General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

A T
The Alternative View
comments

Comments by "A T" (@AT-bq1kg) on "The Alternative View" channel.

Ireland were treated badly yesterday but they have managed to recover economically whereas the Carribbean not so much. But it's true that colonialism wasn't the only contributing factor
9
Yes, the reparations were paid to the slave owners when the UK passed the slavery abolition act in 1833. You should really catch up on history! 😂
6
@jamesavery2 But the cheap labour conspiracy isn't compatible with the cashless society conspiracy 😂 which one is it?
4
Are you a lawyer? 😂
3
@newton18311 Yes it was. In 2015
3
Most people's second language is English. So it makes sense to come here. Secondly the acceptance rate in France varies from 25% to 40%. That crossing is not easy, why would they risk their lives to get here if all they needed to do is stop in France. It makes no sense. 70-80% of small boat crossings when processed turn out to be genuine asylum cases. Lastly, the fallacy present in the claim that asylum seekers are illegal economic migrants because most of them are males of fighting age is known as the "hasty generalization fallacy". This fallacy occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or selective evidence. In this case, the assumption that being a male of fighting age directly correlates with being an economic migrant rather than a legitimate asylum seeker overlooks the individual circumstances of each person. Many asylum seekers are fleeing persecution, violence, or conflict in their home countries, and gender or age alone does not determine the validity of their asylum claims. This reasoning simplifies a complex issue and ignores the broader context of why individuals seek asylum.
3
The fallacy that often occurs when someone labels another person as a "Marxist" in a debate, particularly in a dismissive or accusatory manner, is known as the "straw man fallacy." This fallacy involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying the opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute. By labeling someone as a Marxist, the commentator may be attempting to paint the individual as extreme or radical without engaging with their actual arguments or positions. This tactic diverts attention from the substantive issues being discussed and can serve to polarize the debate rather than foster constructive dialogue. Additionally, this approach can also illustrate a form of "guilt by association," where the accused is linked to a negative connotation of Marxism without a fair assessment of their beliefs or arguments.
2
Labeling someone as a "Marxist" in a debate can be considered intellectually dishonest for several reasons: 1. Misrepresentation of Ideas: It often involves mischaracterizing the person's views. Instead of accurately representing their arguments or beliefs, the accuser simplifies or distorts them to fit a negative stereotype associated with Marxism. This prevents a fair and honest discussion of the actual points being made. 2. Avoidance of Substantive Argument: By resorting to name-calling or labeling, the commentator may evade engaging with the real issues at hand. This tactic shifts the focus from the argument's merit to a personal attack, undermining the quality of the debate. 3. Polarization: Such labeling can contribute to an "us versus them" mentality, fostering division rather than understanding. It can alienate audiences and discourage nuanced discussion, which is essential for intellectual discourse. 4. Appeal to Emotion: Calling someone a "Marxist" can evoke strong emotional responses based on preconceived notions or fears about communism or socialism. This emotional manipulation detracts from rational debate and can lead to a breakdown in constructive dialogue. 5. Lack of Nuance: Political and economic ideologies are often complex, and reducing someone's beliefs to a single label fails to acknowledge the nuances in their views. Intellectual honesty requires recognizing and engaging with this complexity. Overall, such tactics undermine the integrity of the debate and hinder the pursuit of truth and understanding.
2
@davidpollard1139 And your point is?
2
@Maccaboy1984 Like I said, I don't know anything about it.
2
@stue2298 I disagree. Haiti (a French colony) was the first government to abolish slavery in 1804. In Europe the Danish West India Company banned the importation of slaves in 1803. The British passed the slave trade act in 1807 and abolished slavery entirely over the empire by 1833. At the same time there was also a movement in the United States. It was more of a collective movement rather than simply "British values" that made up the abolitionist movement across the globe.
2
Just contuing shouting over someone is a sign of low intelligence
2
@bettyswunghole3310 It doesn't work like that. We live in the greatest country in the world, with the greatest justice system in the world, if you commit a crime it's your fault, nobody else's.
2
@labouraredangerous Every single country in the world have strict and specific laws prohibiting incitement to violence The only countries who's laws are vague are Somalia Yemen Libiya South Sudan
2
@offthecuff7. The fallacy in this situation is known as the Ad Hominem Fallacy, specifically a type called Tu Quoque (or "you too"). This fallacy occurs when someone responds to an argument or criticism by attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. In this case, the critic is implying that the activist's position on asylum seekers is hypocritical because they are not personally taking asylum seekers into their home. Instead of engaging with the activist's arguments or beliefs about asylum, the critic is focusing on the activist's actions (or perceived lack thereof) to discredit their stance. This does not provide a valid counterargument to the activist's views on asylum policies or the treatment of asylum seekers.
2
@j606ywt Sorry did you ask what relevance is Frances acceptance rate to us? 😂 That's so obvious that I didn't feel the need to mention it as I would have insulted the readers intelligence. But if you must know it's relevant because not all asylum seekers applications are granted in France so they try the UK
2
Who's built the infrastructure for the B.E? Free of charge. Think now ...
1
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
1
 @BDKool Yes let's get rid of all dissenting voices so that only an echo chamber remains. 😂
1
@BDKool No. But why are you encouraging people with different points of view to go elsewhere? That kind of behaviour results in echo chambers.
1
@BDKool I'm simply seeing lots of instances of people with different perspectives being discouraged to debate. There doesn't seem to be much genuine truth seeking going on, just an echo chamber
1
@BDKool you said "you not find a better channel to watch?" That's actually not very helpful language and it very much communicates that you're not interested in allowing a diversity of opinions on here. The original comment was not genuine either so I wondered why you even responded? Was it to send a message to all dissenters maybe?
1
We should never ever ever leave the ECHR
1
 @thevoid6818 Yes. It's called national socialism 😂
1
 @thevoid6818 Because not all forms of socislism are left wing. It's really is that simple 😂
1
When someone resorts to labeling others as "Marxists" or using similar labels during a debate, it can suggest several things about that individual: 1. Lack of Engagement with Ideas: It may indicate that the person is more interested in winning the argument than in genuinely engaging with the ideas being discussed. This suggests a superficial understanding of the topic. 2. Polarized Thinking: Such labeling can reflect a black-and-white worldview, where complex issues are oversimplified into categories of "good" and "bad." This mindset can limit their ability to appreciate diverse perspectives. 3. Emotional Reactivity: It may reveal that the individual is responding emotionally rather than rationally. This can suggest a fear or strong opposition to ideas associated with Marxism, which may cloud their judgment. 4. Desire for Control: Using labels can be a way to assert dominance in a conversation. It allows the person to frame the debate on their terms, potentially stifling opposing viewpoints and maintaining control over the narrative. 5. Resistance to Complexity: It can indicate a reluctance to engage with the complexities of political and economic ideologies. This resistance can prevent meaningful dialogue and understanding of different viewpoints. 6. Potential Insecurity: Sometimes, resorting to name-calling or labeling can stem from insecurity about one's own beliefs. By attacking others, the individual may be trying to bolster their position rather than strengthening it through reasoned argument. Overall, such behavior can reflect a tendency toward intellectual dishonesty, a lack of critical thinking skills, or an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
1
@martinluckybramah The point is not to take sides, it's to understand what is illogical about a debate.
1
@thequagmire7882 You don't understand what is going on. This is not about depriving genuine farmers, it's about taxing the elites who are using the purchase of farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax. Be careful of grifters who use this as a way to justify their hate for labour
1
@snakeman9902 The point of the information I share is so you can develop awareness of how you're being used. Yes naturally we all fall on a side, I fall on the left side, but I don't believe everything everyone on the left says, there is half as much bs on that side as the other side.
1
@snakeman9902 It's not about looking at both sides of the argument. It's about educating oneself in logical thinking. This is not something that comes naturally to humans, we need to learn it
1
@snakeman9902 The statement contains a few potential fallacies that can be identified: 1. Ad Hominem: The opening comment suggests a bias against the other person's political stance ("You fall on the left? Shocker.."), which can detract from the argument by attacking the person rather than addressing their points. 2. Straw Man: The phrase "Thanks for your education on awareness" implies that the other party is being condescending or overly preachy, which might misrepresent their actual argument. This can divert from the original issue being discussed. 3. False Dilemma: The assertion that "most others do" make up their minds after considering both sides could imply that there are only two options (agreeing or disagreeing) without acknowledging the complexity of people's opinions. 4. Appeal to Emotion: The statement emphasizes respect for differing opinions, which can be a way to appeal to emotions rather than focusing on rational argumentation. 5. Ambiguity: The phrase "certain guests do deserve to be questioned" is vague and could lead to varied interpretations about who qualifies as a "certain guest" and what criteria are used for questioning.
1
@thequagmire7882 It's not about food. It's about getting the people who are holding you back, the people who are actually responsible for your lack of public services to contribute their fair share. Who owns all the farmland in the UK? It ain't genuine farmers
1
@snakeman9902 Forget about your opinion. What about the capacity to analyse? What is it about people and their obsession with their opinions? Opinions make people stupid
1
@snakeman9902 The logical limits of the human mind without critical thinking skills can be quite significant. Here are some key points to consider: 1. Cognitive Biases: Without critical thinking, individuals are more likely to fall prey to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, where they only seek out information that reinforces their existing beliefs. This can lead to a distorted understanding of reality. 2. Superficial Understanding: Lacking critical thinking skills can result in a shallow grasp of complex concepts. Individuals may accept information at face value without analyzing its validity, leading to misconceptions. 3. Difficulty in Problem-Solving: Without the ability to critically analyze a situation, people may struggle to identify effective solutions to problems. This can result in poor decision-making and ineffective responses to challenges. 4. Emotional Reasoning: Individuals may rely heavily on emotions rather than logic when forming opinions or making decisions. This can lead to irrational conclusions and actions based on feelings rather than facts. 5. Resistance to Change: Without critical thinking, people may be less open to changing their views or adapting to new information. This rigidity can hinder personal growth and learning. 6. Misinterpretation of Information: Critical thinking is essential for evaluating the credibility of sources and understanding the context of information. Without it, individuals may misinterpret data or fall for misinformation. 7. Limited Perspective: A lack of critical thinking can lead to an inability to see issues from multiple viewpoints. This narrow perspective can stifle creativity and innovation, as individuals may not consider alternative solutions. 8. Failure to Question Assumptions: Individuals without critical thinking skills may accept assumptions uncritically, leading to flawed reasoning and conclusions. This can perpetuate stereotypes or unfounded beliefs.
1
@snakeman9902 Critical thinking is primarily a learned skill that can be developed and enhanced over time. Here are some key points about how critical thinking is acquired: 1. Education and Training: Formal education often includes components that teach critical thinking. Courses in philosophy, logic, science, and social studies encourage students to analyze arguments, evaluate evidence, and consider different perspectives. 2. Practice and Experience: Critical thinking improves with practice. Engaging in discussions, debates, and problem-solving exercises helps individuals refine their analytical skills and learn to approach issues more critically. 3. Reflection: Taking the time to reflect on one’s own thought processes and decisions can enhance critical thinking. This involves questioning one's assumptions, biases, and reasoning patterns. 4. Exposure to Diverse Perspectives: Interacting with people from different backgrounds and viewpoints can challenge existing beliefs and encourage open-mindedness. This exposure fosters critical evaluation of ideas and arguments. 5. Mentorship and Guidance: Learning from mentors, teachers, or experienced individuals can provide valuable insights into effective critical thinking strategies. Feedback on reasoning and analysis helps individuals improve their skills. 6. Problem-Solving Techniques: Learning specific problem-solving methods, such as the scientific method or structured decision-making frameworks, can provide tools for approaching complex issues critically. 7. Continuous Learning: Critical thinking is not a one-time achievement; it requires ongoing effort and a willingness to learn. Staying informed about new developments in various fields can enhance analytical abilities. In summary, while some individuals may have a natural inclination toward critical thinking, it is largely a skill that can be cultivated through education, practice, and experience. Developing critical thinking is an important investment in personal and professional growth.
1
@snakeman9902 Have we spoke before?
1
@Liberty-Jamie Far right is a legitimate label. Marxist isn't. This person is not a Marxist.
1
@snakeman9902 1. Far right is not a word. It is a term 2. So because it's been overused means it's useless as a description? Is this your idea of critical thinking?
1
@snakeman9902 The statement contains several potential logical fallacies: 1. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "Far Right" is the most overused word may not be supported by sufficient evidence. It generalizes based on personal experience without accounting for broader contexts or examples. 2. Straw Man: By framing "Far Right" as a "bogeyman," the speaker may be misrepresenting the arguments or beliefs of those who use the term negatively, rather than addressing the actual concerns of those individuals. 3. False Dichotomy: The distinction between "Far Right" and other political labels (like Marxist) suggests a binary choice, implying that one is legitimate while the other is not. This oversimplifies a more complex political landscape with various ideologies. 4. Appeal to Emotion: The use of terms like "bogeyman" evokes an emotional response and may distract from a rational discussion about the merits or flaws of far-right ideologies. 5. Ad Hominem: If the statement implies that critics of the far right are using the label merely to instill fear, it could be seen as attacking the motives of those individuals rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. 6. Slippery Slope: The suggestion that the label "Far Right" is used for a specific reason could imply that labeling leads to further negative consequences without fully explaining or providing evidence for that claim.
1
@snakeman9902 No, I don't have an alternative account
1
@snakeman9902 You don't understand far right ideologies. There are many of them. Marxism is one narrow far left ideology, so if you use it to describe someone you better make sure you know what you're talking about
1
@snakeman9902 Starmer is centre left/progressive. His politics have nothing to do with Marxism
1
@snakeman9902 This is what I mean. You're demonstrating my point beautifully. You need to adopt a spirit of accuracy and honesty and learning facts. Don't leave it upto your natural mind to "analyse", instead learn the tools of analysing and then apply them to yourself so that you discover what is true. You're regurgitating bits and bobs of some of the right and far right tropes you're hearing from political commentators on YouTube . I even saw some of Matt Goodwin in there with his silly appraisal of the far right. Do your own research. Research is not about repeating what you hear in a far right echo chamber.
1
@snakeman9902 Regurgitating bits of Matt Goodwin and David Starkey is not an argument
1
@snakeman9902 If you use inflammatory words on YouTube or sequences your comments get banned. Mine too. It's not a great platform for debate I agree
1
@snakeman9902 I can only deflect if you make an actual argument. Just making baseless assertions without any reasoning and or even evidence to support it is not an argument
1
@snakeman9902 It's interesting that you say "who is Matt Goodwin?" This points to the nature of echo chambers. You have adopted a trope that is being used by the far right and you didn't even know where it came from. It originally came from Matt Goodwin.
1
@snakeman9902 You are regurgitating far right tropes. There is a far right, it has been studied in depth since ww2
1
@snakeman9902 Correct, not everything that the far right believe in is wrong. Nobody with any capacity to reason is saying that. Why do you think that far right = "wrong"?
1
@snakeman9902 When the label "far right" is used it's not used to describe your identity. You need to understand that ok? It's not personal. It's a way to describe a set of ideologies that some people live under
1
@snakeman9902 I don't have an opinion on far right, I have facts.
1
@snakeman9902 It's ok to have an opinion, you can't be human without forming an opinion about something. What I was getting at is relying solely on opinion and natural way of thinking creates stupidity
1
@snakeman9902 What do you mean "why does it differ so much from person to person"? The definition of the far right? I don't think it does. Most of the people who use the far right to describe are using it more or less correctly. Some are not aware of the cognitive aspect but can Intuit far right anyway.
1
@snakeman9902 The far right is a political ideology that typically emphasizes extreme nationalist, conservative, and often authoritarian views. Here are some key characteristics commonly associated with far-right movements: 1. Nationalism: A strong emphasis on national identity and sovereignty, often advocating for policies that prioritize the interests of the nation over global cooperation. 2. Anti-Immigration Sentiment: Far-right groups often promote strict immigration controls and may express hostility towards immigrants, viewing them as a threat to national culture and security. 3. Authoritarianism: A tendency to favor strong, centralized leadership and governance, sometimes advocating for a reduction in democratic norms and institutions. 4. Traditionalism: A focus on preserving traditional social values and norms, often opposing progressive changes related to gender, sexuality, and family structures. 5. Populism: Many far-right movements adopt populist rhetoric, positioning themselves as champions of the "common people" against perceived corrupt elites. 6. Xenophobia and Racism: Some far-right groups may espouse xenophobic or racist beliefs, promoting the idea that certain racial or ethnic groups are superior to others. 7. Conspiracy Theories: Far-right movements can be associated with a tendency to promote conspiracy theories, particularly those that frame certain groups (like immigrants or minorities) as threats to society. 8. Rejection of Multiculturalism: A belief in cultural homogeneity and a rejection of multicultural policies, which are seen as diluting national identity. It's important to recognize that the far right can manifest differently in various regions and contexts, with some groups focusing on specific issues like economic nationalism, while others may emphasize cultural or racial elements.
1
@snakeman9902 The far right refers to a political ideology that typically emphasizes strong nationalist and conservative views, often leaning towards authoritarian governance. Here are some common characteristics associated with far-right movements: 1. National Pride: A focus on national identity and sovereignty, advocating for policies that prioritize national interests over global cooperation. 2. Immigration Control: Many far-right groups support strict immigration policies and may express concerns about the impact of immigration on national culture and security. 3. Centralized Leadership: A preference for strong leadership and governance, which can sometimes include advocating for reduced democratic norms and institutions. 4. Preservation of Traditions: An emphasis on maintaining traditional social values and norms, often resisting progressive changes related to gender roles, sexuality, and family structures. 5. Populist Messaging: Far-right movements often position themselves as representatives of the "ordinary people," opposing perceived corruption among political elites. 6. Concerns About Diversity: Some far-right groups may express apprehension regarding multiculturalism, advocating for a more homogenous culture. 7. Conspiracy Theories: These movements may promote conspiracy theories that suggest certain groups (like immigrants or minorities) pose a threat to society. 8. Cultural Cohesion: A belief in the importance of cultural unity, often rejecting policies that promote diversity as a dilution of national identity. It's important to note that far-right ideologies can vary widely across different regions and contexts, with some groups focusing on economic issues while others emphasize cultural or social concerns.
1
@snakeman9902 The way you speak betrays that you're on the far right. You're not using logic or reason to regulate your own thinking. I have tried to post descriptions from the social sciences journals of the far right but they get shadow banned. Maybe if you have email notifications from YouTube it will appear there? Shadow banned comments don't actually get deleted they are right there embedded in the thread, and you can find them if you go to delete historical comments. You can see your own via that window, it's just others can't see them. Try your email inbox and see if my comments are there. Respond to them here.
1
@snakeman9902 The comment contains several problematic and illogical elements: 1. Ambiguity: The phrase "which is???" is unclear and lacks context. Without specifying what "which" refers to, it creates confusion and makes it difficult to engage in a constructive dialogue. 2. Argument from Experience: The assertion that having "more debates with lefties" somehow validates the speaker's position is an example of an argument from personal experience. Just because someone has debated more does not necessarily mean they have a better understanding of the topic or that their views are correct. 3. Dismissal of Counterarguments: The comment implies that the other person is unable to articulate their position ("you can't tell me what it means"), which dismisses the possibility that the other person may have valid points or a different interpretation worth considering. 4. Lack of Clarity: The phrase "see my point?" suggests that the speaker believes their argument is self-evident, but without clear reasoning or evidence, it does not effectively communicate their perspective. 5. Assumption of Superiority: The use of "my friend" can come off as condescending, implying that the speaker believes they are more knowledgeable or experienced than the person they are addressing, which may hinder open dialogue. Overall, the comment lacks clarity and logical structure, making it difficult to engage in a meaningful discussion.
1
@snakeman9902 Look at your email notifications from YouTube. You might find them there as I'm being shadow banned. Even "lefties" get banned
1
@snakeman9902 Just saying "I've had more debates than you" is not an argument.
1
@snakeman9902 It's not a case of won't, it's a case of it won't display on here. Check your email notifications
1
@snakeman9902 No it's not an argument. It's a simple unsubstantiated statement. Yes you have debated more people than me. So what? And how do you even know that anyway? 😂
1
@snakeman9902 In the reply you've shared, several logical fallacies can be identified: 1. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "lefties tend to agree with most things" is a sweeping generalization that doesn't account for the diversity of opinions within left-leaning ideologies. Not all individuals on the left will agree, and this overlooks the complexity of political beliefs. 2. Ad Hominem: While not explicitly directed at an individual, the phrase "my good, gentleman self" could imply a superiority complex, suggesting that the speaker holds a more refined or valid perspective compared to others without providing substantive evidence. 3. False Dichotomy: The argument seems to present a binary view of political discourse, implying that one side is more agreeable while the other is contentious. This oversimplification ignores the spectrum of political beliefs and the possibility of constructive debates across the spectrum. 4. Appeal to Authority: The statement "I've had more debates with lefties than you" assumes that personal experience equates to authority on the subject, which may not necessarily be true. Quantity of debate does not guarantee quality or depth of understanding. 5. Straw Man: If the original argument made by the other party was more nuanced, reducing their position to "lefties tend to agree" could misrepresent their views and make them easier to refute. These fallacies can undermine the strength of the argument and detract from productive dialogue.
1
@snakeman9902 I think you need a basic education first. Argument is a set of statements or reasons that support a particular claim or a conclusion. When I say "argument" I don't mean as in a married couple having an argument. In order to have a meaningful discussion you must first have a grounding in logic and debate. I don't see that with you.
1
@snakeman9902 Can I ask you a personal question? This is not related to our debate. Did you take your education past high school?
1
@snakeman9902 May I ask what you studied?
1
@snakeman9902 What do you think of Jungs Archetypes? Just give me a quick summary of what he did for modern psychology
1
@snakeman9902 Frustrating isn't it? Have I accused you of not knowing anything about Jung? I could use this as an opportunity to frame you as dishonest. But I don't.
1
@snakeman9902 Framing in a debate refers to the way in which a particular issue, argument, or topic is presented and contextualized. It involves emphasizing certain aspects while downplaying or ignoring others, effectively shaping the audience's perception and interpretation of the subject matter. Framing can influence the emotional response and understanding of the audience, guiding them toward a specific viewpoint. Here are a few reasons why framing can be seen as intellectually dishonest: 1. Selective Emphasis: By highlighting certain facts or perspectives while omitting others, framing can create a skewed understanding of the issue. This selective emphasis can mislead the audience and distort the truth. 2. Manipulation of Language: The choice of words can significantly impact how an argument is received. For instance, referring to a “tax increase” versus a “revenue enhancement” can evoke different emotional responses. Such manipulation can create a false dichotomy or oversimplify complex issues. 3. Avoidance of Nuance: Framing often simplifies complex topics into binary choices (e.g., good vs. bad), which can ignore the multifaceted nature of most issues. This oversimplification can prevent a thorough understanding and discourage critical thinking. 4. Shaping Perceptions: Framing can lead to bias in how information is interpreted. It can create in-group vs. out-group dynamics, where one side is portrayed as virtuous while the other is vilified, undermining constructive dialogue. 5. Intellectual Dishonesty: When debaters intentionally use framing to mislead or manipulate the audience rather than presenting a fair and balanced view of the arguments, it can be considered intellectually dishonest. It detracts from genuine discourse and the pursuit of truth. Overall, while framing is a common rhetorical strategy, it becomes problematic when it is used to deceive or manipulate rather than to clarify and engage in honest debate.
1
@snakeman9902 I could not, because it's irrational and intellectually dishonest to frame someone as not knowing anything about a subject via a restrictive discussion such as one ok the YouTube comments section
1
@RichardFordham Yes and the deterrent worked, didn't it? That was the best bit of riot management I've ever seen. If you had your property smashed up or burned you would probably be signing from a different hymn sheet.
1
@kennyharris2407 Even if a building wasn't at all damaged telling someone to damage it is a crime. It's really that simple
1
No it isn't. Judges have always made decisions that reflect and reinforce the principles and norms of society. We live in a diverse multicultural country and hardly anyone has an issue with that. He is right when he says there is a small minority who will use this as an excuse for violence. You can read it in the comments section on this channel
1
@sidgibson5414 Unless you're an expert in law and have lots of reliable information and insight into these cases I'd keep my opinions to myself. You have a right to voice them of course, but if you want to be taken seriously then I'd mind my own business and let qualified experts decide whether or not there is two tier justice system. Black belt barrister is one such expert and he says there is no such a thing as 2 tier justice.
1
@sidgibson5414 Black belt barrister also said that the judge upheld the law correctly. It's not really your place to comment on the perceived unfairness of the situation, there are always aspects to a situation that you don't understand and that other more qualified people can explain and make a case for. All you have is an opinion, social media and a bias to maintain. At the very least become aware of how little you do actually know about any of this
1
@sidgibson5414 As far as I'm aware the difference is the context. As the judge in the video pointed out.
1
@sidgibson5414 Can you tell me what Nick Knowles said please or point me to a good source so I can read it for myself. I know who Jones is, he's been arrested and released to be trailed at a later date. It's clear that he never needed to be put on remand because his actions didn't incite criminal behaviour during a riot. This woman's actions were clearly inciteful, hateful, stirring up racial hatred. Jones' comment was not made in the context of riots happening and his comment wasn't racially aggravated. I think that's what I took from the whole scenario. But don't take my word for it, if you really want to analyse it then you either need to go get the education yourself or leave it to criminal law experts. It's not upto you to cast your option on this as if it matters because your opinion is not informed.
1
@sidgibson5414 But you just said that nobody (including yourself) that the judge has not upheld the law here. But now you seem to be suggesting that you doubt that her post led to any violence whatsoever. So what exactly did the judge sentence her for? I don't have any information on Jones' trail because it hasn't happened yet. So I cannot compare the two. I have no information about the other incident you mentioned so I cannot comment on that really because I have zero information on it. All I can tell you is what the experts have told me. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's not your or my place to pick apart the criminal justice system. Our job is to correct misinformation as much as we possibly can. You are punching above your weight here pretending to be someone who is capable of figuring out if there is such a thing as two tier justice or not. It's like a chef trying to judge championship tennis player on their performance 😂 it's just absurd. As far as I can tell if there are riots and people contribute to rioting or violent disorder in any way then a judge can come down hard on them as a deterrent. As far as I can tell the Jones case wasn't in the context of a riot. It was incitement for sure, but the issue is less urgent than an immediate riot. The judge explains his justification in the video. You need to listen to what he's saying and factor that in and you will see what I see.
1
@sidgibson5414 Let me ask you a simple question. Is it reasonable to wait a year to sentence people to prison for their involvement in a riot as a way to deter others from joining the rioting? It's as simple as that my friend. Pretty obvious common sense justice
1
@sidgibson5414 One other thing that's worth mentioning here. Alternative View seems to think that diversity and inclusion is just a matter of opinion and that this judge merely has "diversity and inclusion beliefs". I think this points to some of the problem the far right have. Diversity and inclusion is in law now. It's not an "opinion" of some "woke judge" here, it's how our society is now structured. I think Alternative view like many others on the far right just aren't aware of what kind of society we have in 2024. I think he and others on the far right still think they are living in the 80's. Times have changed, just because a judge uses the words diversity and inclusion doesn't mean he is parroting some fringe left wing ideology, he's telling you what British society actually IS
1
@ycymrobach9012 I'm just asking because I want to ask one of you a question about law, seeing as you're all experts on what counts as treason / immigration / rioting laws/ etc etc..maybe you can help me out with my divorce case? 😂
1
@ycymrobach9012 No I'm deadly serious about this. I'd like to tap your knowledge on law. I asked a black cab driver last week because when I was taking a trip in his cab he came across as if he knew everything there is to know about all the complexities of the law. So I thought I'd come here and ask the creme de la creme of the professional brick laying world their honest informed opinion about divorce law. 😂 I noticed half of you can't even spell correctly so I thought I would not get better legal advice anywhere else
1
@juliemaddern LMAO 😂
1
Do you know what "proof" actually is? I don't think you do.
1
@Maccaboy1984 I think the reparations argument is centred mostly around the negative impact the B.E made on the Carribbean through their participation in the yes global slave trade. It was normal practice to have slaves, since the beginning of time humanity has always enslaved others. With regards to other countries participation in the slave trade I think it simply boils down to a conversation we in the west are ready to have. Arab countries are not even recognising gay rights yet so it's a bit of a stretch to involve them in discussions about their participation and the impact they had on the slave trade. I'm sure it is more complex than I'm making out but I don't really know too much about Arab politics so I won't talk about it
1
@veronho1ness No, the vast majority were stolen using coercion and violence. There were some African slave owners because humans have always had slaves. But the idea that the BE went over to Africa and there was a supply for slaves that they purchased is not true and is not probable if you think about it
1
@janetwilliamson6403 The slaves at the time got their freedom paid for by the BE, but it's the collateral damage that is being discussed at this point when we talk about reparations.
1
@stue2298 It's right that we pay reparations for what our ancestors did because we are still benefitting from what our ancestors did and they are still suffering from what our ancestors did. So it makes sense
1
@stue2298 Not all black people are suffering from the slave trade, the discussion is mostly centered around whole societies/economies/countries (that level) where the collateral damage is (for example the Carribbean is a clear cut example). As a country we definitely benefited from the slave trade indirectly through industries /bankers and investors /merchants / government itself. Although these people benefited significantly economically it can't be denied it had a ripple effect of strengthening the economy and therefore raising the standards of living in the United Kingdom. Unless all of those people practically hoarded all the money and or spent it in other countries?
1
@stue2298 If there are more slaves in the world today than 200 years ago is that because there are many more people in the world today? What is the percentage of slaves today compared to the percentage of slaves back then? Did we even know how many slaves there were back then? And if the British Empire ended slavery how is it there are more slaves today than in the time when slavery was considered normal and necessary?
1
@stue2298 The idea that slavery is bad did not necessarily come from the British. There were notable individuals who questioned the ethics of slavery that were not British. One such was the grandaddy of "woke" Frenchman Jean Jacques Rousseau, as did Bartolome de la Casa and Phillis Wheatley. There are were quite a few people across the world who were questioning slavery before the British.
1
@stue2298 How are you going to end slavery now? Would it not be better to act on something that is within our immediate control and set a precedent to pay reparations for the damage we did to the Carribbean? If you apply your argument across a wide range of social issues then there would be no progress. For example with gay rights we would have to wait until every county across the globe is ready to talk about gay rights. Yes address modern slavery but why does the fact that modern slavery exist be a reason to not pay reparations for old injustices?
1
@stue2298 Ok, so the English ended slavery (therefore the mainstream thought that slavery was bad) in the 12 century but the British Empire bought slaves and abolished slavery in 1833 because they changed their mind and later considered slavery "good" again? Makes sense
1
@stue2298 Where are you getting your information from? Sounds weird
1
@stue2298 I'm going to read between the lines and ask you outright if you believe society would be a better place if white people dominate it? It sounds as if that is what you're saying.
1
@stue2298 The information you're sharing now
1
@liverbird956 That's ok. Tell me what you know and we can discuss it.
1
For doing his job and following the law? 😂 How does that work exactly?
1
@BrinJay-s4v The guy who got sentenced was jailed for directly inciting others to burn down a hotel with migrants in it. Last time I looked that was a very serious crime in the context of a live riot. This has been a crime in the UK since 1977 when the criminal law act was introduced. So it's not as if he didn't know. Plus ignorance is not a defence either
1
@bettyswunghole3310 So you're saying that telling others to burn down a hotel with human beings inside it (British residents / citizens too) is acceptable because we have an asylum seeker issue at our border? And you wonder why politicians don't listen to you 😂
1
@douglastodd1947 Incitement is based in common law
1
@bettyswunghole3310 What is the border controls jobs? Whatever you tell them their job is? And if they don't do it according to the way you want then it's justified to incite violence? And you wonder why the politicians don't listen to you?
1
@AquariusGate You haven't listened to the entire footage from the court room. This is the clip that has gone viral around the far right media as confirmation for long held unexamined biases that we are somehow a communist state now. Nothing could be further from the truth
1
@AquariusGate Then go learn what confirmation bias is. If you're willing to understand how your brain works and you're willing to grow you won't be fooled by this stuff anymore. It's misinformation
1
@AquariusGate You're right. I got him mixed up with the other yobbo. He told people that they should damage a hotel with migrants in it. That is a criminal offence and it was right he was sentenced to prison
1
@AquariusGate The guy also has previous. So not exactly an upstanding member of society.
1
@AquariusGate Judges are allowed to hand out severe sentences during a riot. It's a method to deter people from participating. The judge did the right thing and if it were your property you would probably want a harsher sentence imposed.
1
@AquariusGate Rioting and encouraging people to riot ruins peoples lives. Imagine your business being burned down by racist yobs. We criminalised racism back in the 60's so it's not like Parlour wasn't aware of what he was doing.
1
@labouraredangerous Ok, name a better one. Give me the advantages your preferred justice system has over the UK's? Lets discuss it
1
@labouraredangerous Russia jail's people for inceitmement to violence and hate speech. United States, Germany, France, India, Australia and the Middle East are just a very few of the countries have strict laws against increment to violence and hate speech. Russia is especially strict. Most countries in the world have laws prohibiting incitement and hate speech. Granted there are countries in the world who's laws are vague Somalia South Sudan Libiya Yemen Central African Republic.
1
@labouraredangerous If you don't believe in laws prohibiting incitement or secretly want to incite violence or believe you should have the freedom to incite violence or at least live in a country where you may get away with it then take your pick of the above countries and go live there. Do can do an exchange. You can go live there and one of the people suffering there who wants to escape to the UK can take your place.
1
@labouraredangerous Can you tell me what fascism is please? I'd like to understand your take on it and what you learned about fascism.
1
"Sensible debate" 😂 Thats rich
1
No, telling people to burn down a hotel with migrants inside it is a crime, which is exactly what the man got sentenced for. Maybe stop being so gullible and notice when segments of the whole video are taken out of context.
1
@carpetsonline3718 Yes he did. Whether you do it online or you're there in person makes no difference
1
@carpetsonline3718 Hea did. Online
1
@carpetsonline3718 It's better to change your beliefs to align with reality than expect reality to conform to your beliefs. This means get a basic education and you will stay out of trouble
1
@Fathervinyard The absolute state of you. Say something stupid and as long as you get five or six strangers online who agree with you that's all you need 😂 Well done 👍
1
Not really. Because if the demand wasn't there the Africans would not have been incentivised to capture and sell slaves. This was only a small part of the problem. The majority were stolen through coercion and violence. If it were true that Africans drove the slave trade they would have developed Africa with it.
1
Economic justice and socialism are related concepts but are not the same. Economic justice refers to the idea that all individuals should have fair access to economic resources and opportunities, aiming to reduce inequality and ensure that everyone can meet their basic needs. This can include a variety of policies and practices, such as living wages, equitable access to education, healthcare, and fair labor practices. Socialism, on the other hand, is a political and economic system that advocates for the collective or governmental ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Socialism aims to reduce or eliminate the disparities in wealth and power that can arise in capitalist systems. While economic justice can be pursued within various political and economic frameworks, including capitalism, socialism explicitly seeks to address these issues through systemic change. Thus, while they may overlap in goals—such as reducing inequality—economic justice does not necessarily equate to socialism.
1
@sharonreichter2537 Ok, so you are happy with the status quo. Things are pretty bad for the working classes at the moment, but seeing as you don't believe in fairness you won't want to level the playing field to improve your situation. Stay poor then.
1
@sharonreichter2537 The statement made by @sharonreichter2537 presents a strong opinion about equality, but it may contain some fallacies or weaknesses in reasoning: 1. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "there is no such thing as 'equality'" is a broad assertion that may overlook instances of equality achieved in various contexts, such as legal rights, access to education, or social justice movements. 2. Appeal to Futility: The phrase "Trying to make it so is a waste of time" implies that efforts toward equality are futile without providing evidence or reasoning to support that claim. This can discourage constructive dialogue and action. 3. False Dichotomy: The statement suggests an all-or-nothing perspective on equality, ignoring the possibility of varying degrees or forms of equality that can be pursued and achieved. 4. Ambiguity: The term "equality" itself can have multiple meanings, including social, economic, or political equality. Without clarifying what type of equality is being referred to, the argument may lack precision. 5. Negativity Bias: The overall tone of the statement focuses solely on the challenges of achieving equality, potentially neglecting positive developments or progress made in that area.
1
@sharonreichter2537 The statement by @sharonreichter2537 presents several points that can be examined for logical fallacies or weaknesses in reasoning: 1. Straw Man: The assertion that someone believes in "magic equality" misrepresents the concept of equality. Most arguments in favor of equality advocate for equal opportunities rather than an unrealistic notion of uniformity in abilities or qualities. 2. Hasty Generalization: The claim that "trying to level everyone out just doesn't work" generalizes the idea of equality without considering different models or the nuances of how equality can be approached in various contexts. 3. Slippery Slope: The argument implies that any effort to support equality will inevitably lead to a socialist outcome, which oversimplifies the complexities of political and social systems. 4. Appeal to Tradition: The statement suggests that because a "socialist view has never worked," this serves as proof against efforts toward equality. This overlooks contemporary examples and discussions about varying degrees of social support and equality in different systems. 5. Ambiguity: Terms like "support people where they need it" are vague and could benefit from clarification. It's unclear what specific support is being referred to, and how it relates to the broader discussion on equality. 6. Negativity Bias: The comment emphasizes the failures of the government without acknowledging any positive efforts that may exist or recognizing the complexity of the issues surrounding social support. Your position is totally illogical
1
@sharonreichter2537 You misunderstand what equality means.
1
@sharonreichter2537 It's not about making people succeed either. As I said, you don't understand any of it. You're in the dark about the things you're pretending to critique
1
@sharonreichter2537 Ok. Would you even accept it anyway? Happy to tell you how you're wrong, but would you even listen?
1
@sharonreichter2537 Your first comment, what on earth are you talking about? 😂
1
@sharonreichter2537 Your second comment. What on Earth are you talking about? 😂
1
@sharonreichter2537 Why would I be happy to see farmland covered in solar panels and concrete? Where did this come from? Did you internalise this just from watching this video? 😂
1
Labour are not a far left party. They are constantly ciriticised by people on the left as not being left wing enough
1
@garyb455 Why would they vote only Labour? I thought before the election Labour and Conservative were the "uni party" all working with globalist policies? Now they aren't all of a sudden? 😂
1
@niqash5314 Looks like you got it all figured out just like all of the other 3467 totally different conspiracy theories around 😂
1
@niqash5314 No that's another conspiracy theory 😂 Do you want to know who many conspiracy theories are true? Zero That's because conspiracy theory is not a bona fide way to understand reality. Conspiracy theories are inherently riddled with logical fallacies. Cherry picking, confirmation bias, slippery slope, and hominem, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, false dilemma, post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a naive way of looking at the world. Yes there are conspiracies happening all the time, but conspiracy theories are not the way they are discovered.
1
Because 70-80% when processed are found to be genuine asylum seekers. Legally they are all asylum seekers until they are found not to be. That's why nobody is doing anything about it or should they
1
6:15 There are no unfair systems that give white people special privellages. If there was we would not have any black or brown or asian people in positions of power or authority, there would actually be no "coconuts" to speak of because if it were true that we lived in a system that gave white people special privileges there would be no "coconuts" because all of those jobs would go to actual white people 😂 The reason there are fewer people of colour in top positions is because were a predominantly white country and i hate to say this but a lot of coloured people dont aspire to be in high positions either, but the ones who do, the ones who are competative rise to the top. Whats the problem?
1
He posted a message on FB telling people to burn down a hotel with migrants inside it. What kind of person is your milk man if he says things like that?
1
"sheer" not "shear"
1
The guy told people to burn down a hotel with migrants inside it.
1
Most of this channel is lies. Not intentional, just idiocy
1
@stuartannetts300 So? What is your problem now with genuine asylum cases? Is this about pure racism masquerading as "concern for undocumented illegal migrants roaming our streets"? Seems like you are changing the goalposts. What actually IS your grievance?
1
@stuartannetts300 The criteria for genuine asylum seekers in the UK are primarily established by international law, national legislation, and government policy: Fear of Persecution: Asylum seekers must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. This persecution must be based on specific grounds such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Credibility: Applicants must provide credible evidence that supports their claims of persecution. This can include personal testimonies, witness statements, and evidence from human rights organisations. Safety in Home Country: Asylum seekers must show that they cannot return to their home country due to the risk of persecution. They may also need to demonstrate that there are no safe areas within their country. Non-Protection by Home Government: The individual must prove that their home government is either involved in the persecution or unable to provide protection against it. Filing for Asylum: Asylum seekers must apply for asylum within a reasonable time frame after arriving in the UK, typically as soon as possible. The criteria are set by the UK government in alignment with international conventions, notably the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
1
@stuartannetts300 If you're implying that the criteria for determining genuine asylum cases are manipulated or biased by a specific group or authority for ulterior motives, you may be committing the "conspiracy theory" fallacy. This fallacy involves assuming that events or situations are the result of secretive and malevolent plots, often without substantial evidence to support such claims. In this context, you could also have committed the "ad hominem" fallacy if you are questioning the motives or integrity of those setting the criteria rather than addressing the actual criteria or processes themselves. Simply raising the question is not an argument.
1
@j606ywt If your second language is English it makes sense to come here because you won't have to learn another language. Learning a language can take years and opportunities are slim when you don't speak the native language as an immigrant. I should know, I have experience of this first hand. I empathise with those wanting to seek asylum here instead of France. Plus the acceptance rate is higher in the UK. Source UK home office.
1
@iainadam1005 How can you not give asylum seekers benefits? What are we supposed to do? Ask them to get a job and secure accommodation? Their basic needs are looked after, I can't imagine sharing a room in a hotel is too comfortable
1
@stuartannetts300 Without substantial evidence and formulating a theory without the use of logical fallacies I'm afraid it is yes
1
@j606ywt We have a foreign aid budget. I don't know the answer to any of those questions. It's all on a case by case basis. I could look up the stats but surely by now you have learned to do that yourself? I have given you the tools.
1
@j606ywt The impact of asylum seekers on the UK economy is a complex and nuanced topic, and opinions on it can vary widely. Economic Contribution: Many studies suggest that asylum seekers can contribute positively to the economy. They often take on jobs in sectors where there are labor shortages, contributing to economic growth and filling gaps in the workforce. Costs of Support: While there are costs associated with providing support and services to asylum seekers, such as housing, healthcare, and legal assistance, these expenses are often balanced by the economic contributions they make over time. Long-Term Integration: Successful integration of asylum seekers into society can lead to long-term economic benefits. When asylum seekers are allowed to work, they can contribute taxes and stimulate local economies. Public Perception: The perception that asylum seekers are a burden on the economy can be influenced by political discourse and media representation. It's important to differentiate between factual economic analysis and public sentiment. Policy Considerations: Government policies on immigration and asylum can significantly affect the economic impact of asylum seekers. Supportive policies that facilitate integration can enhance their contributions to the economy. In summary, while there are costs associated with asylum seekers, many experts argue that they can also provide significant benefits to the economy, particularly when integrated effectively. The overall impact is influenced by various factors, including government policies and public attitudes.
1
@j606ywt The effects of asylum seekers on the UK economy are a complex issue, and views on it can differ significantly. Here are some important points to consider: Economic Contribution: Research indicates that asylum seekers can have a positive impact on the economy. They often fill jobs in areas experiencing labor shortages, which can help boost economic growth. Support Costs: While there are expenses related to providing support and services to asylum seekers, such as housing and healthcare, these costs are often offset by their economic contributions over time. Long-Term Benefits: When asylum seekers are successfully integrated into society, they can provide long-term economic advantages. Allowing them to work can lead to tax contributions and stimulate local economies. Public Perception: The belief that asylum seekers negatively affect the economy can be shaped by political discussions and media narratives. It's crucial to distinguish between factual economic insights and public opinion. Government Policies: The economic impact of asylum seekers can be significantly influenced by government immigration and asylum policies. Supportive measures that promote integration can enhance their contributions to the economy. In summary, while there are costs associated with supporting asylum seekers, many experts suggest that they can also bring considerable benefits to the economy, especially when integrated effectively. The overall impact depends on various factors, including government policies and societal attitudes.
1
@j606ywt Internet. Home office website. Use AI. These are good tools
1
@j606ywt The statement that "apologists like yourself will happily see the UK economy tank" contains a couple of logical fallacies: Ad Hominem Fallacy: This occurs when someone attacks the character or motives of the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. By labeling you as an "apologist," the speaker is attempting to undermine your position based on an assumption about your character or intentions rather than engaging with the substance of your views. Straw Man Fallacy: This fallacy involves misrepresenting or oversimplifying someone's argument to make it easier to attack. The claim implies that those who support asylum seekers or related policies do so without regard for the economy, which may not accurately represent the nuanced positions that individuals may hold. Together, these fallacies detract from a constructive discussion about the complexities of asylum policies and their economic implications.
1
@j606ywt The statement "There's a reason they're heading here, and it's not any of the reasons you mentioned" primarily exhibits the No True Scotsman Fallacy. This fallacy is characterised by dismissing the validity of the reasons provided by the other person by asserting that they do not count as legitimate reasons. Instead of engaging with those reasons, the speaker implies that there is a different, unspecified reason that is more valid, without offering any evidence or explanation for it.
1
@j606ywt You don't believe that going to the home office website is a decent tool?
1
@j606ywt If the speaker assumes they know the reasons why hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are coming to the UK without evidence or direct knowledge, this can be classified as Overgeneralization, as the speaker is generalizing the motivations of a large and diverse group of people based on limited understanding or assumptions. This leads to a lack of nuance in recognizing the varied reasons behind each individual's situation.
1
So now you guys on the right believe in hate speech? 😂
1