Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 14:33:43 GMT
Norway has to comply with EU laws/regulations (while having no say in them) and are part of Schengen. The U.K. government says that’s no-go. Switzerland is in a similar position, as are all the other members of EFTA. and? Individual member states have basically no say anyway. One nation, is just one nation after all.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 14:34:53 GMT
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." How is that relevant? It was one riposte (in that it helps to know history to plan for the future) to your claim of a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source, rather than its current meaning or context. The other is that advantages of the EU I see are not based solely on a history, nor have I claimed it. One shoe does not fit all. Other countries are at war but not in the EU. Your point is?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 14:43:43 GMT
Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." How is that relevant? It was one riposte (in that it helps to know history to plan for the future) to your claim of a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source, rather than its current meaning or context. The other is that advantages of the EU I see are not based solely on a history, nor have I claimed it. One shoe does not fit all. Other countries are at war but not in the EU. Your point is? The conditions that led to all those wars between france and germany are not present so knowing history doesnt help you at all here. No but a shoe can fit multiple people. Is there any reason to think it wouldnt fit the UK?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 14, 2018 14:48:33 GMT
tpfkar Which is why Muslim reformers and ex Muslims on't like the term being used. But they are the wrong type of minority for people like you to listen to. You probably do think that someone's minority status has innate bearing on the validity of their arguments. Canada, North Americas Sweden
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 14:51:34 GMT
The conditions that led to all those wars between france and germany are not present so knowing history doesnt help you at all here. Unless you can see into the future then it impossible to say that reasons for conflict will not arise again. The best one can do is look to the past and put things in place which reduce the likelihood. And, as I already said this is one reason for the coming into being of the Common Market onto the European Community. Specifically instead of fighting each other for coal and steel, the first member countries (West) Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg created one European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. Once again: this is not the only reason for the existence of the EU we have today, but a clear and stated one back in the day. I hope that helps. We shall see as we stand alone outside one of the biggest trading blocs in the world while being obliged to obey their rules and regs to do business with them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 14:54:23 GMT
tpfkar Which is why Muslim reformers and ex Muslims on't like the term being used. But they are the wrong type of minority for people like you to listen to. You probably do think that someone's minority status has innate bearing on the validity of their arguments. Canada, North Americas SwedenWell to be honest, Thor is in a minority here and look at his arguments on a whole range of things lol
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 15:01:25 GMT
The conditions that led to all those wars between france and germany are not present so knowing history doesnt help you at all here. Unless you can see into the future then it impossible to say that reasons for conflict will not arise again. The best one can do is look to the past and put things in place which reduce the likelihood. And, as I already said this is one reason for the coming into being of the Common Market onto the European Community. Specifically instead of fighting each other for coal and steel, the first member countries (West) Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg created one European Coal and Steel Community in 1952. Once again: this is not the only reason for the existence of the EU we have today, but a clear and stated one back in the day. I hope that helps. We shall see as we stand alone outside one of the biggest trading blocs in the world while being obliged to obey their rules and regs to do business with them. Sure, its also impossible to say if there is a invisible pink unicorn in front of me but I still know its crazy to believe anything or than that pink unicorns dont exist. If Switzerland, a tiny nation can survive and thrive outside the EU then so can the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Feb 14, 2018 15:04:32 GMT
Norway has to comply with EU laws/regulations (while having no say in them) and are part of Schengen. The U.K. government says that’s no-go. Switzerland is in a similar position, as are all the other members of EFTA. and? Individual member states have basically no say anyway. One nation, is just one nation after all. What absolute rubbish. We’ve had a veto on most things all along. For example, if we didn’t want Turkey to join the EU, we had a veto to say they couldn’t.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 14, 2018 15:11:18 GMT
and? Individual member states have basically no say anyway. One nation, is just one nation after all. What absolute rubbish. We’ve had a veto on most things all along. For example, if we didn’t want Turkey to join the EU, we had a veto to say they couldn’t. are you not familiar with qualified majority voting?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2018 15:12:24 GMT
FF: We shall see as we stand alone outside one of the biggest trading blocs in the world while being obliged to obey their rules and regs to do business with them. Sure, its also impossible to say if there is a invisible pink unicorn in front of me but I still know its crazy to believe anything or than that pink unicorns dont exist. Er.. OK then lol. But the EU will, in so many ways, be 'in front' of the UK and certainly exists. Meanwhile we can all look forward to doing quick trade deals with a host of other countries - including the USA, with a president who will be bargaining from a position of strength and says explicitly that he expects America to get the best out of any deals. Apples and pears, my friend. One suspects (though obviously I don't know) that you are anti-EU for whatever reasons, and just wish to show why it is not necessary by questioning its historical roots and ongoing advantages for members. Which is fine, and you are welcome to your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2018 22:07:03 GMT
You are entitled to your opinions. But to say a voluntary union of nations with a long history of aggression between themselves would not help to keep the peace seems a bit of a stretch. It of course is not the only raison d'etre, or good thing, one can see in a large trading bloc (themselves becoming more common in modern times.) In this case, as noted, it just happens to be one of the original impetuses. History is irrelevant, the present conditions matter. You are committing the genetic fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacyIMHO History is NEVER irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 15, 2018 0:20:26 GMT
That is chief Brexit negotiator. Remeber we said that was the aim of the EU and remainers told us we were stupid? Doesn’t look like Michel Barnier to me. Do you often get foreigners mixed up? Edit: Regardless, Verhofstadt is an MEP who wants a federal Europe. That no more makes it an accurate gauge of the way the EU is going than another MEP Farage wanting its demise. Keep grasping at those straws though as the reality of how shit Brexit is going to be for the country slowly sinks in. Good one...... Of course it isn't. Do you deny that the aim of the EU is a Federal State?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 15, 2018 0:24:15 GMT
Oh yes my mistake, an inexact quote, apologies. What you actually said was ""The majority of Muslims in the UK don't come from the EU. They are from Pakistan, Somalia and Bangladesh. Brexit means nothing to this." Which clearly means nothing like 'worse than'. LOL Wait - Pakistan's not part of Europe?!? Are you sure? Isn't it the long country the looks like a boot that's below France? (is it too late to change my vote in the referendum?) Oh how witty. You really are a card. Do you know why I said that? The context of the point? Nobody suggested Pakistan WAS in the EU. The suggestion was that Brexit would curb Muslim migration to the UK which it won't.....because.......Well, I'm sure you can figure out why.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 15, 2018 1:56:28 GMT
FilmFlaneurNo, it isn't me against the World. You have already quoted an authority saying they "think" hate crime rising was related to Brexit. Douglas Murray agrees with me also. But you, once again, are missing the point. Whatever the figures show is bullshit because the "hate" in "hate crime" doesn't need to be proven Thus ANY crime can be a hate if it is claimed to be one. Thats isn't me saying that, its the bloody CPS www.cps.gov.uk/hate-crimeCan you wrap your mind around this? A crime may or may not be a "hate crime" depending on the feelings of anyone. You can commit a hate crime against trans people without knowing they are trans. Against Jews, without knowing they are Jews. This is logically impossible, but to hell with logic and reason, lets use feelings, because that is a great way to run a judicial system. And, as I keep pointing out, these "crimes" don't even need to be reported to the police. To use this moronic system as indication of anything is just stupid. Cite me being homophobic or withdraw that accusation. Or stand forever on this forum as a dishonest coward. Well, I can, since I am talking about REPORTING. You realise that you constantly bringing it up means I know it pisses you off? So while you continue to dishonestly claim you don't name call, while insinuating I'm homophobic and Far Right, I'll continue to do it. Because, Flim Flam, as I said, if I'm going to insult you, I'll do it openly. *sigh* You really are approaching Ada levels. You implied that the reason I objected to it was because it must be "difficult to reign myself in." No Flim Flam. I object to the government mandating speech. But if you wish to talk about the "public interest and common sense among police and prosecutors." Perhaps you could explain why the case against Count Dankula , the Nazi Pug guy, is still ongoing after two years? A guy that was getting about 10-20k views got a "hate video" seen over 3,000,000 times. And his neighbour also got arrested for a "hate crime" after calling him a Nazi. So yeah, that all worked out well. Still, he might get a year in prison for that joke, so I guess thats a victory against bigots everywhere. Never mind that if he actually was a bigot, the arrest just spread his message to at least 150 times more people than would have seen it on the basis of one persons complaint. No. Never have, never will. But how important was it? Well you showed us that a massive 0.00013% of leave voters got reported for hate crime because of Brexit...Or 1 in every 7500 or so...At best... So why then are you so vexxed by my opposition to an idea? Funny you don't go after Goz for attacking Christianity though, isn't it...? Its almost like you regard attacks on Islam differently, Flim flam. I wonder why? And I've explained why I don't like the term. An explanation that both you and Goz have ignored. Funny that. Funny that when ex Muslims explain why we shouldn't use the term, you ignore it if you think you can use it to point score against people you don't agree with. Its almost like you have no principles....No bad tactics, right? Actually no. Semites are a people, not a religious group. Antisemitism is prejudice against the Jews, not Judaism or do you think anti-Semites aren't prejudiced against atheist Jews? Anti Zionism is again related to Jews, not Judaism. A comparable term would be Anti Islamism. People trying to kill them eh? *cough* Manchester bombing, London Bridge, Westminster Bridge, 7/7, Lee Rigby*cough* Don't even try to use that as an argument. But hey, at least you aren't conflating race and religion like you never do by suggesting that that an attack on Islam is an attack on Muslims...... Keep up, dimbulb. I didn't say prejudice against Hindus didn't exist. I said there was no term to specifically dismiss the religion of Hinduism. But well done on citing Pakistani schools as a source of religious hatred...That story is telling you that Hindus are considered inferior, not Hinduism. What is the is issue you have with separating ideas from people? You know that Communists are not Communism, right? And therein lays the problem. Attacks on Islam = Islamophobia Attacks on Muslim = Islamophobia Attacks on Hindus = religious bigotry/racism Attacks on Hinduism = You actually can't see the problem with that? Because in the UK you are legally protected for any opinion on any religion for any reason, expressed in any way. You are not protected for any opinions on the religious. So in your world, only one religion will get protected by law. twitter.com/ExMuslimTVCheck out the stories of these ex Muslims. Saying "however" is the same as saying "but" Anything said before the "however" is a lie. You have simply said "They are not all racist, however...." Which is pretty much the same as saying "I'm not racist, but...." Well, there is the"they are not racist, however...." lie above. An, as I said, when I when I ask "so Brexit was about hating foreigners?" you respond with hate crime stats. Are you even convincing yourself at this point? See the thing is, Flim Flam. You can't quote any of that, can you. You are so desperate for an example of me being a bigot that you are trying to claim I'm homophobic because I use homophobia as an example of being able to commit a hate crime against a person you didn't know was gay Almost like I consider homosexuals to be regular people.....Where have I attacked any group? Demonstrate it. I have said about black Americans that they commit more crime. That is a fact. I also said that the suggestion that it was because they were black was moronic. I have spoken against mass migration from the third World because those areas are socially backwards and we cannot assimilate large numbers easily. I've never mentioned Jews except to speak in their defence, notably against the Al Quds march I've never spoken against Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists. I've argued against diversity quotas on the basis they are inherently illiberal and discriminatory. I've argued against the reasons for the wage gap, notably the BBC, who's recent, second independent audit showed no evidence of gender based pay discrimination. So what do you have, Flim Flam?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 15, 2018 2:01:08 GMT
Did you mean "Sorry I have repeatedly lied about you by making up a false quote and attributing it to you in two different threads?" You didn't just misunderstand my point, which is entirely forgivable, you made up some words and attributed them to me. But, I'm not even buying the "I misunderstood line." No person with any reasonable grasp of English would take "means nothing to" to mean "Worse than" You're reaching Ada levels here Flim Flam and neatly demonstrating why I changed your name. Because what you just said was deceptive nonsense. I have already said I accept your explanation, and yes, your original phrase can be read both ways as the present example showed, duh. With an English Lang and Lit degree, my command of English usually passes muster. But thanks for caring.
