On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:26:08 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
You misunderstand. The other victims are the people who are put in a
state of fear by the original crime. If a drug dealer in Possilpark

Oh please, get over yourself. Calling yourself a victim is a bogus way
of grabbing the emtionally charged moral high ground and legitimising your
whinging but it doesn't work anymore. People have seen through that particular
liberal trick.

Don't think of it as "hate crimes". Think of it as terrorism.

Are you for real? You're coming across as a poor satire.

B2003

On 26/08/11 12:17, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:58:48 +0100
The Real wrote:
You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

Who gives a flying **** what you personally think about veiled women? Do
you have the same antipathy to veiled nuns, or is it the potential
presence of a non-white face which rings your bells?

Oh dear, you're losing the argument so you're using the tried and tested
right-on debating technique of going off on one.

Obviously you're a bit hard of thinking but i'll explain - you asked about
white heterosexuals being alienated by tolerance - i'm white and straight.
And I feel alienated in some parts of london. So what I think does matter
a flying fsck in this case.

Read what I wrote, please. I asked about "white heterosexuals as a
group", not about one individuals personal prejudices. I suppose it's
got the merit of consistency, though - if you believe that all blacks,
all gays and all women are the same then it's a natural error to think
that everyone like you shares your believes. Well, either consistency or
egotism.

And why bring skin colour into it other than a hackneyed straw man argument
which you have learnt verbatim from the Big Bumper Book of Politically Correct
Debating Techniques?

Ah, "political correctness". The big, horrid bogey man. Scary.

You're the one who chose Muslim women and rastas as your objects of
detestation. I'm only working with what you give me here.

What , a sip of wine is the same as getting completely stoned?

What do white heterosexuals do which annoys you? Anything?

Plenty. But nothing to do with them being normal.

So people who aren't white and heterosexual annoy you simply by virtue
of not being "normal", do they? What a lovely, tolerant person you are.

Ian

On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote:
It is nonsense. Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech.

"The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed
in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means
"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
1506 wrote:
Don't these pernickety, politically correct, lefties get to be
irritating? I am about ready to kill file the doc. Debating him is
like nailing jelly to a tree.

The more desperate hysterical hyperbole they come out with to regain lost
ground the more people will see how their emporer never had any clothes so
its actually better than them having a sensible debate. Fools only ever end
up being laughed at.

B2003

On Aug 26, 4:31*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 12:28, 1506 wrote:

Moreover terrorism is an act of war which demands a swift, firm,
military response. *Describing it as a crime and involving the courts
is a big mistake. *IMHO we have spent the past ten years being far too
soft in this regard.

Yeah, it worked sooooo well in Norn Iron, didn't it?

Northern Ireland is not the Middle East.

Don't these pernickety, politically correct, lefties get to be
irritating? *I am about ready to kill file the doc. *Debating him is
like nailing jelly to a tree.

Diddums.

Before I do killfile you, Are you, or have you ever been a homosexual?

On 26/08/11 12:36, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:26:08 +0100
The Real wrote:
You misunderstand. The other victims are the people who are put in a
state of fear by the original crime. If a drug dealer in Possilpark

Oh please, get over yourself. Calling yourself a victim is a bogus way
of grabbing the emtionally charged moral high ground and legitimising your
whinging but it doesn't work anymore. People have seen through that particular
liberal trick.

Where did I call myself a victim?

You must surely have worked out that the point of terrorism - the
definition of terrorism - is to intimidate people beyond the immediate
circle of victims of a particular crime. When the IRA were blowing up
pubs, they did it not so much to kill the people in those pubs (they had
no idea who they were going to kill, and it didn't really matter) but to
threaten pub goers through the country.

Similarly the point of the London tube and bus bombings wasn't to kill
people on tubes and buses, but to paralyse the city by deterring people
from using tubes and buses.

So the initial crime stands, of course, and should be punished, but the
additional crime of terrorising the population also deserves punishment.
Don't you agree?

