|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:17:09 GMT
Since I started the thread, I think I am entitled to decide what its theme is intended to be, your semantic gymnastics notwithstanding. Erm, the theme is what the theme is. It turns on the meaning of words, your inability to understand that notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 11:23:07 GMT
Personal insults are prohibited in the Mind Zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:25:21 GMT
Personal insults are prohibited in the Mind Zone. That's true. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 11:27:19 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 . A 'biological male' is a woman if she fits the definitional requirement of a woman within a given group. If you and other members of the far-right continue to use the word genocide in the way you do, then that is what genocide will become within far-right circles. That will be the meaning of the word. But you might like to be clear that your definition of genocide is a world apart from the normally accepted understanding of the word. Nobody who supports transgender rights claims that our society has always defined women in the way that is now gaining traction. Thank you for confirming my point. You want to apply your Alice in wonderland linguistic contortions when it suits your argument but deny it to anything that doesn’t . |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 11:29:44 GMT
Personal insults are prohibited in the Mind Zone. That's true. Well I consider your aspersion that I do not understand words to be insulting and have reported it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:30:32 GMT
A 'biological male' is a woman if she fits the definitional requirement of a woman within a given group. If you and other members of the far-right continue to use the word genocide in the way you do, then that is what genocide will become within far-right circles. That will be the meaning of the word. But you might like to be clear that your definition of genocide is a world apart from the normally accepted understanding of the word. Nobody who supports transgender rights claims that our society has always defined women in the way that is now gaining traction. Thank you for confirming my point. You want to apply your Alice in wonderland linguistic contortions when it suits your argument but deny it to anything that doesn’t . No. If the far-right use the word in that way, then that will be the meaning of the word in far-right discourse. Just be clear that it's an altogether different thing from its traditional use. It couldn't be more different, in fact, seeing that it doesn't involve mass graves, crematoria, or even killing. Your form of genocide comes about as a result of committed couples deciding to have children together. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:30:51 GMT
Well I consider your aspersion that I do not understand words to be insulting and have reported it. Good man! |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 11:34:25 GMT
Thank you for confirming my point. You want to apply your Alice in wonderland linguistic contortions when it suits your argument but deny it to anything that doesn’t . No. If the far-right use the word in that way, then that will be the meaning of the word in far-right discourse. Just be clear that it's an altogether different thing from its traditional use. It couldn't be more different, in fact, seeing that it doesn't involve mass graves, crematoria, or even killing. Your form of genocide comes about as a result of committed couples deciding to have children together. Nothing to do with the far right . Are you saying that only the far left want biological men ( re)defined as women ? Interesting … |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:36:03 GMT
No. If the far-right use the word in that way, then that will be the meaning of the word in far-right discourse. Just be clear that it's an altogether different thing from its traditional use. It couldn't be more different, in fact, seeing that it doesn't involve mass graves, crematoria, or even killing. Your form of genocide comes about as a result of committed couples deciding to have children together. Nothing to do with the far right . Are you saying that only the far left want biological men ( re)defined as women ? Interesting … The replacement conspiracy theory (or whatever it's called) is prevalent in far-right circles. Are you suggesting that the genocide idea is taken seriously outside far-right circles? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 11:41:38 GMT
Nothing to do with the far right . Are you saying that only the far left want biological men ( re)defined as women ? Interesting … The replacement conspiracy theory (or whatever it's called) is prevalent in far-right circles. Are you suggesting that the genocide idea is taken seriously outside far-right circles? This is a political debate forum. Of course it can . You seem to be the only one using an argument that it’s a far right idea so it must be wrong . Tbh I’m not sure what that fallacy is (Maybe appeal to consequences ) but it’s still a fallacy . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:42:32 GMT
The replacement conspiracy theory (or whatever it's called) is prevalent in far-right circles. Are you suggesting that the genocide idea is taken seriously outside far-right circles? This is a political debate forum. Of course it can . You seem to be the only one using an argument that it’s a far right idea so it must be wrong . Tbh I’m not sure what that fallacy is (Maybe appeal to consequences ) but it’s still a fallacy . It is a far-right idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 11:43:43 GMT
This is a political debate forum. Of course it can . You seem to be the only one using an argument that it’s a far right idea so it must be wrong . Tbh I’m not sure what that fallacy is (Maybe appeal to consequences ) but it’s still a fallacy . It is a far-right idea. No it’s not . It’s an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:45:14 GMT
No it’s not . It’s an idea. Yes, it's an idea espoused and maintained by the far-right. I'm failing to see what's controversial here. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 11:49:48 GMT
No it’s not . It’s an idea. Yes, it's an idea espoused and maintained by the far-right. It’s an idea that has much sympathy by the right but an idea is an idea . However constructing an argument that as it’s a far right idea , it must be wrong is a fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 11:49:51 GMT
And quite a widely-accepted one too.
The celebrated human rights lawyer Philippe Sands who is perhaps the leading authority on Lauterpacht and Lemkin, creators of the terms 'crime against humanity' and 'genocide', respectively, has noted that "There is a disconnect between the strict legal definition of genocide, which sets the threshold very high, and the public’s broader view."
|
|
