Continued mass shootings in America
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  Hrolf The Ganger  06 Aug 19 8.54am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course I accept the report as the best available. Forecasts can only ever be forecasts but studies of this kind, from this source, can be trusted as objective Why would anyone seek to challenge such an authoritative source unless they had an agenda it failed to meet? They aren't "my" statistics! If you want to reproduce them they are there, and if you want more then go ask the UN. Such a comprehensive study will take into account all known variables before reaching conclusions. Again if you want more detail of how the UN approached the task you must ask them for it. That it forecasts change is true, but not on the ridiculous scale you have suggested. This will be change that produces challenges but ones that can be coped with. As we were in general agreement about what a key element of how we should cope with these changes it's disappointing that you are so unrealistic about what actually these changes might be. The range of possible population increase is wide even according to the UN. The figure you quoted is optimistic.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 9.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Paul Joseph Watson is an English YouTube personality, radio host, writer and conspiracy theorist. He has been described as 'alt-right' by multiple sources. Not my description, It comes from Wiki. His video denouncing the Ohio shooter as a "left wing extremist" and his actions as comparable with those of the El Paso, who was a "right wing extremist", is blatant propaganda. As I have noted in this thread before there is one key difference. No-one knows what the motives of the Ohio shooter were. He gave no prior clue. What is known is that his victims were young, mostly black and included his own sister. It therefore does not seem very likely that his was an act in furtherance of a political ideology as he was known to be a left winger. The El Paso shooter is quite different. He deliberately targeted Hispanics, travelling hundreds of miles to a place dominated by them. He made statements about his motives and intentions immediately prior to carrying them out. He is known to be a right winger. Whether he drew direct inspiration from Trump is unknown, but the reason Trump is under fire is because his rhetoric, whether intentionally or not, has emboldened all white supremacists and believers in far right causes. Trump has enabled them to appear more respectable and mainstream. It helps them justify their beliefs in their own minds, which is even more dangerous if those minds are not sound. That Trump is failing to acknowledge this and seeking to deflect the blame onto mental health issues and anything, or anyone, but himself is just typical of him. That apologists like Paul Joseph Watson pop up spouting nonsense and some take what he says at face value and seriously is actually pretty shameful. Everything he said was perfefectly logical. I think you are just another liberal in disguise. What exactly is a 'White Supremicist' anyway? Will the last White man on Earth still have to carry the guilt he is supposed to feel for putting his interests first?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ginger Pubic Wig Wickham de L'Ouest 06 Aug 19 9.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
As a minimum/starting point, the US needs a single, coordinated law about gun sales and ownership. It's a pretty basic, reasonable step.
If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 06 Aug 19 9.15am |
 |
|---|---|
|
I saw that Trump used the term, 'white supremacy' on a newscast to the nation over these recent attacks. I think what people like Trump need to be reminded of is that the very country of America itself was founded by invading Europeans...mainly British who would....using this logic also be called 'white supremacists' because they were spreading the British empire to new lands. In fact the entire British empire and indeed any empire around the world that was ever spread by any nation could be described in the same short sighted fashion whether they were white or not. If he truly regards these people as now being against the ideals of America I humbly suggest that he gets himself a plane ticket and fecks off back to Germany or Scotland. Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Aug 2019 9.31am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Aug 19 9.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
The range of possible population increase is wide even according to the UN. The figure you quoted is optimistic. Of course any forecast can only ever be a forecast, but it's neither optimistic or pessimistic. It's just the best forecast, given all the currently known variables. I don't ignore "the effect migration will have on genetic lineage". So far as I can see the UN report doesn't attempt to assess that as it isn't the purpose of their report. You were claiming much higher net figures and the UN report clearly shows them to be wrong. Looking at how the future genetic make up of the world's population may change is a totally different subject and one not to be conflated with this one. You accuse me of half truths when I have shown you to be offering whole lies! In fact I have not told any "half truths" at all. All I have done is referred to a reputable report. My view on the unrelated and therefore quite separate subject of the way the genetic make up of future generations may change is that it is going to. The thing is though that this is nothing new. It always has. Most, if not all of us, have a wide spectrum of ancestors in our blood lines. In today's world, with the advent of constant travel and regular movements of people in the global village, that is only going to increase markedly. Some seem to fear this, whilst others embrace it. The issue for me is not about our genetic make up but our cultural perceptions. British culture has never been locked into a time warp and has always modified itself as the years passed by. It has though also managed to preserve it's essential character and I don't think that's going to change, provided we take the necessary steps to protect it and nurture it. We have already discussed what I regard as the most important step we need to take to achieve that. That we face challenges is obviously true but I am not a defeatist. We cannot turn back the clock, nor should we try. We can though look forward to a positive future if we plan and prepare for it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Aug 19 9.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Everything he said was perfefectly logical. I think you are just another liberal in disguise. What exactly is a 'White Supremicist' anyway? Will the last White man on Earth still have to carry the guilt he is supposed to feel for putting his interests first? No it wasn't! He, like other right wing commentators, tried to conflate the motives of the perpetrators of two acts of mass murder. They cannot be so conflated. One was overtly political. The other is unknown, but unlikely to be political. White supremacist. Definition from the Free Dictionary:- "One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society" As it must be questionable whether any of us are genetically truly a "white" man would you like to explain exactly what you mean by your last question. Do you really mean of recent "European" stock?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 9.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course any forecast can only ever be a forecast, but it's neither optimistic or pessimistic. It's just the best forecast, given all the currently known variables. I don't ignore "the effect migration will have on genetic lineage". So far as I can see the UN report doesn't attempt to assess that as it isn't the purpose of their report. You were claiming much higher net figures and the UN report clearly shows them to be wrong. Looking at how the future genetic make up of the world's population may change is a totally different subject and one not to be conflated with this one. You accuse me of half truths when I have shown you to be offering whole lies! In fact I have not told any "half truths" at all. All I have done is referred to a reputable report. My view on the unrelated and therefore quite separate subject of the way the genetic make up of future generations may change is that it is going to. The thing is though that this is nothing new. It always has. Most, if not all of us, have a wide spectrum of ancestors in our blood lines. In today's world, with the advent of constant travel and regular movements of people in the global village, that is only going to increase markedly. Some seem to fear this, whilst others embrace it. The issue for me is not about our genetic make up but our cultural perceptions. British culture has never been locked into a time warp and has always modified itself as the years passed by. It has though also managed to preserve it's essential character and I don't think that's going to change, provided we take the necessary steps to protect it and nurture it. We have already discussed what I regard as the most important step we need to take to achieve that. That we face challenges is obviously true but I am not a defeatist. We cannot turn back the clock, nor should we try. We can though look forward to a positive future if we plan and prepare for it. This is all so disingenuous. The possible future global population has a huge range. The UN has decided to apply a selection of different formulae to predict possible outcomes. The one you choose has no real basis to be any more likely than the higher predictions, In fact, there are a number of reasons to suspect that it could be very optimistic. Have I lied about that? Thanks for finally admitting that migration will have a massive effect on genetic heritage even if you could not bring yourself to say it straight out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it wasn't! He, like other right wing commentators, tried to conflate the motives of the perpetrators of two acts of mass murder. They cannot be so conflated. One was overtly political. The other is unknown, but unlikely to be political. "One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society" As it must be questionable whether any of us are genetically truly a "white" man would you like to explain exactly what you mean by your last question. Do you really mean of recent "European" stock? Do you have any evidence to support that? You know exactly what is meant by White so don't play your silly and deliberate games with it. I see no desire to feel racially superior in trying to preserve your own race.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Aug 19 11.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This is all so disingenuous. The possible future global population has a huge range. The UN has decided to apply a selection of different formulae to predict possible outcomes. The one you choose has no real basis to be any more likely than the higher predictions, In fact, there are a number of reasons to suspect that it could be very optimistic. Have I lied about that? Thanks for finally admitting that migration will have a massive effect on genetic heritage even if you could not bring yourself to say it straight out. There is nothing the least bit disingenuous about referencing the most authoritative source on this subject. The disingenuosity is entirely your own in trying to suggest that your assumptions have equal validity. Of course the UN apply a variety of variables but they do so with a great deal of knowledge at their disposal and the experience in knowing how to interpret it and extrapolate the likely outcomes. To suggest that there are any reasons why the results could be optimistic, without evidence, is just nonsensical. I didn't say that migration will have a "massive" effect on genetic heritage. I said it will continue, as it always has, to have an impact, and that effect is likely to accelerate given the world we now live in. What I also said, and will repeat, is that rather than moaning about it and trying to push water up hill, we must embrace it, manage it and learn to enjoy it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 06 Aug 19 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
There is nothing the least bit disingenuous about referencing the most authoritative source on this subject. The disingenuosity is entirely your own in trying to suggest that your assumptions have equal validity. Of course the UN apply a variety of variables but they do so with a great deal of knowledge at their disposal and the experience in knowing how to interpret it and extrapolate the likely outcomes. To suggest that there are any reasons why the results could be optimistic, without evidence, is just nonsensical. I didn't say that migration will have a "massive" effect on genetic heritage. I said it will continue, as it always has, to have an impact, and that effect is likely to accelerate given the world we now live in. What I also said, and will repeat, is that rather than moaning about it and trying to push water up hill, we must embrace it, manage it and learn to enjoy it. Population growth depends on the fertility rate. That is dependant on a number of factors including prosperity. The UN prediction is understandably optimistic about third world improvements in prosperity but this by no means proper science. The population make up in Europe will be drastically affected because of the disparity between immigrant birth rates and European rates for the reason I have explained.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lucretius 06 Aug 19 12.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 06 Aug 19 12.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Do you have any evidence to support that? There is plenty to suggest that the guy held left wing, anti-fascist views. There is none to suggest these played any role in his decision to commit mass murder. You know exactly what is meant by White so don't play your silly and deliberate games with it. You tell me what you think is meant by "white". I see no desire to feel racially superior in trying to preserve your own race. As so far as I know no-one has called you a "white supremacist" that's OK then. "Preserving your own race" is very, very different to those seeking to establish rights for those who perceive unfairness because of the colour of their skin.
No. Only those who consider themselves superior to others are.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.