Our argument is against your points. Whether you take that personal or not is your choice. Aside from the criticisms of your points which address your way of arguing or your choice of points. Those are "against" you, as you present it.Skism wrote:Your argument against me (and it is against me)
Oh, right. You invented some sort of major genetic difference between Europeans which is - due to the common ancestry and immigration - utterly wrong. Either you lacked the knowledge, included the point for no good reason or for a portion of racism in your mind. You chose the latter interpretation for yourself. I never insinuated nor stated that you were a racist, but noted that and why your point regarding "genetic differences" is wrong. Granted, I also ridiculed said point later on, quoting the idea of "national genes". But I never accused you of being a complete racist - it's unsurprising, of course, that you accuse me of doing so here. And claim that we were insulting you.1: You accuse me of being a complete racist on the basis of one word. Presumptive in the extreme.
I addressed every point you raised in your last posts - including the Wikipedia articles - and argued against them, noting the errors in your thinking or reasoning. And once again, I feel insulted by your terms as I would never refuse to argue rationally.2: You ignore and devalue my points rather than address legitimate concerns. thus proving the invalidity of your argument as you have to resort to mudslinging mine and this is a pattern for the pair of you
Problem is we only started arguing here to proof your points wrong. Hence, proving our point is equal to proving yours wrong.rather than prove yours
Wrong topic.(and the onus is on you to prove that the EU should exist btw)
Also, we already noted those reasons - you ignored it. Just like that post of mine in which I explained the economical statistics you had linked before it. And elaborated on them.
But I guess that was an "incendiary" point because you had used the wrong set of data - or at least interpreted in wrongly.I have in the past deliberately avoided answering incendiary points by both of you.
No, your accusation that the legal system supports the slaughter of millions is truly sick. We pointed that out. We never accused you of supporting it - we accused you of instrumentalizing it. (And pointed out why it nothing to do with the legal system.)3:You accuse me of supporting the slaughter of millions that is truly sick
I lack the time to gather more data, but:(and in addition as I will show you have your statistics massively wrong)
- the Indian Rebellion of 1857: death toll cannot be specified but records include the commitment of a high amount of war crimes by British forces or under orders of British officers. Up to several hundred thousand deaths on India's side; (Interestingly, the English wikipedia article does not even mention a dispute about the losses.)
- the Second Boer War, which saw the use of "concentration camps", also saw the application of a Scorched Earth policy against the entire population, native or white, but officially "only" 26000 civilian deaths. That being the death of white people in the concentration camps, of course. The exact number of people who died due to the Scorched Earth policy is as unknown as the number of black people killed;
- the existing strategy to starve the Irish during their repeating phases of rebellion or similar thoughts.
Not that the numbers would matter regarding the point[1] (especially since you cannot compare warfare or population density or population size or the ability to commit genocide or mass murder of the nineteenth with the respective circumstances of the twentieth century). Your point was that under Common Law such immoral things were impossible. Yet, they happened. Under British Common Law. Or Indian Common Law, for that matter.
And even if our statistics were wrong - which they are not (aside from the general lack of accuracy in such matters) -, it would not change the point that things like that could happen under Common Law and under Civil Law. All that matters is what laws are in existence and enforcement - which depends on lots of things, but not on the legal system.
[1] All lost lives matter. But the injustices remains in either case, be it hundred thousand or a million deaths.
See above. Also, look up the treatment of American natives under US law to see how Common law generally prevents mass injustice. (Or the cases mentioned above - or any other colonial affair with British or US involvement.) Or the racial separation in the US. List could be continued.I only made out that your legal systems where wrong and that they allowed mass injustice
Never interpreted it that way.- I NEVER implied that you were supportive of this mass slaughter
... what?by nations similar to your EU
Soviet Russia and China are similar to the EU in terms of adherence to Human Rights and correct legal procedure?
Also, please note that currently "our EU" is also "your EU" as you live in it just like we do.
In that case your assumption of what the legal system is and can do lives in error with what a legal system really is. And before you repeat your accusation that I would not argue my position: I mentioned all necessary arguments in my previous post(s).only that you were living in error with your legal system.
