|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 13:22:11 GMT
Can't say I understand what you're trying to say. I am curious, though. Why didn't you criticise Danny when he mentioned Phillipe Sands. Wasn't that an argument by authority? It was presented in the form of 'Well, Phillipe Sands thinks it's so ...' I’ve made it quite plain. Do you agree that calling an idea ‘ right wing ‘ is enough to refute it ? It's a good thing there have been many planks to my argument, then. What about Danny? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 13:25:49 GMT
Okay, can you give concrete examples of the so-called genocide in the UK being 'celebrated' by people in a position to influence migration numbers? I don't think that's needed. It would hard to find a single public figure at the moment who can be even be positively confirmed to have influence on immigration - that is, nobody in recent history has both declared an intention to substantially change this policy and then done so. It is enough that the policy itself has obvious consequences and those consequences are widely celebrated by the supporters of the policy - ie the policy enjoys the support it does (institutional, general public and politicians) because of those consequences.
The multicultural political project measures its success in those terms - ie in terms of demographic numbers rather than public benefit / living standards or any other measure. It has a particular focus. That is simply absurd. The idea that there is no need to provide evidence of intention when it comes to something as serious as genocide is just plain bizarre. Really. You have said that in order for genocide to occur, even genocide as understood by your own extraordinarily wide definition, it has to be celebrated. Yet, you can't point to a single instance of someone who is in a position to influence migration actually celebrating it in the way your definition requires. You can't provide even one example. You have failed, even by the very low standard you have set yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 13:32:22 GMT
I’ve made it quite plain. Do you agree that calling an idea ‘ right wing ‘ is enough to refute it ? It's a good thing there have been many planks to my argument, then. What about Danny? So do you agree that calling an idea ‘ right wing ‘ is enough to refute it or not? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 13:38:53 GMT
It's a good thing there have been many planks to my argument, then. What about Danny? So do you agree that calling an idea ‘ right wing ‘ is enough to refute it or not? Do you agree that it is completely irrelevant given that nobody has made any claims on that point? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2023 14:00:14 GMT
So do you agree that calling an idea ‘ right wing ‘ is enough to refute it or not? Do you agree that it is completely irrelevant given that nobody has made any claims on that point? You.. No. If the far-right use the word in that way, then that will be the meaning of the word in far-right discourse. It is a far-right idea. Yes, it's an idea espoused and maintained by the far-right. Anyway, the Great Replacement Theory is professed by the far-right. But it is a far-right idea. The far-right are a lunatic fringe. It's perfectly natural to dismiss ideas professed by lunatics. The idea is current in far-right circles. It is professed by the far-right.” So you agree that pointing out that it’s a ‘ far right ‘ idea isn’t enough to refute it ? Your previous posts seem to suggest otherwise .. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 14:03:46 GMT
Do you agree that it is completely irrelevant given that nobody has made any claims on that point? You.. No. If the far-right use the word in that way, then that will be the meaning of the word in far-right discourse. It is a far-right idea. Yes, it's an idea espoused and maintained by the far-right. Anyway, the Great Replacement Theory is professed by the far-right. But it is a far-right idea. The far-right are a lunatic fringe. It's perfectly natural to dismiss ideas professed by lunatics. The idea is current in far-right circles. It is professed by the far-right.” So you agree that pointing out that it’s a ‘ far right ‘ idea isn’t enough to refute it ? Your previous posts seem to suggest otherwise .. I'd say that what you quote above is less than 1% of what I've posted on this thread. If I was possessed by the same kind of mania, I could go back through the thread and copy and paste all the arguments I have presented. I have made several. As you're well aware (you've just had the pleasure of reading through my posts). So, in the interests of fairness, how's about you collect them all into one post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 14:11:33 GMT
Labelling an idea 'far-right' in an attempt to deprecate or denigrate it is a standard leftist tactic. However as far as Great Replacements are concerned some of the actual greatest were implemented by the Soviet Union which most people would categorise as 'far-left'. It's why they troll these threads to death. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 14:17:07 GMT
Labelling an idea 'far-right' in an attempt to deprecate or denigrate it is a standard leftist tactic. However as far as Great Replacements are concerned some of the actual greatest were implemented by the Soviet Union which most people would categorise as 'far-left'. It's why they troll these threads to death. This is the Mind Zone. If you have an argument, make it. Let's see the evidence. I'm very curious to know how probing somebody's argument is trolling. You and Danny are being vexatious. Danny clearly made an argument by authority, but that has gone completely ignored by the two of you. If I were as vexatious as Danny, I would have reported that. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2023 14:19:48 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. You have to recognise the crime in the first instance and follow the reasoning "the crime of genocide may take place in the context ... of a peaceful situation." "In the present 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:" "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" "The intent is the most difficult element to determine." So what has to be determined is 'the crime, is it a crime and may there be intent' We know that what has occurred will reduce the English in their homeland as an ongoing process, we know that there is certainly intent to create a society in England different from that which precedes the advent of large scale immigration and that society will be, and is designed to be by policy demographically which is apparent in many of the utterances of those who cheer lead the process and in the increasing demands for diversity and inclusion and the inability, or unwillingness, of our representatives to control large scale immigration the effective control of which has been a democratically concluded desire of the English for over 60 years across many measurable votes. There is specific intent, what is difficult is deciding from whence that specific intent arose and who ensures it is alive and well and supported by a portion of the people, either through belief it is right or misrepresentation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 11, 2023 14:26:27 GMT
I don't think that's needed. It would hard to find a single public figure at the moment who can be even be positively confirmed to have influence on immigration - that is, nobody in recent history has both declared an intention to substantially change this policy and then done so. It is enough that the policy itself has obvious consequences and those consequences are widely celebrated by the supporters of the policy - ie the policy enjoys the support it does (institutional, general public and politicians) because of those consequences.
