London shooting
-
Dude I won't answer your post because so far this has been a fairly well mannered discussion without too much personal name calling. All I will say is please go somewhere else if you want to lower the tone and turn it into one of those pointless name calling semantic excercises.
I didn't call you any names, rather I just alluded to your obvious predilictions. If you don't like that or would prefer to keep those hidden then I suggest it is you, not I, who should refrain from posting.
Stoopid signatures...
-
And I think you should try answering a question that goes to your argument. Evasion and insults do not push the argument forward. Again, you show yourself to be good at posting vitriol but incapable of retorting when questioned.
Stoopid signatures...
-
And I think you should try answering a question that goes to your argument. Evasion and insults do not push the argument forward. Again, you show yourself to be good at posting vitriol but incapable of retorting when questioned.
Stoopid signatures...
It was you who put the strawman into the discussion, not fakefur. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
I didn't call you any names, rather I just alluded to your obvious predilictions. If you don't like that or would prefer to keep those hidden then I suggest it is you, not I, who should refrain from posting.
Stoopid signatures...
-
It was you who put the strawman into the discussion, not fakefur. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
I don't think so - fake_fur wrote: That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. I asked him to expand on that since he made the assertion, not I.
Stoopid signatures...
-
I don't think so - fake_fur wrote: That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. I asked him to expand on that since he made the assertion, not I.
Stoopid signatures...
So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you?
-
I don't think so - fake_fur wrote: That to me is unacceptable and demonstrates that for whatever reason the police there are not competent to carry guns or use them properly. I asked him to expand on that since he made the assertion, not I.
Stoopid signatures...
Yes, she said the police there are not competent for carrying guns or use them properly. That may be true or false. But she did not say we should stop them from carrying guns. That was your strawman, although hidden inside a question. Had you really wanted to know her opinions, you would've asked "What should be done with cops that are seemingly incompetent to carry guns?". -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you?
fakefur wrote: So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you? Firstly the use of the word 'yes' at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It implies tacit agreement with your statement where there is none. And I can't see quite where this answers the question. Why are you avoiding it? And to try and trivialise it by personalising it in this emotive fashion is simple and crude evasion.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Yes, she said the police there are not competent for carrying guns or use them properly. That may be true or false. But she did not say we should stop them from carrying guns. That was your strawman, although hidden inside a question. Had you really wanted to know her opinions, you would've asked "What should be done with cops that are seemingly incompetent to carry guns?". -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
To which I would have replied: "Police officers who shoot people will be investigated thoroughly by independent bodies and could face criminal charges if found to be negligent in their duties or judgement, especially when a death occurs." This would make the police realise that they are not above the law - ever - for any reason.
-
fakefur wrote: So if it was your brother / father / mother / sister / wife / husband / son / daughter who had been shot in this way you would still be saying the exact same things yes? Sacrifice them to the greater good. Just a mistake. It can happen to anyone. How about if it was you? Firstly the use of the word 'yes' at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It implies tacit agreement with your statement where there is none. And I can't see quite where this answers the question. Why are you avoiding it? And to try and trivialise it by personalising it in this emotive fashion is simple and crude evasion.
Stoopid signatures...
So now you won't answer a simple and direct question? Have you ever had someone close to you die? I'm just curious to find out if you have any idea what dead actually means since you seem so cavalier with people getting shot. That's why I asked you to consider it being one of your nearest or dearest. If you truly believe what you say then you would say the same thing if it was no?
-
Because somebody doesn't agree with everything that happens does not mean they support the complete opposite. You should read a little more history and talk less stupidity and you might get a bit further in life.
Actually, I have got quite a long way in life. And I don't feel the need to resort to insults to make an argument. You are being very childish. fakefur wrote: Because somebody doesn't agree with everything that happens does not mean they support the complete opposite I'm flummoxed. If you take a side in an argument it means you agree with the basic tenets of that argument. Hence, to disagree is take the opposite view point. If neither of these suit and you prefer fence sitting you should make that plain so as not to confuse people.
Stoopid signatures...
-
So now you won't answer a simple and direct question? Have you ever had someone close to you die? I'm just curious to find out if you have any idea what dead actually means since you seem so cavalier with people getting shot. That's why I asked you to consider it being one of your nearest or dearest. If you truly believe what you say then you would say the same thing if it was no?
fakefur wrote: Have you ever had someone close to you die? Yes, actually, I have, several times. In particular, my partner died of breast cancer ten years ago and I was at her bedside, in the hospice, for the last 6 weeks of her life having nursed and looked after her for some considerable time prior to that and had to sit and watch as she just faded, painfully, away as the cancer had gone to her brain and bones and, by the end, she didn't even know her own son. She was 38 years old and the morphine just dulled the pain, it didn't take it away. And so I sat and swore I wouldn't cry or break down in front of her. And I didn't, until the end. And one day, near the end, she said to me: I know you know how long I've got but please don't tell me. So, whatever you think you know you know nothing. Until you have seen death up close and personal you know nothing. Until it has ripped your life apart you know nothing. So don't you dare presume to question me about life and death and how brave and selfless people can be and what the meaning of life or death is or the value you can put on anyone's life.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Actually, I have got quite a long way in life. And I don't feel the need to resort to insults to make an argument. You are being very childish. fakefur wrote: Because somebody doesn't agree with everything that happens does not mean they support the complete opposite I'm flummoxed. If you take a side in an argument it means you agree with the basic tenets of that argument. Hence, to disagree is take the opposite view point. If neither of these suit and you prefer fence sitting you should make that plain so as not to confuse people.
Stoopid signatures...
OK. Try to read slowly so you can take in all the complicated words here: 1. If I do not agree 100% with your point of view it does not follow that I 100% agree with the opposite point of view. 2. You seem to think by questioning the shooting of the man on the tube train I support Osama Bin Laden and think we should all be blown up. Where you get that from I can only try to imagine. 3. If I wanted to insult you personally I could do a way better job.
-
To which I would have replied: "Police officers who shoot people will be investigated thoroughly by independent bodies and could face criminal charges if found to be negligent in their duties or judgement, especially when a death occurs." This would make the police realise that they are not above the law - ever - for any reason.
evasion, evasion. Just answer the question without trying to resort to linguistic gymnastics (which you have got wrong anyway) to avoid it. fakefur wrote: "Police officers who shoot people will be investigated thoroughly by independent bodies and could face criminal charges if found to be negligent in their duties or judgement, especially when a death occurs." And this is not what your original statement implied, in any way: you asserted, quite strongly, that the police should not carry guns. If that is not what you meant to imply, why did you?
Stoopid signatures...
-
fakefur wrote: Have you ever had someone close to you die? Yes, actually, I have, several times. In particular, my partner died of breast cancer ten years ago and I was at her bedside, in the hospice, for the last 6 weeks of her life having nursed and looked after her for some considerable time prior to that and had to sit and watch as she just faded, painfully, away as the cancer had gone to her brain and bones and, by the end, she didn't even know her own son. She was 38 years old and the morphine just dulled the pain, it didn't take it away. And so I sat and swore I wouldn't cry or break down in front of her. And I didn't, until the end. And one day, near the end, she said to me: I know you know how long I've got but please don't tell me. So, whatever you think you know you know nothing. Until you have seen death up close and personal you know nothing. Until it has ripped your life apart you know nothing. So don't you dare presume to question me about life and death and how brave and selfless people can be and what the meaning of life or death is or the value you can put on anyone's life.
Stoopid signatures...
-
For my part, I am very tolerant of honest, even if horrible, mistakes made by those who are trying to defend our civilization from this Islamic terrorism. However, if these guys lied about that mistake, than it is no longer an honest mistake, and, if true, they should certainly be confronted with that and dealth with accordingly. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: our civilization Our "civilization"? Come on, everybody knows that America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
where is this f*cking helmet when I need it?
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
evasion, evasion. Just answer the question without trying to resort to linguistic gymnastics (which you have got wrong anyway) to avoid it. fakefur wrote: "Police officers who shoot people will be investigated thoroughly by independent bodies and could face criminal charges if found to be negligent in their duties or judgement, especially when a death occurs." And this is not what your original statement implied, in any way: you asserted, quite strongly, that the police should not carry guns. If that is not what you meant to imply, why did you?
Stoopid signatures...
I did not. I said quite clearly (I thought) that police officers should not be above the law. If they do something like this they should face the consequences like anyone else. In reply to the post saying "Then all the armed officers would hand in their guns" I said "Then maybe they should". Does that answer your question now?
-
OK. Try to read slowly so you can take in all the complicated words here: 1. If I do not agree 100% with your point of view it does not follow that I 100% agree with the opposite point of view. 2. You seem to think by questioning the shooting of the man on the tube train I support Osama Bin Laden and think we should all be blown up. Where you get that from I can only try to imagine. 3. If I wanted to insult you personally I could do a way better job.
fakefur wrote: 1. If I do not agree 100% with your point of view it does not follow that I 100% agree with the opposite point of view. Then say so in a less strident manner and no one will be misled. fakefur wrote: 2. You seem to think by questioning the shooting of the man on the tube train I support Osama Bin Laden and think we should all be blown up. Where you get that from I can only try to imagine I have no idea what goes on in your head: I can only infer your position from what you write. fakefur wrote: 3. If I wanted to insult you personally I could do a way better job. Highly doubtful: you do not possess the linguistic artistry required to properly put someone down without need to resort to crass insults.
Stoopid signatures...
-
For my part, I am very tolerant of honest, even if horrible, mistakes made by those who are trying to defend our civilization from this Islamic terrorism. However, if these guys lied about that mistake, than it is no longer an honest mistake, and, if true, they should certainly be confronted with that and dealth with accordingly. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: think it weas an atypical Wulff post - normally he's one of the most neutral guys here in the Soapbox. Maybe he got affected by the tone/language used by your original post. It was a typical Wulff post on anything to do with the police. He recently supported the police firing a Tazer weapon at a woman stopped for a traffic offence who refused to get out of her car. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea