create a strawman)Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? Your definition of genocide is a million miles away from the UN's definition. It has the appearance of a darkly cynical attempt to exploit the visceral emotions that surround actual genocide. Nobody's buying it, though. Well, I don't know about that, I have met a fair few English people who are so thick and manipulated it might be a release for them and everyone else. just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 9:39:06 GMT
Your definition of genocide is a million miles away from the UN's definition. You did it again. I'm defining the genocide itself, I'm talking about genocidal intent. You avoided the question for a good reason What question? We've established that your definition of genocide doesn't come close to the UN definition. What more is there to do? Are you asking for permission to redefine the word? Okay, you've got it. Good luck going forward. You'll need it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 9:42:31 GMT
You did it again. I'm defining the genocide itself, I'm talking about genocidal intent. You avoided the question for a good reason What question? We've established that your definition of genocide doesn't come close to the UN definition. I miss-typed in my previous post I'm not defining genocide itself, I'm talking about genocidal intent. You avoided my question for a good reason Here it is - Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number , or total democratic influence, of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 9:45:07 GMT
What question? We've established that your definition of genocide doesn't come close to the UN definition. I miss-typed in my previous post I'm not defining genocide itself, I'm talking about genocidal intent. You avoided my question for a good reason Here it is - Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number , or total democratic influence, of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? But they're not aimed at reducing the total number of a particular group, are they? The policies have humanitarian and economic drivers. That being the case, there is no intent. And, as we both now know, there can be no genocide without intent. But the question we should be asking before we even turn our attention to the issue of intent is: where are the bodies? Genocide is associated with mass graves and crematoria. Your distorted version doesn't have any of that. In short, not only does your approach to genocide not have a mens rea requirement (intent), it doesn't even have an actus reus requirement (a killing requirement). You've had to lower the bar to a vanishing point to accommodate your idea of what genocide is. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 9:52:12 GMT
I miss-typed in my previous post I'm not defining genocide itself, I'm talking about genocidal intent. You avoided my question for a good reason Here it is - Would you agree that policies aimed (partially or not) at reducing the total number , or total democratic influence, of a particular ethnic group have a genocidal intent? But they're not aimed at reducing the total number of a particular group, are they? This is debatable because enthusiasts for the policy advertise and celebrate the policy by talking about the reduced numbers and influence of the group. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 9:57:56 GMT
But they're not aimed at reducing the total number of a particular group, are they? This is debatable because enthusiasts for the policy advertise and celebrate the policy by talking about the reduced numbers and influence of the group. Give concrete examples. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 11, 2023 10:18:57 GMT
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. I can have it both ways. If you want to claim there is a form of genocide that doesn't include mass graves or crematoria go right ahead. If you want to claim that a mixed race couple in a committed relationship who have a child together are committing genocide go right ahead. If you can get enough people to use that word in that way, then that is the meaning the word will take. But let's not kid ourselves. The people who use the word in that way are on the far-right. They're a small detested group. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. You don't have exclusive rights to the definitions of the English language. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 10:24:37 GMT
I can have it both ways. If you want to claim there is a form of genocide that doesn't include mass graves or crematoria go right ahead. If you want to claim that a mixed race couple in a committed relationship who have a child together are committing genocide go right ahead. If you can get enough people to use that word in that way, then that is the meaning the word will take. But let's not kid ourselves. The people who use the word in that way are on the far-right. They're a small detested group. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. You don't have exclusive rights to the definitions of the English language. Nobody has exclusive rights. There is the fact of usage. That's all that is required. If you want to use the word genocide in a different, unique, way, go right ahead. Just be clear that it is a radical departure, that it doesn't require intent, dead bodies, mass graves, crematoria, etc. A transgender woman is not a woman by your definition. We have never claimed she is. If you want to change the meaning of the word genocide, just be clear that it bears no relation to the widely understood meaning of that word. But stop there. Don't go on to explain your motives. Nobody wants to witness that kind of ugliness. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Dec 11, 2023 10:26:58 GMT
A man is a man and a woman is a woman. You don't have exclusive rights to the definitions of the English language. Nobody has exclusive rights. There is the fact of usage. That's all that is required. If you want to use the word genocide in a different, unique way, go right ahead. Just be clear that it is a radical departure, that it doesn't require intent, dead bodies, mass graves, crematoria, etc. A transgender woman is not a woman by your definition. We have never claimed she is. If you want to change the meaning of word genocide, just be clear that it bears no relation to the widely understood meaning of that word. But stop there. Don't go on to explain your motives. Nobody wants to witness that kind of ugliness. Yes you have. You also claim he should have exclusive rights to ladies safe spaces and services. You also claim it's impolite not to call him by his chosen gender. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 10:29:02 GMT
A biological male can be defined as a woman because a 13 year old was defined as a man in ‘ some societies’ ….yet genocide requires mass graves to be defined as ‘ genocide’.
Yes folks , his logic is as daft as that .
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 10:29:29 GMT
Nobody has exclusive rights. There is the fact of usage. That's all that is required. If you want to use the word genocide in a different, unique way, go right ahead. Just be clear that it is a radical departure, that it doesn't require intent, dead bodies, mass graves, crematoria, etc. A transgender woman is not a woman by your definition. We have never claimed she is. If you want to change the meaning of word genocide, just be clear that it bears no relation to the widely understood meaning of that word. But stop there. Don't go on to explain your motives. Nobody wants to witness that kind of ugliness. Yes you have. You also claim he should have exclusive rights to ladies safe spaces and services. Start a new thread on that topic if you like. I will only deal with it briefly here. We don't claim that a transgender woman is a woman by your definition. If your definition of a woman requires a woman to have a womb, then there is no way somebody who doesn't have a womb can be a woman if your definition is used. |
|
