"Sounds like whites are the new Kulak[s]" – ‘Brian‘ on UK racial politics.
No, what you’re doing there is confusing a privileged majority who lead rather pleasant and agreeable lives, with a hated minority who are being brutally exterminated. So you’re wrong in both concept (the whites are in charge in the UK and aren’t being even slightly oppressed) and degree (while other races are discriminated against in the UK, this tends not to involve brutal state-sanctioned murder).
Good one.
It’s also much in keeping with the general bigot double-think where they rant on about the country being full of non-whites, and it’s only a couple of years ’til whites are in a minority, until they want to justifiy white representation in this or that body, when suddenly they like to point out the preponderance of whites and how there aren’t that many non-whites actually.
Care to revise your opinion on Amnesty’s use of Gulag John?
"brutal state-sanctioned murder"
Like Stalin on the Kulaks?
Eric: no. Being white in the UK is in no way comparable to being a Kulak in a gulag. The comparison between secret military jails and gulags is at least comprehensible, no matter what you think of its accuracy or levels of taste.
Stack: yup, that’s what I meant.
That is a real insight into your logical inconsistency.
A secret military jail *is* a bit like a gulag in some relevant respects. You can’t possibly sanely deny that (although you might, as I said, question the analogy’s merits).
Being a white Brit is not like being a kulak in any relevant respect. You can’t possibly sanely deny that.
Therefore, I’m not being logically inconsistent.
The Decent Left’s war on simile rages on.
You can’t possibly sanely deny that.
Look John, I don’t agree with either simile, and if you knew your facts about Gulags you wouldn’t either.
Even Amnesty have admitted that Gulag simile was not accurate, but was used to court press coverage, like some cheap celebrity using a scandal for their own advantage.
So you’re seriously saying that comparing a secret military prison to a gulag is just as absurd as comparing being a white Brit to being a kulak? Fair enough…
No, John.
You made that bit of the argument up on your own.
I don’t have to prove an equivalence between the Amnesty case and some crackpot case you have dragged up to prove the Amnesty one was stupid.
Which it was.
Next!
Then why ask, in the comments referring to this ‘crackpot case’, whether John would like to revise his opinion of Amnesty’s use of the word ‘gulag’.
I take it, given you disavow any attempt to draw an equivalence between the crackpot’s and Amnesty, that you were entirely off-topic? Or attempting to imply equivalence why studiously avoiding saying so – a dishonest, but often effective, debating tactic.
A cat has four legs. (the kulak analogy is stupid)
Not everything that has four legs is a cat. (not all stupid analogies have to be about kulaks)
However, just because cat has four legs, does not mean a horse can’t have four legs. (just because the kulak analogy is stupid, it does not mean that gulag anology cannot be stupid)
Neither a horse or a cat are the same. (nor are the kulak analogy and the gulag analogy the same)
Both both have four legs (both are stupid).
What I am saying is that is is logically inconsistent to agree with one analogy and not the other, and you do not have to think they are totally equivalent.
Not at all. All you have demonstrated is that the kulak analogy and the gulag analogy are linked by the fact that they are analogies. You argue that they are independently stupid. This stupidity is contestable, and the assignation of ‘stupidity’ to one of the these analogies does not demand that the other is equally labelled. This being so, the statement it "is logically inconsistent to agree with one analogy and not the other" does not follow. It only follows if we agree that both analogies are stupid.
Look, if you want to show my beliefs are inconsistent, you need to show that in all relevant respects, the kulak analogy is equivalent to the gulag analogy.
You haven’t done this. All you’ve shown is that I think one analogy is stupid, and that another, different analogy is not stupid.
Otherwise I can say "Eric thinks the analogy between kulaks and white Brits is stupid. But Eric doesn’t think the analogy between [eg] the war to stop Saddam and the war to stop Hitler is stupid, so he’s being inconsistent."
(not sure whether or not you’d actually view the second analogy as reasonable. The point is that it would be *perfectly consistent* of you to think that the kulak analogy was stupid and that the Hitler analogy was reasonable. You haven’t demonstrated any difference between that set of beliefs and my set of beliefs).
<I>What I am saying is that is is logically inconsistent to agree with one analogy and not the other</I>
Of course it bloody isn’t. I agree with neither analogy, but I could at least construct a hypothetical case that the Amnesty analogy was plausible, whereas the whites/kulaks analogy is ridiculous and indefensible whichever way you look at it.
Regardless of my opinion, though, to describe it as ‘logically inconsistent to agree with one analogy and not the other’ is a silly thing to say unless the analogies are the same or at least equivalent. They aren’t. They refer to two different sets of circumstances.
Oops. Must pay attention to ‘allowed HTML tags’. And post before two people have already made my point.
I think you’re misunderstanding Eric’s point. As I understand it, his main contention is that no cat has three legs.
I thought that his main point was "two legs good, four legs stupid."
I know a cat with three legs called Tripod.
Anyway, given that even Amnesty’s American spokesman said that the Gulag analogy was not correct, and done to get media attention, then I can’t see how you can have a leg to stand on.
Unless you stole it from a cat.
Because you’re incorrectly accusing me of logical inconsistency, when you should merely be accusing me of being mistaken. The two are not the same.
Even Galileo admitted that the Sun moves round the Earth …
"when you should merely be accusing me of being mistaken. "
But where’s the novelty in that?