I forgive you.
No it can't. That phrase does not mean "worse than" in any context. You simply projected what you wanted me to say and thought nobody would notice. Like you did with your "2.5% growth rate" crap. And now you continue to lie. Sad.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 15, 2018 7:49:05 GMT
Wait - Pakistan's not part of Europe?!? Are you sure? Isn't it the long country the looks like a boot that's below France? (is it too late to change my vote in the referendum?) Oh how witty. You really are a card. Do you know why I said that? The context of the point? Nobody suggested Pakistan WAS in the EU. The suggestion was that Brexit would curb Muslim migration to the UK which it won't.....because.......Well, I'm sure you can figure out why. I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere but I really can't see it.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Feb 15, 2018 14:07:11 GMT
IMHO History is NEVER irrelevant. then you are just incredibly stupid.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2018 17:40:06 GMT
it isn't me against the World. You have already quoted an authority saying they "think" hate crime rising was related to Brexit. Douglas Murray agrees with me also. Ok then lol: it is you against the world - supported by Douglas Murray (I think you mean the associate editor of the right-wing Spectator ). Unfortunately, since you have assured me that, as far as you are concerned, one cannot know enough to judge these matters either way (UK hate crime stats apparently being totally unreliable) then, presumably, neither would he know enough to judge. It is no good referencing another potential ignoramus as an authority in these matters as, well, it rather undermines your overall claim of general ignorance. See how this works? Hence, as noted above any argument from authority by you fails based on your own logic. QED. I hope that helps.
First, away from your familiar hobby-horse over whether or not the victims of (any) crime can be allowed to identify likely cases of it, the CPS nowhere says that hate crime cannot be assessed or measured, as in your bizarre claim. In fact quite the opposite: from your link, that "In 2016/17, 83% of hate crimes cases we prosecuted led to a conviction or guilty plea". The CPS knows hate crime when it sees it - and brings it to court. Also, must it be said to you again that the 'hate' in hate crime needs eventually to be proven to get a conviction. You see that's how the legal system works...
Here you seem to have your usual issue with victims identifying, as much as police, a potential crime and indeed knowing best one constitutes a particular sort. We have discussed this before all your philosophical objections have been weighed - and felt wanting. In fact I don't believe you. If you, and yours, were seriously intimidated by someone on the grounds that you were, specifically, say a 'white, racist bigot', threatened in speech on this basis, would you not see it for what it is, report matters to the police and then expect them to recognise and record it? Victim-reporting is an established legal-principle and there is nothing wrong, or unethical, for a victim to identify a likely crime. In fact the reporting of likely offences to the police, has been a pillar of police work since, well, forever. It does not mean crime statistics - since, generally speaking reported crime makes up a proportion of various different crimes' statistics - nowhere are to be trusted, implied by your logic. So, sorry about that. Too bad, also with those irksome anti-hate speech laws you have a thing with, as it looks like you are stuck with it. But time to move on.
A question is not an accusation, Thor. But I think you really know that. QED then: the point stands - that if more people are reporting incidents, then it sure doesn't mean levels are reducing. Whatever, lol But you have never read me pissed-off, my friend. Keep trying though, deliberate nastiness really flatters one. Corrected. So, justice can sometimes be annoyingly slow. Your point? This all seems an non-sequitur in deciding whether hate crimes are up. But ... sudden interest in Nazis noted. Good. We agree that there is a Xenophobic element among Brexiteers. QED. It is clearly more important to some, rather than to one who wishes to do away with hate crime laws, say or argues that hate crime cannot even be measured, thus seeing them explained away. I see there was no quote forthcoming.
But you have so many good ideas, so which one did you have in mind here?
