|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:51:04 GMT
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. I'm not sure what your point is. Anyway, the Great Replacement Theory is professed by the far-right. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 11:53:15 GMT
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. I'm not sure what your point is. Anyway, the Great Replacement Theory is professed by the far-right. That doesn’t refute it . Your argument is a fallacy . Your failure to accept it doesn’t refute that either . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:55:38 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." Now show us where Phillippe Sands comes even close to saying that two people having a child together is genocide. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 11:56:22 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is. Anyway, the Great Replacement Theory is professed by the far-right. That doesn’t refute it . Your argument is a fallacy . Your failure to accept it doesn’t refute that either . Talk us through that. Start with a statement of the fallacy you have in mind and then show how my remarks are brought within the concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:00:08 GMT
That doesn’t refute it . Your argument is a fallacy . Your failure to accept it doesn’t refute that either . Talk us through that. Start with a statement of the fallacy you have in mind and then show how my remarks are brought within the concept. If just told you . You are dismissing an idea in the grounds that it is a far right idea. Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 11, 2023 12:03:20 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.
The English are the most ignored and neglected of all the Brits, with no devolution, the smallest share of the Barnett Formula, and if we speak out, the nationalists and far left call us "racists". |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 11, 2023 12:06:39 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." Now show us where Phillippe Sands comes even close to saying that two people having a child together is genocide. What Sands is more concerned with is the apparent inconsistencies in the international legal interpretation of what is a genocide and what is not. He notes the 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica is recognised by the UN ICTY as a genocide whereas the three million or more murders in the Congo is not. That is 'merely' a crime against humanity.
Why also are the British and US governments able to get away with not recognising the Armenians slaughtered by the Turks as a genocide on the grounds that the term did not exist until Lemkin created it in 1945? Incidentally nobody was charged with genocide at Nuremberg, nor at any of the subsequent trials of Nazi criminals in Europe.
You are hanging your hat on a very flimsy peg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:11:16 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.
The English are the most ignored and neglected of all the Brits, with no devolution, the smallest share of the Barnett Formula, and if we speak out, the nationalists and far left call us "racists". The left use the words ‘ racist ‘ and ‘ far right’ in the same way that the church used the words ‘ heretic’ and ‘ blasphemers’. We even have a case here where a poster with far left wing views has dismissed an idea because it’s a ‘ far right ‘ one . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:15:46 GMT
Talk us through that. Start with a statement of the fallacy you have in mind and then show how my remarks are brought within the concept. If just told you . You are dismissing an idea in the grounds that it is a far right idea. Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. But it is a far-right idea. The far-right are a lunatic fringe. It's perfectly natural to dismiss ideas professed by lunatics. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:17:53 GMT
Now show us where Phillippe Sands comes even close to saying that two people having a child together is genocide. What Sands is more concerned with is the apparent inconsistencies in the international legal interpretation of what is a genocide and what is not. He notes the 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica is recognised by the UN ICTY as a genocide whereas the three million or more murders in the Congo is not. That is 'merely' a crime against humanity.
Why also are the British and US governments able to get away with not recognising the Armenians slaughtered by the Turks as a genocide on the grounds that the term did not exist until Lemkin created it in 1945? Incidentally nobody was charged with genocide at Nuremberg, nor at any of the subsequent trials of Nazi criminals in Europe.
You are hanging your hat on a very flimsy peg.
Not at all. Sands has a point in so far as both situations involve mass killings, mass graves, etc. That's a whole world away from anything suggested on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:19:23 GMT
If just told you . You are dismissing an idea in the grounds that it is a far right idea. Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. But it is a far-right idea. The far-right are a lunatic fringe. It's perfectly natural to dismiss ideas professed by lunatics. 1An idea is neither left or right , it’s an idea . 2 calling an idea left or right wing doesn’t refute it . Lunatics are people who believe a bloke in a dress can be defined as a woman . It works both ways . |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:21:38 GMT
But it is a far-right idea. The far-right are a lunatic fringe. It's perfectly natural to dismiss ideas professed by lunatics. 1An idea is neither left or right , it’s an idea . So, Marx's theories are neither left nor right? They're just ideas? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 12:26:18 GMT
1An idea is neither left or right , it’s an idea . So, Marx's theories are neither left nor right? They're just ideas? Marx has many ideas afaik . I certainly could not refute any one idea simply by calling it left wing . |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 12:26:24 GMT
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? By the same token, would it not be correct (pedantry aside) to state that a policy can have a genocidal effect without there necessarily being a genocidal intent?
A recent example could be the expulsion of Chagossians from Diego Garcia, which has been widely denounced in liberal circles as a cultural genocide, if not a racial one.
My notion is that, if the intent amounts to an intent to reduce the whole group, it can reasonably be described as genocidal in intent.This is why context and placing is important (to my mind anyway). An objective to reduce the number of Nigerians in (say) China need not be genocidal, but the same objective applied to Nigeria almost certainly is. If you aim to reduce the number of Nigerians in Nigeria, you are targeting the whole group for elimination / reduction. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 12:31:05 GMT
So, Marx's theories are neither left nor right? They're just ideas? Marx has many ideas afaik . I certainly could not refute any one idea simply by calling it left wing . But GB 'News', etc., often dismiss actions, offering no better explanation for condemnation than they are 'Marxist'. And it's not the case that I have based my argument on nothing more than the bald statement that it is a far-right idea. There have been many planks to my argument. The far-right only came into it when the conversation turned to the group that actually professes those ideas. |
|