Like the unconstrained power of a Common Law judge to revise the law?and I frankly assumed that you where not aware of what unconstrained power is able to do
False. I mentioned the protection against this in my last post. Whether you ignored it or did not read that part, I do not know.- also your legal systems could be massively abused as they have no protection that does stop arbitrary power
Also: a system in which every judge can revise the existing law cannot be abused by arbitrary power?
This is an insult. And I cannot see it any other way. As a German, I am all too well aware of the problems that can result from arbitrary and unconstrained power. Accusing me of being unaware of the most shameful part of history my country has to offer is nothing but an insult. But it does not only insult me - it insults everyone who lives under Civil War because you deny him and his nation this crucial part of knowledge.something that the entire common law nations understand and non ones do not I did not assume Mens rea you did.
And yet you accuse us...
The Nazis believed themselves morally right. Even at that point. The Americans once believed themselves morally right with racial separation; so did the South Africans. The entire Western world once believed itself morally right while permitting and conducting slavery. Or opium trade with a nation that had outlawed it for economic gain.4:You invoke Godwins law and in a truly ridiculous way: "The Nazis argued that the judges should incorporate "the morally right"" clearly the Nazis had no idea what morally right was as Britain well knew at the time.
Their legal system, be it Civil or Common Law, did not change it and the judges did not condemn it until society's view on the issue (or the laws concerning it) had changed. (Okay, or the economic situation had made it unprofitable.) Judges have no superior morale to "normal" persons as they are formed by the very same society. They share the prejudices and opinions of their cultural background. Including them in the process of deciding what is right and what is wrong does not prevent injustice. It only makes for injustice conform with the beliefs of their equals in society.
Now, in a reasonable judiciary there are controls against this problems. Controls that restrict the authority of judges (especially those of lower courts) and force the judiciary to adhere closer to the law.
No. I attempted to show you the error in your argument of "morally right" as measurement of the law. And to show this I used the most obvious example in recent history. Next to the most prominent example from US history. At this point, I want to include two other examples of "morally right" legal issues in the Common Law USA: the internment of Japanese immigrants during World War II and the general reaction and legal action during the Red Scarce. Both clear cases of mass injustice. Both justified with "moral" amongst other explanations.You attempt to equate me and my argument of morally right to the Nazis that is completely wrong and intellectually dishonest on so many levels it is unreal.
You were comparing the legislation and judiciary of Western Europe to that of Soviet Russia. If this is your idea of a serious argument (and Creshal, Jumee and I and partially Usenko explained the problem with that), then I would ask you to reconsider this stance. And yes, things like that are nothing but propaganda and polemic.5 you accuse/insinuate that I use propaganda (and its not the first time you have said that)
Let me quote you:6 having done all of that you then accuse me of presenting you as intolerant, and warmongers
What is this supposed to be if not the accusation or implication that we, as Germany, would provoke if not start another war or some other forceful oppression of other countries?Skism wrote:Ok so you think you have the right to change that hmm? how exactly are you going to do that? call another referendum? what happens when they say NO like last time?
And yes, you present us as intolerant. You have done so in this very post I am quoting right now. And you have not done it here for the first time either.
What now? It is incredible that we dare arguing against your points, including those points that refer to your country and ignore several facts to suit your point better?this is incredible on your part in light of the above and your statements against my country my points and me
Godwin's law means - mostly anyway - that you bring up the comparison with the Nazis when it is not justified. It is here, even though you disagree, because - as Creshal stated - morale is highly subjective and prone to changes. I elaborated on this above.This is so ridiculous as to be absurd. I am tempted to use Godwins law right now to say you have lost the argument I shall continue but it is questionable arguing with those who use such techniques.
Yeah. Right.though it should be noted that at least In theory China Russia and the EU function as similar entities, after all (Large entities made up of multiple states with large economies run by powerful men with little regard for the people under them - that is the reason I choose them

Russia and China work fundamentally different.
Not to mention that nations are explicitly allowed to leave the European Union - try that in China or Russia. And that in contrast to Russia and China, the EU lacks the right to interfere in the business of the states that encompass it - unless those states (all of them) explicitly allow it. Which is the reason why the economies of the EU member states are still under control of ... oh, wait, no one. We have no state-controlled business like China or Russia.
And what remains of state rules and "guidance" and expenses affecting the economy is still mostly national.
And you wonder why you are accused of propaganda.
Less diplomatic? Oh, well...When I respond to this do not be surprised if I am less than diplomatic in light of that.