No, I just have more fun with you - and, as you probably notice, there are one or two strident fundamentalist here who can answer for their religion already. Yet, apparently, you "don't find it irksome" when applied to you lol Make yer mind up. I did not 'score a point' when you felt being called an Islamophobe was "not irksome" Thor. In fact it could be argued quite the opposite, since I now know that you are comfortable with such a label. And just as I question below, it is odd that you would suddenly care about the feelings of Muslims, ex or not! While, if it was really a politically-correct thing as you suggest then it would have been made more of in the liberal media, if not among the conservatives. It is not - except when it serves a convenient argument of course. Whatever the important thing is that none of this quibbling affects the fact that anti-Judaism and anti-Hindu sentiments exist, even without ready monikers for the individual hatred of various religions. There is no name for the hatred of paedophiles either; but the current moral panic shows that the fear and hatred of such criminals clearly exists. The common currency of 'Islamophobia' just means that Islam is often singled out, and is a more popular hatred, and rather proves the point of standing up for that particular minority over others. In other words the argument - if this is your suggestion - that hate and fear can't exist towards a minority, or ought to be downplayed, because such things have no quick handle, is daft. Let alone the fact that, whether it is correct or not, many do, often, use a word like 'anti-Semitic' to also refer to hatred of the religion other than just its participants. But thanks for a quality diversion this time. Oh that's right: you are in admitted ignorance about the levels of hate crime against Muslims, as much as against anyone else. My mistake. But if you "don't know" anything then, er, how can you say such an argument is necessarily wrong? Yes, and if you were to suggest that I said that, it would be another straw man, would it not? Just because Islamophobia is more of a common 'thing' does not mean it will be singled out for special treatment, now or in the near future (thought I know some Muslims have called for it), if that is what has got you going again. In fact as I have had to point out to you, or another recently the legal movement is to reform or abolish laws of blasphemy in the UK, as happened a few years back, so levelling the field as it were. But please quote where I ever argue for the protection of 'only one religion'. As a matter of fact, I am against special protection for any faith from criticism, even ridicule, over and above regular ideas. Once again: since when have you cared positively about what Muslims, or ex-Muslims have wanted, or complained about, lol? And, once again, if this was really an issue, then the supposedly PC-correct press in the UK would have quickly folded on the matter. But they haven't. I've never even seen it raised as an issue. The suspicion is that by denying the correctness of a word one hopes the thing it described can be done away with as a serious issue too. FF: No, read it again: "That is not to say that they [the Brexit voters etc] were not entitled to express an opinion of course, or that the suggestion is that they are all racists etc. However these groups do often share similar values and views on inclusion. " I wrote it, so ought to be allowed to describe my intention. Moreover my 'however' refers to similar values and views on inclusion - both neutral terms. Give it up with this, and stop reaching. I have not suggested that which you would make out. As already noted, a rhetorical question is not a statement. I have you, here, just plain protesting too much, lol Best regards, Your Flim Flam xx
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 15, 2018 19:34:19 GMT
tpfkar The thing is: The only poster who I remember calling you Flim Flam on the old IMDb board was the poster formerly known as Ada Lovelace / Helen Black. Coincidence? Maybe... Yes, you got me....I'm Ada. Jesus Christ man.... You've got her awareness, that's for sure. Flim Flam LOLLOLOLOL What part of this do you not understand? Oh grow up. <some silliness followed by>.....
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 15, 2018 20:18:11 GMT
I have already said I accept your explanation, and yes, your original phrase can be read both ways as the present example showed, duh. With an English Lang and Lit degree, my command of English usually passes muster. But thanks for caring.
I forgive you.
No it can't. That phrase does not mean "worse than" in any context. You simply projected what you wanted me to say and thought nobody would notice. Like you did with your "2.5% growth rate" crap. And now you continue to lie. Sad. It's like this Thor: it is hard to argue that something can't be read other than in just one way while, at the same time, condemning a person for doing exactly that lol. See how things work? But, don't worry. I still accept your explanation. But time to move on. Best regards, Your Flim Flam xx
|
|