Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Hm. No, I'm pretty staunchly certain that extrapolating from "The Green Party wants to see a world without borders" to "(...) when someone arrives in your country (...) They will automatically be allowed to stay, and need not apply for asylum (...) anyone can come or go, willy nilly" is indeed strawman nonsense in exactly the same vein as going from 'I believe nobody should be denied access to food' to 'I want people to be allowed to enter your home and raid your fridge'
For example, saying they don't want 'enter a country without papers' to be a crime, does not mean or even imply that that 'enter a country without papers' is acceptable as the entirety of the immigration process, as opposed to an acceptable first step in entering an immigration process.
Hm. No, I'm pretty staunchly certain that extrapolating from "The Green Party wants to see a world without borders" to "(...) when someone arrives in your country (...) They will automatically be allowed to stay, and need not apply for asylum (...) anyone can come or go, willy nilly" is indeed strawman nonsense in exactly the same vein as going from 'I believe nobody should be denied access to food' to 'I want people to be allowed to enter your home and raid your fridge'
For example, saying they don't want 'enter a country without papers' to be a crime, does not mean or even imply that that 'enter a country without papers' is acceptable as the entirety of the immigration process, as opposed to an acceptable first step in entering an immigration process.
Sorry, I disagree. I read and understand the English language - words have meanings!
When the STATED ULTIMATE GOAL is a world without borders, that can mean one, and only one thing... WITHOUT BORDERS = NO BORDERS.
When there are NO BORDERS, people can come and go from country to country without visas or any kind of travel documents. The MOMENT you require ANY sort of control or presentation of documents at a port of entry, you have a border - by definition.
When there are NO BORDERS, there is no need for asylum application. People no longer need any permission to enter a country and stay permanently
Back onto the actual topic of "BBC news reporting"
Professor Sir Lawrence Goldman has been highly critical of the ideological way that the BBC presents British history. For example, the BBC consistently paint the British as being the sole instigators of African slavery, while completely ignoring salient facts, such as the fact that the African slave trade started with African slavers; such as the fact that the British were the first nation to abolish slavery, such as the fact that it was the British who acted to stop the slave trade world-wide, not just politically, but by use of the Royal Navy blockading the slave trade with the West Africa Squadron (1808-1867) to intercept slave ships crossing the Atlantic.
Professor Goldman and over 40 other leading historical scholars contribute to the website History Reclaimed...
Learn mree about History reclaimed and our intent to challenge distortions of history, and to provide context, explanation and balance.
historyreclaimed.co.uk
Our Mission
The abuse of history for political purposes is as old as history itself. In recent years, we have seen campaigns to rewrite the history of several democratic nations in a way that undermines their solidarity as communities, their sense of achievement, even their very legitimacy.
Who We Are
We are an independent group of scholars with a wide range of opinions on many subjects, but with the shared conviction that history requires careful interpretation of complex evidence, and should not be a vehicle for facile propaganda. We have established the History Reclaimed group as a non-profit making company limited by guarantee.
Here is Josh Howie interviewing Professor Goldman about the way the BBC has been presenting British history in an ideologically distorted fashion. (Cue all the loony lefties accusing Professor Goldman of being liar and a far-right, racist bigot)
Sorry, I disagree. I read and understand the English language - words have meanings!
When the STATED ULTIMATE GOAL is a world without borders, that can mean one, and only one thing... WITHOUT BORDERS = NO BORDERS.
When there are NO BORDERS, people can come and go from country to country without visas or any kind of travel documents. The MOMENT you require ANY sort of control or presentation of documents at a port of entry, you have a border - by definition.
Yes, just like when people are not allowed into your house to raid your fridge, people are being denied access to food - by definition. And yet I can tell you that when I say I believe people should not be denied access to food, the 'your fridge' thing is not what I want to happen.
The Green Party thing is not even a goal, it's an ideal. "We would like to see."
Philosophical statements are not plans. Stated ideals are not plans either. Your extrapolations of what this really means are bad-faith absurdities.
Why state what you want to achieve, if you have no intention of attempting to achieve it?
Why make the statement that you want a world without borders, if you don't ACTUALLY want a world without borders?
At this point, I am wondering if you might be related to Alastair Campbell? The amount of effort you are going to in order to spin-doctor these Green Party principles into meaning something other than the plain language meaning of the actual published words is worthy of any of the sort of inane, twaddling double-speak he spouts. Truly Campbellian.
If they ever decided to remake "Yes Prime Minister" you should audition for the part of Sir Humphrey Appleby... you're a natural - you'd be a shoo-in for the part!
Nah man, this is just a genuine disgreement. I expect they want open borders the same way I do, which is to say, when the world looks like Star Trek: the Next Generation, painless migration is one of the policies I'd expect between Earth nations. I'm not expecting anyone to try to skip directly to implementing it next week, before solving any of the adjacent problems.
'Open Borders,' as a slogan, doesn't mean literally nobody needs documentation ever again for anything, except to a few shoeless hippies; it's that they'd like to work towards easier movement between nations. Just like 'Defund the Police' doesn't mean no more money for any police ever, it means maybe the police budget doesn't need to be 5x the budget of all the other city services. And both of those are still pretty extreme stances with the current location of the Overton window.
(...) The amount of effort you are going to in order to spin-doctor these Green Party principles into meaning something other than the plain language meaning of the actual published words (...)
As opposed to the way you have literally made up the 'true meaning' of these principles, with the serious and thorough justification of 'it couldn't possibly mean anything else!' While literally ignoring the policies they said they'd actually like to see used. Which aren't 'no more documentation' or 'automatic asylum status for everyone' but rather only 'the act of showing up, itself, is not criminal.'
As opposed to the way you have literally made up the 'true meaning' of these principles, with the serious and thorough justification of 'it couldn't possibly mean anything else!'
While literally ignoring the policies they said they'd actually like to see used. Which aren't 'no more documentation' or 'automatic asylum status for everyone' but rather only 'the act of showing up, itself, is not criminal.'
Policies come from principles - core beliefs. If your policies are not the same as your core beliefs, then that makes you untrustworthy. Again, it really is that simple!
Yyyeah I'm thinking this is 'we just disagree' territory. When it comes to 'what policies do this group want to implement' I think it's more honest to take the written specific policy details over (part of) the principles, and it looks like you think it's more honest to take a snipped participle from the principles over the specific details.
You are ignoring everything after the comma:
"The Green Party wants to see a world without borders, until this happens the Green Party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration where people can move if they wish to do so."
You are the one unilaterally deciding that they would not implement any management of immigration despite saying so, because that's incompatible with wanting a world without borders.
"The Green Party wants to see a world without borders, until this happens the Green Party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration where people can move if they wish to do so."
Nope, I did no such thing. I literally highlighted the part after the comma (see post #390)
Before the comma... This is where we intend to end up.
After the comma... This is what we will do in the meantime, until we achieve where we want to end up.
You are the one unilaterally deciding that they would not implement any management of immigration despite saying so, because that's incompatible with wanting a world without borders.
Incorrect. I'm not unilaterally deciding anything. Words have meanings - I am reading what is written in black and white and taking a plain English reading of what was writ. You have to be willfully blind to look at what is written and take any other meaning from it.
A well regulated Militia is not a policy. It is context - the reason why the policy exists. It's the purpose for the policy, perhaps. But it's not a policy itself.
A world without borders is not a policy. It is context for the actual policy that follows.
Utter bollocks. Its a statement of intent! Its what they want to see!
If the Green Party DON'T want to see a world without borders, then why the ◊◊◊◊ did they publish "The Green Party wants to see a world without borders" on their website!!
Honestly this is pure gaslighting.... you're trying to argue that hot is really cold, that black is really white and that water isn't really wet...
Utter bollocks. Its a statement of intent! Its what they want to see!
If the Green Party DON'T want to see a world without borders, then why the ◊◊◊◊ did they publish "The Green Party wants to see a world without borders" on their website!!
You need to calm down. I didn't say they didn't want to see a world without borders. I said that the world without borders was an aspirational goal that provides a framing context for the policy statement that follows - a fair and humane system of managed immigration.
That is hyperbolic bull ◊◊◊◊. Nothing I have said has the opposite meaning of any statement the way you mendaciously imply. The world isn't black and white, good and evil, binary. Nuance can exist. Shades of grey can exist.
I apologise for coming back so soon, but I thought I'd try just one more strawman.
If I run into someone who says they want to see a world without livestock animals raised for meat, I won't call BS on their next paragraph being advocacy for humane treatment of beef cattle and slaughterhouse workers. They don't really want that! They want to ABOLISH beef cattle! I mean yeah they do but they know they're not getting it. They'll have to settle for humane conditions for cattle and for meat packers etc. until and unless the entire world is more amenable to the idea of no more meat livestock. This isn't black is white, up is down ◊◊◊◊.
I apologise for coming back so soon, but I thought I'd try just one more strawman.
If I run into someone who says they want to see a world without livestock animals raised for meat, I won't call BS on their next paragraph being advocacy for humane treatment of beef cattle and slaughterhouse workers. They don't really want that! They want to ABOLISH beef cattle! I mean yeah they do but they know they're not getting it. They'll have to settle for humane conditions for cattle and for meat packers etc. until and unless the entire world is more amenable to the idea of no more meat livestock. This isn't black is white, up is down ◊◊◊◊.
"...want to see a world without livestock animals raised for meat"
. This is a conditional statement using "for" instead of "if" or "unless" as the condition (the conditional part is higlighted) and is NOT the same as saying "want to see a world without livestock animals". Therefore, your conclusion "They want to ABOLISH beef cattle!" does not logically follow from the statement.
However, the statement "want to see a world without borders" is an unconditional statement. Its an absolute.
You need to calm down. I didn't say they didn't want to see a world without borders. I said that the world without borders was an aspirational goal that provides a framing context for the policy statement that follows - a fair and humane system of managed immigration.
That is hyperbolic bull ◊◊◊◊. Nothing I have said has the opposite meaning of any statement the way you mendaciously imply. The world isn't black and white, good and evil, binary. Nuance can exist. Shades of grey can exist.
"...want to see a world without livestock animals raised for meat"
. This is a conditional statement using "for" instead of "if" or "unless" as the condition (the conditional part is higlighted) and is NOT the same as saying "want to see a world without livestock animals". Therefore, your conclusion "They want to ABOLISH beef cattle!" does not logically follow from the statement.
However, the statement "want to see a world without borders" is an unconditional statement. Its an absolute.
SMH people out here telling me about my own strawman. Yes in a perfect world they want to see beef cattle abolished. They wanted to word the statement to allow for wool bearing livestock, etc. They would like to see an end to any livestock being raised for meat. And yet. It's not an option in the system as it is. So in the meantime they are interested in the welfare of animals and people in the meat industry. Impossible?
I mean, yeah you could still have a big ol black angus as a pet in their ideal world. I'm really not sure what's not clear about the idea that the straw group doesn't want anyone eating livestock BUT knows they won't get that AND cares about the lives in the system currently doing that anyway SO despite wanting that in an ideal way, their actual work is in making the system more pleasant (and nudging society towards being both able to and interested in feeding the world without meat from beef cattle)
In case it got lost, the argument isn't meant to be about whether the thing they said they'd like to see is really what they'd like to see. It's about whether you can throw their other stated intentions in the trash if they aren't the same thing as what they said they'd like to see.
IE whether what they'd like to see is the goal they are actively trying to realise.
Snipped for brevity. I stopped when I got to the list of things they wanted to accomplish with policy. The section you quoted was under "principles". You literally post to a massive ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ website and then bitch when I don't read the entirety of it? You didn't even say where it was you were looking and that is the only ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ part they mentioned "without borders". You implied that it was their main goal, it was the #1 priority and the words don't even ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ appear until the end of the page.
Next time, learn how to relay information. Don't expect people to read a long ass website cause you're too lazy to provide quotes to your actual point. Then again, you've been misrepresenting other people this whole time. Very Trumpian. Very far-rightesque. So on par for you now, you must be so proud.
Yup, you and Trump. Two peas in a pod. The definition of "normality". When I think of you two I think "those are two normal guys that say normal things, and act like normal people."
I snipped the incessant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crying about the "looney left". You should send a copy to Trump though, I bet you could get a position in his cabinet. He'd even make up a new one for you, "Director of the Department on How to Cry About the Looney Left". You'll be a hit!
ETA: I didn't read the whole thread before I answered. Others have answered this significantly better than I have, not that I expect it'll make any difference. Cult behavior is cult behavior.
The section you quoted was under "principles". You literally post to a massive ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ website and then bitch when I don't read the entirety of it? You didn't even say where it was you were looking and that is the only ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ part they mentioned "without borders".
MG100. The Green Party wants to see a world without borders"
That's the far-left for you. Anyone left of the Green Party, at least in the UK, will fall of the edge of the cliff
I LITERALLY QUOTED THE EXACT PART I WAS TALKING ABOUT...PUTTING THE HEADING IN BOLD AND THE WHOLE QUOTE INCLUDING THE PRINCIPLE NUMBER "MG100" IN ITALICS!!
MG100. The Green Party wants to see a world without borders"
That's the far-left for you. Anyone left of the Green Party, at least in the UK, will fall of the edge of the cliff
I LITERALLY QUOTED THE EXACT PART I WAS TALKING ABOUT...PUTTING THE HEADING IN BOLD AND THE WHOLE QUOTE INCLUDING THE PRINCIPLE NUMBER "MG100" IN ITALICS!!
Another ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lie . The Principles is the very next section after the Policy (the bit you quoted) in the top 10th of the page.
Principles ARE main goals.
I put the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ quote right in front of your bloody face! Not my fault if you're wilfully blind.
See above, I lterally did provide quotes
{insulting twaddle snipped}
It certainly is, and you are exhibiting plenty of it.
I did make a mistake on you not quoting it. I went to the link first, but as I said, others made the more important points than I did.
It's the equivalent of saying "I want a world without hate". I'd love to see a world without borders too. Where people can travel or live wherever they can find a place that works best for them. I don't think that's insane, I don't think it's even weird. I also don't think it'll ever happen but I'd be happy if it did. I don't have an inherent hate for people...like some.
I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with the claims that the BBC news is bias, but it is what it is.
The far-right hates immigrants, and they hate trans, among many other things so this is all par for the course.
Hate away, I won't get in your way. Fly your flag, playa.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