The multicultural political project measures its success in those terms - ie in terms of demographic numbers rather than public benefit / living standards or any other measure. It has a particular focus. That is simply absurd. The idea that there is no need to provide evidence of intention when it comes to something as serious as genocide is just plain bizarre. Really. The policy enjoys much of institutional and political support it does because of these consequences. We know this because those consequences are regularly celebrated by those institutions. This is a genocidal motivation. Do i think Suella Braverman harboured a wish to engage a basically genocidal policy? No, but it is also clear she didn't really have control. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 14:32:17 GMT
That is simply absurd. The idea that there is no need to provide evidence of intention when it comes to something as serious as genocide is just plain bizarre. Really. The policy enjoys much of institutional and political support it does because of these consequences. We know this because those consequences are regularly celebrated by those institutions. This is a genocidal motivation. Do i think Suella Braverman harboured a wish to engage a basically genocidal policy? No, but it is also clear she didn't really have control. Consequences! You keep talking about consequences as if that is enough. You can't impute an intention of murder to someone just because there is a dead body in the vicinity. By your reasoning, an actus reus is sufficient, there is no need to demonstrate mens rea. Unfortunately for you, there is. As I've previously mentioned, the rule is that serious crimes will require mens rea. There can hardly be a more serious crime than genocide. So, demonstrate mens rea. You have already given yourself an enormous advantage by giving the word genocide an extraordinarily wide meaning. But even with that advantage, you can't manage to satisfy your own definition of genocide (unless, you want there to be no mens rea requirement). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 14:36:46 GMT
It's why they troll these threads to death. This is the Mind Zone. If you have an argument, make it. Let's see the evidence. I'm very curious to know how probing somebody's argument is trolling. You and Danny are being vexatious. Danny clearly made an argument by authority, but that has gone completely ignored by the two of you. If I were as vexatious as Danny, I would have reported that. 62 pages of the same people refusing to acknowledge their own UN's criteria for genocide whilst dismissing all claims as far-right. I wouldn't actually call that an intelligent discussion, more of an attempt to waste people's time on mindless repetition. Even when people are pointing it out the thread jumps back into denial mode, and the repetition continues.
The reason for this is that it cannot be acknowledged. If it were then they'd have to admit to being part of it in someway, and it's too early for that because the process is ongoing. I know, I should be shut down because I'm highlighting the problem here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 14:37:59 GMT
This is the Mind Zone. If you have an argument, make it. Let's see the evidence. I'm very curious to know how probing somebody's argument is trolling. You and Danny are being vexatious. Danny clearly made an argument by authority, but that has gone completely ignored by the two of you. If I were as vexatious as Danny, I would have reported that. 62 pages of the same people refusing to acknowledge their own UN's criteria for genocide whilst dismissing all claims as far-right. I wouldn't actually call that an intelligent discussion, more of an attempt to waste people's time on mindless repetition. Even when people are pointing it out the thread jumps back into denial mode, and the repetition continues.
The reason for this is that it cannot be acknowledged. If it were then they'd have to admit to being part of it in someway, and it's too early for that because the process is ongoing. I know, I should be shut down because I'm highlighting the problem here.
Do what the others have failed to do, then. Provide evidence. Point to a person in a position to control immigration who has 'celebrated' genocide. You can bring this thread to a screeching halt by doing just that. I challenge you to do it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2023 14:45:35 GMT
62 pages of the same people refusing to acknowledge their own UN's criteria for genocide whilst dismissing all claims as far-right. I wouldn't actually call that an intelligent discussion, more of an attempt to waste people's time on mindless repetition. Even when people are pointing it out the thread jumps back into denial mode, and the repetition continues.
The reason for this is that it cannot be acknowledged. If it were then they'd have to admit to being part of it in someway, and it's too early for that because the process is ongoing. I know, I should be shut down because I'm highlighting the problem here.
Do what the others have failed to do, then. Provide evidence. Point to a person in a position to control immigration who has 'celebrated' genocide. The evidence is all around you.
Denying the English exists, mass-immigration to intentionally dilute the numbers, multiculturalism to destroy culture. Everything that came with no mandate and forced onto the nation by all mainstream parties. The people voted against the process, which is why we're out of the EU and have tolerated the worst Conservative government in history. Yet, the process continues while the Left embrace every method to exterminate the English, both culture and ethnicity.
Cultural genocide - check Ethnocide - check
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 11, 2023 14:51:41 GMT
Do what the others have failed to do, then. Provide evidence. Point to a person in a position to control immigration who has 'celebrated' genocide. The evidence is all around you.
Denying the English exists, mass-immigration to intentionally dilute the numbers, multiculturalism to destroy culture. Everything that came with no mandate and forced onto the nation by all mainstream parties. The people voted against the process, which is why we're out of the EU and have tolerated the worst Conservative government in history. Yet, the process continues while the Left embrace every method to exterminate the English, both culture and ethnicity.
Cultural genocide - check Ethnocide - check
For all your vexatious complaints, you haven't actually read the thread. None of that is proof of an intention to commit genocide. |
|