Don't think of it as "hate crimes". Think of it as terrorism.

Are you for real? You're coming across as a poor satire.

What else would you call a deliberate attempt to intimidate a subsection
of the population?

You may care to read a little about cognitive dissonance. It's what
happens when people try to hold two opposing ideas. Not generally a
problem until someone points out the conflict, then all sorts of things
break out: accusations of satire, liberalism, political correctness and
so on. All basically translate as "You've pointed out that I have
inconsistent views but I can't have inconsistent views so you must be
wrong and horrible and I hate you. Waaaaaaaah."

See the "Daily Mail" comments pages for many, many further examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:36:17 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
Obviously you're a bit hard of thinking but i'll explain - you asked about
white heterosexuals being alienated by tolerance - i'm white and straight.
And I feel alienated in some parts of london. So what I think does matter
a flying fsck in this case.

Read what I wrote, please. I asked about "white heterosexuals as a
group", not about one individuals personal prejudices. I suppose it's

Then why ask. Poll the entire country.

And why bring skin colour into it other than a hackneyed straw man argument
which you have learnt verbatim from the Big Bumper Book of Politically
Correct
Debating Techniques?

Ah, "political correctness". The big, horrid bogey man. Scary.

Actually I think of it more as a pathetic crutch for feeble whingers who only
discover a pair of balls when in a large group and ironically have no tolerance
for anyone having a different opinion to theirs. Of course the irony is almost
always lost on them since most are not nearly as bright as they like to think
they are.

Plenty. But nothing to do with them being normal.

So people who aren't white and heterosexual annoy you simply by virtue
of not being "normal", do they? What a lovely, tolerant person you are.

Diddums.

B2003

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:47:03 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
You must surely have worked out that the point of terrorism - the
definition of terrorism - is to intimidate people beyond the immediate
circle of victims of a particular crime. When the IRA were blowing up

I doubt many thugs consider the big picture when beating up someone they
don't like. Calling it terrorism is a cynical way of gaining political
traction, nothing more.

So the initial crime stands, of course, and should be punished, but the
additional crime of terrorising the population also deserves punishment.
Don't you agree?

Ah , a classic technique. Slightly change the argument to get me to agree
to it then claim later how I agreed to the original point. Nice try

Are you for real? You're coming across as a poor satire.

What else would you call a deliberate attempt to intimidate a subsection
of the population?

Except it wasn't.

You may care to read a little about cognitive dissonance. It's what
happens when people try to hold two opposing ideas. Not generally a

Except I don't.

Got anything else in your box of tricks or is that it? In the meantime I
have work to do.

B2003

On 26/08/11 12:48, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 26, 4:20 am, The Real wrote:

Why would I want to do that?

You're the one who like blasphemy. Oh silly me, Islam is politically
correct, Judaism and Christianity are not. Consistent as always, you
lefties.

Who said I liked blasphemy? I only said it was a good thing we didn't
prosecute people for it any more. Since you don't like the idea of
thought crimes, I thought you'd agree.

As far as Christianity, Judaism and Islam go ... well, I'm with Marcus
Brigstocke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42p2SO5wQag

Ian

On 26/08/11 12:51, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:47:03 +0100
The Real wrote:
You must surely have worked out that the point of terrorism - the
definition of terrorism - is to intimidate people beyond the immediate
circle of victims of a particular crime. When the IRA were blowing up

I doubt many thugs consider the big picture when beating up someone they
don't like. Calling it terrorism is a cynical way of gaining political
traction, nothing more.

If they beat someone up to show that "We don't like faggots round here"
or "We don't like veiled Muslims round here" or "We don't like white
people round here" then the big pictures is certainly there.

So the initial crime stands, of course, and should be punished, but the
additional crime of terrorising the population also deserves punishment.
Don't you agree?

Ah , a classic technique. Slightly change the argument to get me to agree
to it then claim later how I agreed to the original point.

So are you saying you /don't/ think that terrorist crimes are worse than
the same acts for purely personal reasons?

Ian