London shooting
-
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
-
Then we have both been there and I mean no disrespect. I was genuinely asking. Your cavalier attitude towards innocent people being gunned down by the police is all the more puzzling to me then.
Look, lets put aside the insults and crap and get serious for a moment. I have always had a somewhat pragmatic view of life and however much I desire peace and good will to all people (and I really do) reality has a mean and nasty way of popping up at the most innoportune moments. Nobody wants the police to ever have to use guns. And everyone is horrified (or should be) by what happened to that poor young man. The reality is that there are some people out in the world who have a desire, for whatever reason, to harm other people. And the first and last line of defence is the police. Now I'm willing to bet that not every copper is bent or full of rage or a complete nutter with a homicidal desire to kill men who look asian. And I'm also willing to bet that this won't be the last mistake. And of course I don't want it to be me or anyone I know. But it might be. And I just have to accept, sadly, the reality of the utterly random, cold nature of life. I don't take it perosnally and I certainly don't spend any time (other than now) thinking about it. I just see that as being pragmatic: there is simply no point in getting angry at the police as a group when it may have been a simple (but deadly) mistake by one person. Yes, they should probably face some action but we should not allow emotion to dictate that action. And we must not allow ourselves to be led by the press. Their motives are to sell papers, not to disseminate reality, so they'll print whatever sells papers to their target audience. If I'm wrong, so be it. But at least I'm never under any illusions as to what life is and what it holds. Oh and just in case you're wondering I'm actually a pretty happy chappie... most of the time!
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...
Oh come on mr alien? Not all arguments are dualistic! Just because I dont agree with Ian Paisley and the UDA doesnt mean I agree with the IRA. There can be a third point of view. Perhaps you should read a little bhudism, it has a lot to say on dualism. Nunc est bibendum!
-
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?
Didn't see that, but yes, it does. Thank you.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Do you think that because of 1 mistake (by whatever degree) we should stop any policeman from carrying a gun with which to defend the realm from not just the threat but the actions of bomb-laden islamic terrorists?
Stoopid signatures...
-
Oh come on mr alien? Not all arguments are dualistic! Just because I dont agree with Ian Paisley and the UDA doesnt mean I agree with the IRA. There can be a third point of view. Perhaps you should read a little bhudism, it has a lot to say on dualism. Nunc est bibendum!
Morning. Good point. Damn it. However, most arguments do tend to revolve around single points which are opposite. Reality is a little different and depends if someone brings in that third or nth perspective. Can I swear now?
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...
-
Morning. Good point. Damn it. However, most arguments do tend to revolve around single points which are opposite. Reality is a little different and depends if someone brings in that third or nth perspective. Can I swear now?
Stoopid signatures...
-
Cops need to be given stun-bullets that don't kill but just stun the targets. That way, such tragedies can be avoided.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Cops need to be given stun-bullets that don't kill but just stun the targets. That way, such tragedies can be avoided. A close friend of mine used to be involved with 'special operations', and this sort of suggestion makes him (i) laugh and (ii) get worked up, because an injured / stunned man can still fire a gun or set off a bomb. If you are being threatened by someone with a gun or bomb, you take them out to the point where they are no longer a threat. Someone once suggested to him that if the police are confronted with an armed robber, they should "shoot the gun from his hand"! Been watching too much John Wayne...
-
fat_boy wrote: I'm sorry for you man. Appreciated.
Stoopid signatures...
-
One mistake? Dont forget the scots guy shot for carrying a table leg. How many others are there? In fact, lets conduct an investigation. How many police shootings got the right guy vs the wrong guy. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: Dont forget the scots guy shot for carrying a table leg. He raised it to his shoulder and pointed it towards the police like a rifle. They may ultimately have been wrong to shoot him, but when under apparent mortal danger they can't take chances.