Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2024 1:09:01 GMT
That is pedantry just like the German minister is engaging in, the sad fact of that matter is that "processing" can take a long time, potentially years, which means years potentially spent in some hellhole in Rwanda which as you said is not a safe country. And yes the proposal was to send them to Rwanda, I guess you ignored the Sky News article that clearly points out they do want to send them to Rwanda as my analysis of the earlier point confirmed? They want to process them in Rwanda, not "deport" them to Rwanda ie hinging on pedantry, Sky News agrees that that's what the German ambassador is pointing to This is a dumb policy, but Olaf Scholz's government seem to want to hit self-destruct along with much of the rest of the EU You have an extraordinarily wide definition of the word pedantry. It is not pedantry to say that 2 + 2 = 5 is incorrect. Nor is it pedantry to point out that two schemes which differ in material respects are different things. So Sky News are wrong and lying? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2024 1:15:38 GMT
The simple facts of the matter are that the European Union is bowing to right-wing pressure, and because they are slowly taking over from within the EU, stupid Tory-style policies are filtering their way into the "normal" discourse there, of course, because some people are so over-eager to defend anything the EU does, that means they end up defending the same things they decry others doing.
It's a pretty shameful spectacle
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 8, 2024 1:15:49 GMT
You have an extraordinarily wide definition of the word pedantry. It is not pedantry to say that 2 + 2 = 5 is incorrect. Nor is it pedantry to point out that two schemes which differ in material respects are different things. So Sky News are wrong and lying? Isn't this beside the point? I mean, as Steve pointed out, the proposal is to implement the scheme in accordance with the UN's stated requirements. The UN has no further input. The question then becomes: are the UN's stated requirements corrupt? If they are, please point out how they are corrupt. If they aren't, you have no point. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 8, 2024 1:17:44 GMT
The simple facts of the matter are that the European Union is bowing to right-wing pressure, and because they are slowly taking over from within the EU, stupid Tory-style policies are filtering their way into the "normal" discourse there, of course, because some people are so over-eager to defend anything the EU does, that means they end up defending the same things they decry others doing. It's a pretty shameful spectacle It's only a shameful spectacle if what the tories proposed and what the EU is proposing are the same thing. They're not. They're substantially different. See above, where the proposals were shown to differ in three material respects. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2024 1:19:01 GMT
So Sky News are wrong and lying? Isn't this beside the point? I mean, as Steve pointed out, the proposal is to implement the scheme in accordance with the UN's stated requirements. The UN has no further input. The question then becomes: are the UN's stated requirements corrupt? If they are, please point out how they are corrupt. If they aren't, you have no point. The US DoJ is lying? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2024 1:20:41 GMT
No, it isn't besides the point at all [whether you think the Sky News link is wrong about the German politicians' pedantry]
That is exactly THE point under discussion
At this point, after linking you proof from the US DoJ prosecuting an ex general assembly head and many other UN people, and linking you proof from Sky News (you will probably rubbish those two sources too, next), I will retire from this conversation as you are simply defending re-dressed up Tory-style policies but because the EU is doing it, you find that utterly acceptable
Like I said, I just find it a damning indictment of today's tribalism from so called liberals
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 8, 2024 1:20:57 GMT
Isn't this beside the point? I mean, as Steve pointed out, the proposal is to implement the scheme in accordance with the UN's stated requirements. The UN has no further input. The question then becomes: are the UN's stated requirements corrupt? If they are, please point out how they are corrupt. If they aren't, you have no point. The US DoJ is lying? Does the US DoJ say that the UN's requirements are corrupt? If it isn't, your point is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 8, 2024 1:22:32 GMT
No, it isn't besides the point at all [whether you think the Sky News link is wrong about the German politicians' pedantry] That is exactly THE point under discussion At this point, after linking you proof from the US DoJ prosecuting an ex general assembly head and many other UN people, and linking you proof from Sky News (you will probably rubbish those two sources too, next), I will retire from this conversation as you are simply defending re-dressed up Tory-style policies but because the EU is doing it, you find that utterly acceptable Like I said, I just find it a damning indictment of today's tribalism from so called liberals I disagree with everything you say above. If your objective in starting this thread was to convince of your position, you have failed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2024 1:22:54 GMT
Does the US DoJ say that the UN's requirements are corrupt? If it isn't, your point is irrelevant. So you asked for proof the UN is corrupt, I gave it to you, then you change the goalposts to the UN's requirements being corrupt? That is one slippery way to debate. Re your post above (about you disagreeing with me), you can't refute any of the proof I linked, so seek to "disagree" and say it's just your opinion.. I'm going to leave it here now despite saying it several times earlier - ta ra |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Sept 8, 2024 1:26:06 GMT
Does the US DoJ say that the UN's requirements are corrupt? If it isn't, your point is irrelevant. So you asked for proof the UN is corrupt, I gave it to you, then you change the goalposts to the UN's requirements being corrupt? That is one slippery way to debate. I'm going to leave it here now despite saying it several times earlier - ta ra You have provided no proof that the UN is corrupt. You have provided allegations only. And even if you did provide proof that the current administration is corrupt, it would be irrelevant. The Refugee Convention was written up in the 1950s by a different administration.. And it is that source which will guide the EU's actions. So, unless you have proof that the Refugee Convention is itself corrupt, you have no point. |
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Sept 25, 2024 13:12:45 GMT
Does the US DoJ say that the UN's requirements are corrupt? If it isn't, your point is irrelevant. So you asked for proof the UN is corrupt, I gave it to you, then you change the goalposts to the UN's requirements being corrupt? That is one slippery way to debate. Re your post above (about you disagreeing with me), you can't refute any of the proof I linked, so seek to "disagree" and say it's just your opinion.. I'm going to leave it here now despite saying it several times earlier - ta ra I blocked him years ago, I don't know why you bothered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2024 19:15:47 GMT
Hi Vinny, nice to see you posting here again
Me and Saint fight from time to time, that's ok, he posts interesting things and has a sense of humour and seems to have some decent morals, so he's good in my book
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2024 19:18:10 GMT
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Sept 25, 2024 19:52:04 GMT
Definitely concerning that
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 20, 2024 12:44:15 GMT
So you asked for proof the UN is corrupt, I gave it to you, then you change the goalposts to the UN's requirements being corrupt? That is one slippery way to debate. Re your post above (about you disagreeing with me), you can't refute any of the proof I linked, so seek to "disagree" and say it's just your opinion.. I'm going to leave it here now despite saying it several times earlier - ta ra I blocked him years ago, I don't know why you bothered. vinny tell me , is there many people on various forums who you dont have on ignore? You do understand the principle behind debating forums dont you? |
|
