• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The French left has been the most liberticide govt since Pétain

Auvergnat said:
The last time I did this I got a warning from the moderators. The post was in English of course, the linked sources were in French.
Click to expand...
In my experience, if you supply a reasonable translation of the French news text, there'll be little objection.

I've done it before wrt Spanish, French and German and provided explanations by highlighting the relevant parts of the original and explaining what they say immediately after (often not even a word by word translation).

Of course whole articles tend to be a bit of a stress on any reader unfamiliar with the language, so commons sense should prevail.
 
Auvergnat said:
SO not only I have to provide tens of sources, I also have to translate them?
Click to expand...

You can do what you want :2razz:, like i say I believe what you said in your opening post so there's no need to convince me. But if you did want to post sources in other languages you can do so without breaking the rules. Like Chagos ive done this a numer of times and gotten away with it.
 
Auvergnat said:
SO not only I have to provide tens of sources, I also have to translate them?
Click to expand...


Ignore the silly demands for 'sources' mon ami. Let them do their own research. But in any case they will believe whatever suits their predjudices regardless of evidence.
 
Sweden said:
Ignore the silly demands for 'sources' mon ami. Let them do their own research.
Click to expand...
That actually shows what misconceptions over the nature of debate you fall prey to.

However.......
But in any case they will believe whatever suits their predjudices regardless of evidence.
Click to expand...
.................this is indeed usually true.

With you as much as with me as with everybody else. :mrgreen:
 
Auvergnat said:
SO not only I have to provide tens of sources, I also have to translate them?
Click to expand...
Yeah, sometimes one has to work.

Of course you could always simply state that you feel your claim to be true and that any subsequent conclusions drawn by you are just the way you "feel" about the claim contents. IOW opinion as opposed to factuality isn't really a problem or certainly shouldn't be.
 
Red_Dave said:
Well the distance from France to Morocco is 2, 290.5 KM, compare that to San Diego to New York (4,442.5 km) and thats really not to far. Not to mention the reliance France (and Europe in general) has on North Africa for raw materials, hence France's history of pillaging it.

And all of this begs the question, why would anyone object to their children learning anything? seems like a pretty screwed up set of priorities. Especially when it comes to a language spoken by 4.23% of the worlds population with a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources. If these kids leave school speaking French, English and Arabic all they need is Spanish and the world is pretty much their oyster.

On the integration front, surely if the goal is to prevent ghettoisation then its better that children in school can communicate and interact with each other be in French, Arabic or Swahili?
Click to expand...

We certainly don't want any San Diego refugees in New York and the new yorkers in the Bronx learning English.
;)

But you are right that learnig is apriori good. And Arabic seems to be easy....
 
Sweden said:
These are not 'extraordinary claims' but everyday facts Phys251. What is or is not 'gonna' happen in Georgia is of no importance.
Click to expand...

Beautiful deflection. Now can you actually address my concerns and actually provide some reasonable sources to validate the baseless OP?
 
Phys251 said:
Beautiful deflection. Now can you actually address my concerns and actually provide some reasonable sources to validate the baseless OP?
Click to expand...

It is up to you to show the OP is 'baseless'. You are the one questioning a plain statement of fact not me - your 'concerns' are entirely invenereal, as one of my old shipmates used to say.
 
Sweden said:
It is up to you to show the OP is 'baseless'. You are the one questioning a plain statement of fact not me - your 'concerns' are entirely invenereal, as one of my old shipmates used to say.
Click to expand...

The OP is playing the Russell's teapot game. It makes some extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence yet has offered none so far.

The ball is in your court.
 
Phys251 said:
The OP is playing the Russell's teapot game. It makes some extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence yet has offered none so far.
Click to expand...
Look, here is the deal: tell me the one statement you find the most extravagant and I will try to find you an English source.

Because those statements are not extravagant at all for anyone familiar with France or continental Europe.
 
Auvergnat said:
Look, here is the deal: tell me the one statement you find the most extravagant and I will try to find you an English source...........................~
Click to expand...
So now we condescend to at least negotiate debating parameters and rules.

Talk about a squirming fit.

Haysoos :roll:
 
Auvergnat said:
Look, here is the deal: tell me the one statement you find the most extravagant and I will try to find you an English source.

Because those statements are not extravagant at all for anyone familiar with France or continental Europe.
Click to expand...

As referenced in my last post, I will play that little game as soon as you disprove the existence of Russell's teapot. And not a minute prior.

That or actually post some reasonably sources to back up your ridiculous OP.
 
Chagos said:
So now we condescend to at least negotiate debating parameters and rules.
Talk about a squirming fit.
Haysoos :roll:
Click to expand...
More silly Piling on. Why doesn't anyone spend a minute just googling?


Phys251 said:
The OP is playing the Russell's teapot game. It makes some extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence yet has offered none so far.
The ball is in your court.
Click to expand...
The Ball is in the court of Anyone who takes the initiative to refute or affirm his claims, Yes, including Him.
Frankly, when I see this incredible Laziness, I'm always astonished.
It's so easy to, ie, refute someone.
Don't you prefer that to just ragging? I do!
ie, Auvergnat's First Claim: "apology for terrorism" appears Correct.

Here's how France is cracking down on Internet free speech | The Daily Dot

Worldwide support prompted by the horrific attack on the gleefully irreverent French newspaper Charlie Hebdo was supposed to reinforce the notion that France is one of the world's safest havens for free speech.

But mere days after a historically massive demonstration affirming the inalienable right to freedom of expression, French National Police arrested more than 70 people for Facebook and Twitter posts in a sweeping crackdown marking the first test of a new anti-terrorism law.

"We've had more charges for condoning terrorism in three days than in the past 20 years," wrote Pierre Januel, a deputy assistant to the Justice Commission of the French Green Party, on Twitter.

"Don't Share, Don't Like, Don't Retweet: Report on PHAROS."
Launched in November, and relying on an official website where users can anonymously report “illicit content or behavior” to the police, PHAROS is part of a radical expansion of anti-terrorism laws that add severe penalties for the crime of “apologie du terrorisme,” or “condoning terrorism.”

Two days after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve announced that people had submitted at least 3,721 reports through PHAROS.
Back in October, in a fear-pitched tenor, Cazeneuve had championed the law as vital to abating the danger posed by militant jihadist propaganda on the Internnet..
[....]​

I don't feel it's on me to go through all his items, but that wasn't too tough. You guys could have gone another few pages of Burden-Shifting with No one checking anything. And his OP claims look far too detailed to me to be fabricated.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
More silly Piling on. Why doesn't anyone spend a minute just googling?


The Ball is in the court of Anyone who takes the initiative to refute or affirm his claims, Yes, including Him.
Frankly, when I see this incredible Laziness, I'm always astonished.
It's so easy to, ie, refute someone.
Don't you prefer that to just ragging? I do!
ie, Auvergnat's First Claim: "apology for terrorism" appears Correct.

Here's how France is cracking down on Internet free speech | The Daily Dot

Worldwide support prompted by the horrific attack on the gleefully irreverent French newspaper Charlie Hebdo was supposed to reinforce the notion that France is one of the world's safest havens for free speech.

But mere days after a historically massive demonstration affirming the inalienable right to freedom of expression, French National Police arrested more than 70 people for Facebook and Twitter posts in a sweeping crackdown marking the first test of a new anti-terrorism law.

"We've had more charges for condoning terrorism in three days than in the past 20 years," wrote Pierre Januel, a deputy assistant to the Justice Commission of the French Green Party, on Twitter.

"Don't Share, Don't Like, Don't Retweet: Report on PHAROS."
Launched in November, and relying on an official website where users can anonymously report “illicit content or behavior” to the police, PHAROS is part of a radical expansion of anti-terrorism laws that add severe penalties for the crime of “apologie du terrorisme,” or “condoning terrorism.”

Two days after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve announced that people had submitted at least 3,721 reports through PHAROS.
Back in October, in a fear-pitched tenor, Cazeneuve had championed the law as vital to abating the danger posed by militant jihadist propaganda on the Internnet..
[....]​

I don't feel it's on me to go through all his items, but that wasn't too tough. You guys could have gone another few pages of Burden-Shifting with No one checking anything. And his OP claims look far too detailed to me to be fabricated.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the burden was NOT on the OP, but instead those of us who were simply questioning it and asking for legitimate sources? Am I hearing this right?
 
Phys251 said:
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the burden was NOT on the OP, but instead those of us who were simply questioning it and asking for legitimate sources? Am I hearing this right?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: I suggested it was up to anyone who had the desire to check it in under a minute, "Yes Including him"/the OP.

Yes, we have been on the same side in many God/Teapot arguments, as the burden is on those who make the Positive claim, ie, god. We've both had hundreds of posts on that front and understand the Burden.
But this is not quite the same, as in this case as the Negative might have been provable. Not so with god.
So again, I'm always anxious to refute opponents if something looks wrong to me. Nothing better on a mb.
 
mbig said:
Just to be clear: I suggested it was up to anyone who had the desire to check it in under a minute, "Yes Including him"/the OP.

Yes, we have been on the same side in many God/Teapot arguments, as the burden is on those who make the Positive claim, ie, god. We've both had hundreds of posts on that front and understand the Burden.
But this is not quite the same, as in this case as the Negative might have been provable. Not so with god.
So again, I'm always anxious to refute opponents if something looks wrong to me. Nothing better on a mb.
Click to expand...

Now you are contradicting yourself. You just stated an opinion that "both sides" of the Russell's teapot "debate" have equal burdens of proof.

You cannot even begin to argue in favor of positions such as the OP's if you do not correct this blunder.
 
Phys251 said:
Now you are contradicting yourself. You just stated an opinion that "both sides" of the Russell's teapot "debate" have equal burdens of proof.

You cannot even begin to argue in favor of positions such as the OP's if you do not correct this blunder.
Click to expand...
Is there even any evidence that Russell ever drank tea?:mrgreen:

Yeah, yeah, I know. A total non sequitur but with the current propensity for flushing logic down the loo, I'm hoping it will go unnoticed.;)
 
Phys251 said:
Now you are contradicting yourself. You just stated an opinion that "both sides" of the Russell's teapot "debate" have equal burdens of proof.
You cannot even begin to argue in favor of positions such as the OP's if you do not correct this blunder.
Click to expand...
No that's not remotely what I said.
I distinguished between this debate, where it's possible To Falsify, and the god debate, where it isn't!
Big difference!
As did Russell.... who used, indeed created, the 'teapot' for the god/religion/theological context.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Oh, and let's not forget the MEAT: in my last (#38), I also showed that Auvergnat was CORRECT in his first assertion at least. The only one I checked. That debate now seems Over.
 
Last edited:
Chagos said:
Is there even any evidence that Russell ever drank tea?:mrgreen:

Yeah, yeah, I know. A total non sequitur but with the current propensity for flushing logic down the loo, I'm hoping it will go unnoticed.;)
Click to expand...

Prove that he didn't. Otherwise, I'm right, he did. ;)
 
mbig said:
No that's not remotely what I said.
I distinguished between this debate, where it's possible To Falsify, and the god debate, where it isn't!
Big difference!
As did Russell.... who used, indeed created, the 'teapot' for the god/religion/theological context.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Oh, and let's not forget the MEAT: in my last (#38), I also showed that Auvergnat was CORRECT in his first assertion at least. The only one I checked. That debate now seems Over.
Click to expand...

You posted an opinion piece from one source. Try again. Otherwise, Russell's teapot is out there flying in outer space, because I said so and you can't prove otherwise.
 
Phys251 said:
You posted an opinion piece from one source. Try again. Otherwise, Russell's teapot is out there flying in outer space, because I said so and you can't prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Again.

mbig said:
...I distinguished between this debate, where it's possible To Falsify, and the god debate, where it isn't!
Big difference!
As did Russell.... who used, indeed created, the 'teapot' for the god/religion/theological context.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot.

Oh, and let's not forget the MEAT: in my last (#38), I also showed that Auvergnat was CORRECT in his first assertion at least. The only one I checked. That debate now seems Over.
Click to expand...
Now, having Lost the debate, and Not even been able to argue how you Misused Russell because this case IS falsifiable...
you Fallaciously try and put More Burden on me. (!) Now I need several sources, and you still none.
One has to be semantically clever enough for that attempted chicanery.

Of course, it's no problem for me in any case. But as Auverngnat said, it's much more difficult in English, so I used that source which had the French term, but English text.
But this isn't exactly rocket science in it's original lingo.
Take your pick!
“apologie du terrorisme,”
https://www.google.com/search?q=“ap...,”&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Google auto 'translates' the page into English for me, an English user.

b-bye.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom