Is Violence Contagious?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:37 pm

Is violence contagious? A recent spate of incidents in both Colorado and Maryland suggests that bad things tend to happen in clumps, a syndrome that psychologists have known about for decades. At-risk individuals, the young males who commit these violent events, may see something in the media and brood about it, according to Edwin Megargee, professor emeritus of psychology at Florida State University. The media exposure "can shape the form in which the violence may take place," he said. "People get the idea and maybe start obsessing."

n the suburbs around Denver, recent acts of violence have gotten some people thinking that there may be something like a contagion underway. On Monday morning, a 16-year old student in Westminster, Colo., walked into the cafeteria at Standley Lake High School, set himself on fire, injuring two classmates. He is in critical condition at a hospital and police say he was trying to commit suicide.
Westminster is the same place where in 2012, 17-year-old Austin Sigg kidnapped and killed a 10-year-old girl, Jessica Ridgeway.
On Jan. 23, Columbine High School, where two former students killed 13 people in 1999, went on alert after receiving threatening phone calls. Authorities applied the alert to several other schools in the area, including Standley Lake, according to the Associated Press.
On Dec. 13, student gunman Karl Pierson, 17, fatally shot Claire Davis, a 17-year-old classmate at Arapahoe High School in nearby Centennial, Colo., before killing himself in the school's library. Pierson reportedly had threatened a teacher and librarian who had disciplined him last year and allegedly was seeking that teacher when he entered the school, investigators have said.
In Columbia, Md., on Jan. 25, a 19-year old man opened fire with a shotgun in a mall, killing two employees at a skateboard store. He then committed suicide. Two days later, a 31-year-old man was arrested at another Maryland mall for threatening to kill employees of a luggage store.
"It's called the bandwagon effect," said James Janik, chief psychologist at the Cook County (Ill.) Juvenile Detention Center. "Any kind of behavior that happens around you, you are apt to increase."
Janik said that the common thread among many young people who resort to violence is a feeling that they can't figure out a solution to their problems.
Where Gun Laws Are Most Lenient

"If you haven't had a lot of both exposure to problem-solving situations or skills that aid with seeing a lot of possibilities, you begin to get insular, you stop looking at possible solutions," Janik said. "There's a phrase that violence is the common pathway and a simple solution. If you see that as your only alternative, you have no other skills, you're going to try that out."
On expert cautions that violence has many roots, and that copycat behavior doesn’t explain everything.
"It seems unlikely that someone who is not predisposed to commit a violent act is watching TV at home and says I'd like to do this too," said Laurence Steinberg, author of the upcoming book "Age of Opportunity: Revelations From the New Science of Adolescence." "But someone who is already angry and has a reason to commit an act of violence but hasn't settled on a plan, sees or hears some other act, and maybe says 'I'm going to do that too.'"
Steinberg noted the relative ease of obtaining weapons has made committing violence against others easier than ever before.
"You've got this toxic mix of mental illness and access to firearms," he said. Everyone agrees it's a bad combination."

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/is-violence-contagious-140131.htm

Interesting article and like some experts say I am not convinced

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:00 pm

Well the bandwaggon effect is certainly a fact

just look at the R/W homophobes and racists/bigots on here....AND the L/W liberalists...who are equally deluded

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:02 pm

As to whether violence is "contagious", I guess there has always been "copy cat" killings, but whether thats a CAUSE or not is open to debate.

by ALLAKAKA Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:03 pm

just look at the L/W homophobes and racists/bigots on here....AND the R/W realists...who are equally deluded

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:08 pm

Of course violence is contagious - thats like asking if water is wet.

Take an ordinary street of peaceful law abiding people. Have a man walk down it and couple of respectable men run towards him yelling about how he raped a 5 year old and watch that violence spread.

Or most people will have at some time been in a crowd situation where feeling has leapt from person to person - a crowd at a sports event, or on a peaceful protest march when something somewhere has kicked off and the mood has changed.

Remember the old fights in the school yard - where within seconds every child was running towards the fight - which inevitably resulted in the teachers being able to immediately stop it.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:10 pm

Kaka you would make goebbels blush.

L/W racists...who
L/W homophobes....who

and R/W realists...now that IS an oxymoron

by ALLAKAKA Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:17 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Kaka you would make goebbels blush.

L/W racists...who
L/W homophobes....who

and R/W realists...now that IS an oxymoron

There are no LW Racists ?????????????????

There are No LW homophobes ???????????????????????

A LW realist,,, now that is an OXYMORON ???????????????????

How far is your head up your old arse .

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:20 pm

No so far up as I cant see through YOU

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:24 pm

Seeing as liberals support policies that help minorities and gay people, how many liberals do you figure are racist or homophobic?

by Cass Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:32 pm

sphinx wrote:Of course violence is contagious - thats like asking if water is wet.

Take an ordinary street of peaceful law abiding people. Have a man walk down it and couple of respectable men run towards him yelling about how he raped a 5 year old and watch that violence spread.

Or most people will have at some time been in a crowd situation where feeling has leapt from person to person - a crowd at a sports event, or on a peaceful protest march when something somewhere has kicked off and the mood has changed.

Remember the old fights in the school yard - where within seconds every child was running towards the fight - which inevitably resulted in the teachers being able to immediately stop it.

Spot on. Another case in point the Salem Witch trials or the bullying on the Internet....insecure people want to belong to the stronger more powerful collective in the hopes that they don't get put in the spotlight or it could simply be part of a fear culture such as the Nazis, Khemer Rouge, McCarthyism etc...Propogated.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:34 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Seeing as liberals support policies that help minorities and gay people, how many liberals do you figure are racist or homophobic?

there seem to be quite a few who are so keen to prove how pc they are that they're racist against whites!

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:53 pm

Tess. wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Seeing as liberals support policies that help minorities and gay people, how many liberals do you figure are racist or homophobic?
there seem to be quite a few who are so keen to prove how pc they are that they're racist against whites!

Well, if you're determined not to give liberals the benefit of being able to tell you what we believe in, and instead insist upon making up conspiracy theories or casting everything we say and do in the worst light possible, then yeah -- we totally hate white people. Even though if you're talking the U.S. and U.K., we are white people. But I guess that just makes us race traitors or something, right?

Please, tell me more about my beliefs, since you obviously understand my thinking far better than I do despite my previously-assumed exclusive access to my own mind.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:53 pm

sphinx wrote:Of course violence is contagious - thats like asking if water is wet.

Take an ordinary street of peaceful law abiding people. Have a man walk down it and couple of respectable men run towards him yelling about how he raped a 5 year old and watch that violence spread.

Or most people will have at some time been in a crowd situation where feeling has leapt from person to person - a crowd at a sports event, or on a peaceful protest march when something somewhere has kicked off and the mood has changed.

Remember the old fights in the school yard - where within seconds every child was running towards the fight - which inevitably resulted in the teachers being able to immediately stop it.

Sorry your example is incorrect with violence to the 5 year old, an injustice has created or at least created a chance for people to take the law into their own hands, though the reality is very different, such events are rare. This is talking very much along the lines that if certain violent crimes happen will more of the same or similar violent crimes increase and follow. So even with your example, which is more a reaction with anger appalled at such a crime and if others joined in with the two it would be just that an event and may not spread anymore after the initial attack. You would then need to see more repeats of similar violent vigilantism over a short time frame. To me a better example of contagious violence would be in wars, there are many examples where both Russian and German Soldiers who would commit no such violence normally were incited by hate of the ideologies but because constantly atrocities were happening by both. So the point is not does that some occasions of violence can create further repeats or more violence, thus being contagious but is violence contagious full stop Hence my view it is not.
It is always unpredictable how anything pans out after a violent crime.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:06 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Of course violence is contagious - thats like asking if water is wet.

Take an ordinary street of peaceful law abiding people. Have a man walk down it and couple of respectable men run towards him yelling about how he raped a 5 year old and watch that violence spread.

Or most people will have at some time been in a crowd situation where feeling has leapt from person to person - a crowd at a sports event, or on a peaceful protest march when something somewhere has kicked off and the mood has changed.

Remember the old fights in the school yard - where within seconds every child was running towards the fight - which inevitably resulted in the teachers being able to immediately stop it.

Sorry your example is incorrect with violence to the 5 year old, an injustice has created or at least created a chance for people to take the law into their own hands, though the reality is very different, such events are rare. This is talking very much along the lines that if certain violent crimes happen will more of the same or similar violent crimes increase and follow. So even with your example, which is more a reaction with anger appalled at such a crime and if others joined in with the two it would be just that an event and may not spread anymore after the initial attack. You would then need to see more repeats of similar violent vigilantism over a short time frame. To me a better example of contagious violence would be in wars, there are many examples where both Russian and German Soldiers who would commit no such violence normally were incited by hate of the ideologies but because constantly atrocities were happening by both. So the point is not does that some occasions of violence can create further repeats or more violence, thus being contagious but is violence contagious full stop Hence my view it is not.
It is always unpredictable how anything pans out after a violent crime.

You once again totally missed my point.

Accusation of rape of 5 year old - if the 2 respectable looking men making accusation do so without violence - if the shout is you raped my daughter I am calling the police and will follow you till they get here you get an audience with no violence. If the respectable looking men start violence with that accusation then others join in.

Again the crowd situation - a sports event or music event or even a shop sale. Someone stumbles and knocks someone - the person knocked thinks its deliberate and shoves back - other people get knocked and before you know it you have a mass punch up with people fighting each other for no reason.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:09 pm

grumpy old git wrote:Kaka you would make goebbels blush.

L/W racists...who
L/W homophobes....who

and R/W realists...now that IS an oxymoron

Of course you can have people with left wing vies who are racist, history has shown this the USSR, China etc.

The same also with homophobia.

The BNP for starters is a nationalistic fascist party with clearly prejudice views but it also has left wing policies in other areas! In fact quite a few of BNP supporters a couple of years ago were former Labour supporters and jumped ship to the BNP

Both racism and homophobia are views of prejudice and we see prejudice on this forum daily just because people hold views. Sorry but you are trying to fit groups of people nicely fitting into boxes. Many people will holf majority of Policies for the party of their choice by they will also have views that disagree with Polices from that party and may in fact be in lime with another party.

All you are doing is the same, forming a very strotype basic belief system around LW and RW people.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:15 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Sorry your example is incorrect with violence to the 5 year old, an injustice has created or at least created a chance for people to take the law into their own hands, though the reality is very different, such events are rare. This is talking very much along the lines that if certain violent crimes happen will more of the same or similar violent crimes increase and follow. So even with your example, which is more a reaction with anger appalled at such a crime and if others joined in with the two it would be just that an event and may not spread anymore after the initial attack. You would then need to see more repeats of similar violent vigilantism over a short time frame. To me a better example of contagious violence would be in wars, there are many examples where both Russian and German Soldiers who would commit no such violence normally were incited by hate of the ideologies but because constantly atrocities were happening by both. So the point is not does that some occasions of violence can create further repeats or more violence, thus being contagious but is violence contagious full stop Hence my view it is not.
It is always unpredictable how anything pans out after a violent crime.

You once again totally missed my point.

Accusation of rape of 5 year old - if the 2 respectable looking men making accusation do so without violence - if the shout is you raped my daughter I am calling the police and will follow you till they get here you get an audience with no violence. If the respectable looking men start violence with that accusation then others join in.

Again the crowd situation - a sports event or music event or even a shop sale. Someone stumbles and knocks someone - the person knocked thinks its deliberate and shoves back - other people get knocked and before you know it you have a mass punch up with people fighting each other for no reason.

No you actually missed the whole point being put forth in the article and thus your example was poor as will be explained. Your view is also unpredictable to what would happen if two people shouted out accusations, sorry you see people shout at people all the time, how often to others join in? What you are saying is that people are going to immediately assume the two men making the accusations are correct, or how if he is local people who know him stand up and challenge the claims. So you see your violence has not been proven to spread, mine has in regards to wars. Also has there been many cases of lynchings and mob violence off the back of someone shouting accusations?
Sorry you need to see things how we know they chances of violence increasing are very high and vigilantism is not one of them!

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Seeing as liberals support policies that help minorities and gay people, how many liberals do you figure are racist or homophobic?

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:17 pm

lets face it if you look at anything long enough you will be able to connect the action with a type of input, whether tv, games, movies it does not mean the link really exists.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:19 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Seeing as liberals support policies that help minorities and gay people, how many liberals do you figure are racist or homophobic?

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

Explain your logic behind that?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:25 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

Explain your logic behind that?

Which minority do you support in an argument about sexuality - the Gays or the Muslims?

Or are you going to go with the claim that because religion is chosen those who are religious do not actually really suffer when their beliefs are usurped.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:32 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Explain your logic behind that?

Which minority do you support in an argument about sexuality - the Gays or the Muslims?

Or are you going to go with the claim that because religion is chosen those who are religious do not actually really suffer when their beliefs are usurped.

Absurd argument, again for one, I only defend against prejudice and incorrect views spouted on to Muslims and where daft claims are made of the faith. However I do not back myths over any equality right and never will, as to me religions are complete man made myths

I support the argument that they both have equal rights, one though through its own faith has to abide the law of the land! it can like other faiths try to claim it is wrong, but in this case the law on homosexuality is the same and applies to the largest group of people in the country Christians. So you may want to think again on minorities as Christianity teaches that it is a sin!

Again this is the UK, nothing supersede the law on discrimination, thus to say which I support when one already has to abide by the law is asking me to go against the law, when I back the same rights and protections they have with the discriminating laws.

by Ben Reilly Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:32 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

Explain your logic behind that?

Which minority do you support in an argument about sexuality - the Gays or the Muslims?

Or are you going to go with the claim that because religion is chosen those who are religious do not actually really suffer when their beliefs are usurped.

In that case, for me, I feel that while you have the right to your beliefs, you don't have the right to dictate the behavior of others on the basis of your religion. You must accept, as a religious person, that there are people who won't abide by your religious beliefs, just as you have to accept that there are people who think their religion is right and yours is wrong, or that all religions are wrong.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:43 pm

There you go. Instantly.

You immediately assume the position that the religious are hell bent on stamping on the rights of gays for reasons of control.

You are oblivious to the suffering.

You are now going to ask me what suffering because you are so blinkered you do not see it even when it is in front of you.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:44 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Which minority do you support in an argument about sexuality - the Gays or the Muslims?

Or are you going to go with the claim that because religion is chosen those who are religious do not actually really suffer when their beliefs are usurped.

In that case, for me, I feel that while you have the right to your beliefs, you don't have the right to dictate the behavior of others on the basis of your religion. You must accept, as a religious person, that there are people who won't abide by your religious beliefs, just as you have to accept that there are people who think their religion is right and yours is wrong, or that all religions are wrong.

yet when gays want to exercise their rights they seem to think no one has the right to protest or disagree..

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:50 pm

sphinx wrote:There you go. Instantly.

You immediately assume the position that the religious are hell bent on stamping on the rights of gays for reasons of control.

You are oblivious to the suffering.

You are now going to ask me what suffering because you are so blinkered you do not see it even when it is in front of you.

Did I?

News to me that when I stated the official position in both faiths, that it is a sin This places both faiths at odds with British law and equal rights for homosexuals, yet many happily comply, because religious vies do not supersede discrimination laws..

And you said:

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

This we have the majority people in this country are religious, though even there the official view is not accepted by all even Muslims. So in fact there was no problem, there was originally where we allowed religious faith to be more important equality to people, so again you might want to try a different example

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:50 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tess. wrote:
there seem to be quite a few who are so keen to prove how pc they are that they're racist against whites!

Well, if you're determined not to give liberals the benefit of being able to tell you what we believe in, and instead insist upon making up conspiracy theories or casting everything we say and do in the worst light possible, then yeah -- we totally hate white people. Even though if you're talking the U.S. and U.K., we are white people. But I guess that just makes us race traitors or something, right?

Please, tell me more about my beliefs, since you obviously understand my thinking far better than I do despite my previously-assumed exclusive access to my own mind.

theres's no conspiracy theory about it BEN...dunno about the states, but what we have here is something to give you the shudders

I think the "championing" of various miniorities by the liberalist here is a smoke screen...why, because its very targeted, very specific. They do NOT believe in the same freedoms for all.

vis their rabid defense of the gay supporting thugs "egging" the UKIP nut job....
vis their equally rabid hatred of anyone who hunts poor defenceles fluffy bunnies, and their undying support for organisations such as hunt saboteurs, even condoning the use of violence ..not to mention their support for the dangerous and homicidal ALF

and so on

It is clear from listening to a few of them, they wish, whilst demanding "freedom" for all types of minorities, they overall want to control the whole of the nation, turning it into a grey amorphous mass of Jeremy Kyle anaethestised sheeple, where any thought other than what is approved of is legislated out of existence. their continuous refrain is WE know whats best for YOU. What they mean is you will comply, hence my "hive" comments elsewhere.
The Free tihinker would be a criminal under a liberalist machine.

both the far right AND the far left have tried military force and state brutality to impose total control on nations and failed....the liberalist is attempting to get people to surrender control quietly...this doesnt make it any more palatable. The far right and the far left used the machine gun....the liberalist uses legislation and a form of "ultra vires" to achieve its aim

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 7:55 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:There you go. Instantly.

You immediately assume the position that the religious are hell bent on stamping on the rights of gays for reasons of control.

You are oblivious to the suffering.

You are now going to ask me what suffering because you are so blinkered you do not see it even when it is in front of you.

Did I?

News to me that when I stated the official position in both faiths, that it is a sin This places both faiths at odds with British law and equal rights for homosexuals, yet many happily comply, because religious vies do not supersede discrimination laws..

And you said:

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

This we have the majority people in this country are religious, though even there the official view is not accepted by all even Muslims. So in fact there was no problem, there was originally where we allowed religious faith to be more important equality to people, so again you might want to try a different example

I stated the problem is when help for one is detrimental to another.

You go charging off about official positions this and law that.

What does detrimental mean? How is not being able to marry detrimental to gays?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:03 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Did I?

News to me that when I stated the official position in both faiths, that it is a sin This places both faiths at odds with British law and equal rights for homosexuals, yet many happily comply, because religious vies do not supersede discrimination laws..

And you said:

The problems come when policies that help this minority are detrimental to that one.

This we have the majority people in this country are religious, though even there the official view is not accepted by all even Muslims. So in fact there was no problem, there was originally where we allowed religious faith to be more important equality to people, so again you might want to try a different example

I stated the problem is when help for one is detrimental to another.

You go charging off about official positions this and law that.

What does detrimental mean? How is not being able to marry detrimental to gays?

No because again you are wrong, you are saying that providing equal rights to all people thus all having the same rights is a problem based upon the view a minority group who should already have, equality.
You are saying the problem stems from you and I having equal rights but may not think a minority group should have them, that is what you are basically saying!
Equality

The last word may help you understand!

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:14 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I stated the problem is when help for one is detrimental to another.

You go charging off about official positions this and law that.

What does detrimental mean? How is not being able to marry detrimental to gays?

No because again you are wrong, you are saying that providing equal rights to all people thus all having the same rights is a problem based upon the view a minority group who should already have, equality.
You are saying the problem stems from you and I having equal rights but may not think a minority group should have them, that is what you are basically saying!
Equality

The last word may help you understand!

No I am saying it is impossible to achieve equality without causing some to suffer.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:26 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No because again you are wrong, you are saying that providing equal rights to all people thus all having the same rights is a problem based upon the view a minority group who should already have, equality.
You are saying the problem stems from you and I having equal rights but may not think a minority group should have them, that is what you are basically saying!
Equality

The last word may help you understand!

No I am saying it is impossible to achieve equality without causing some to suffer.

Well we can at least keep trying and it is kept at minimal, but again your view is a bad example of how people will target a minority group as to blame for a problem that arises.
In the vast majority of issues in having equal rights and in the case of homosexuals, Ethnic groups and women I fail to see that it is even possible or fair to thus blame and onus on the minorities being the fact they should already have them.
When clearly the main problem is within those who already have equality but are wishing to deny equality to all and by doing so they are in fact maintaining racism, sexism and homophobia denying many equal rights. Thus the problems is poor perceptions, stereotypes and prejudice

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:32 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No I am saying it is impossible to achieve equality without causing some to suffer.

Well we can at least keep trying and it is kept at minimal, but again your view is a bad example of how people will target a minority group as to blame for a problem that arises.
In the vast majority of issues in having equal rights and in the case of homosexuals, Ethnic groups and women I fail to see that it is even possible or fair to thus blame and onus on the minorities being the fact they should already have them.
When clearly the main problem is within those who already have equality but are wishing to deny equality to all and by doing so they are in fact maintaining racism, sexism and homophobia denying many equal rights. Thus the problems is poor perceptions, stereotypes and prejudice

I have not blamed the minorities - I have simply declared that it (equality) is a problem when helping one group is detrimental to another.

You clearly have no desire to consider the suffering of the group loosing out because you want to focus on the relieving of suffering of the group gaining.

As for "those who already have equality" that has to make the list of top ten most stupid things didge has ever said. It is made of the same logic as the idea that minimum wage should be average wage.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:46 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Well we can at least keep trying and it is kept at minimal, but again your view is a bad example of how people will target a minority group as to blame for a problem that arises.
In the vast majority of issues in having equal rights and in the case of homosexuals, Ethnic groups and women I fail to see that it is even possible or fair to thus blame and onus on the minorities being the fact they should already have them.
When clearly the main problem is within those who already have equality but are wishing to deny equality to all and by doing so they are in fact maintaining racism, sexism and homophobia denying many equal rights. Thus the problems is poor perceptions, stereotypes and prejudice

I have not blamed the minorities - I have simply declared that it (equality) is a problem when helping one group is detrimental to another.

You clearly have no desire to consider the suffering of the group loosing out because you want to focus on the relieving of suffering of the group gaining.

As for "those who already have equality" that has to make the list of top ten most stupid things didge has ever said. It is made of the same logic as the idea that minimum wage should be average wage.

No you came out with the stupidity and now I have shown you that you have.
The reality is it is people who have equality on something that is being denied to another minroity, you find this in any nation.

You basically did blame the minorities Sphinx by saying that the issues occur from equality being given to minorities. It is not a problem if all have the same rights, as we already have many political and religious beliefs which differ greatly, but and here is the big butt everyone would still have the same equal rights.
To claim over disagreements is again absurd, so who is losing out here if the law is the same for all, in other words equality?
You are thus saying because someone thinks homosexuality is wrong they are now losing out when they did not lose or have anything in the first place to lose, is that what you are saying? The only thing you could claim they stood to lose was keeping minorities without equal rights The equal rights have not changed for you, they have changed for the minority group to have what you and I have

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:52 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I have not blamed the minorities - I have simply declared that it (equality) is a problem when helping one group is detrimental to another.

You clearly have no desire to consider the suffering of the group loosing out because you want to focus on the relieving of suffering of the group gaining.

As for "those who already have equality" that has to make the list of top ten most stupid things didge has ever said. It is made of the same logic as the idea that minimum wage should be average wage.

No you came out with the stupidity and now I have shown you that you have.
The reality is it is people who have equality on something that is being denied to another minroity, you find this in any nation.

You basically did blame the minorities Sphinx by saying that the issues occur from equality being given to minorities. It is not a problem if all have the same rights, as we already have many political and religious beliefs which differ greatly, but and here is the big butt everyone would still have the same equal rights.
To claim over disagreements is again absurd, so who is losing out here if the law is the same for all, in other words equality?
You are thus saying because someone thinks homosexuality is wrong they are now losing out when they did not lose or have anything in the first place to lose, is that what you are saying? The only thing you could claim they stood to lose was keeping minorities without equal rights The equal rights have not changed for you, they have changed for the minority group to have what you and I have

So you see the equality argument as a line that starts with less rights and ends with equal rights?

Are happiness, peace of mind, security, things that can be lost didge?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:02 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No you came out with the stupidity and now I have shown you that you have.
The reality is it is people who have equality on something that is being denied to another minroity, you find this in any nation.

You basically did blame the minorities Sphinx by saying that the issues occur from equality being given to minorities. It is not a problem if all have the same rights, as we already have many political and religious beliefs which differ greatly, but and here is the big butt everyone would still have the same equal rights.
To claim over disagreements is again absurd, so who is losing out here if the law is the same for all, in other words equality?
You are thus saying because someone thinks homosexuality is wrong they are now losing out when they did not lose or have anything in the first place to lose, is that what you are saying? The only thing you could claim they stood to lose was keeping minorities without equal rights The equal rights have not changed for you, they have changed for the minority group to have what you and I have

So you see the equality argument as a line that starts with less rights and ends with equal rights?

Are happiness, peace of mind, security, things that can be lost didge?

Dear me, again what do you stand to lose if all have the same rights?

I see equality as all having the same rights. Thus equal rights can include a variety of things, but if all share the same rights nobody is being denied or discriminated, all share the same assortment of equal rights.
I really am quite bemused what you fail to understand about that, it is as if you are trying to argue the need to have inequality.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:05 pm

Sorry missed this point:

Are happiness, peace of mind, security, things that can be lost didge?

If all share the same set of equal rights how are happiness, peace of mind, security, going to be affected by people having the same equal rights
People have situations happen or become unhappy , the cause is not equal rights.
That means in any of these issues all still have the same equality under the laws of the land

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:14 pm

You cannot get to that point until you work out your idea of the spread going from less rights to equal rights is wrong.

Yes equality is everyone having the same rights - but that is not an end of the scale.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:27 pm

sphinx wrote:You cannot get to that point until you work out your idea of the spread going from less rights to equal rights is wrong.

Yes equality is everyone having the same rights - but that is not an end of the scale.

What spread, one law, one rule for any situation ect well that is basic, but all have the same rights under the laws, that means all have the same limitations, or punishments, or jobs rights, do you want me to continue my list?
You think equality are based upon some absurd notion of now a spread on peoples point of views, no they are based upon all being equal within the eyes of the law, so yes the only spread is happening now, those with the some not having equal rights. Equal rights mean all have the same rights based around the laws within that land.
I find it weird you fail to understand the same eual rights would apply to all people!

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:43 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:You cannot get to that point until you work out your idea of the spread going from less rights to equal rights is wrong.

Yes equality is everyone having the same rights - but that is not an end of the scale.

What spread, one law, one rule for any situation ect well that is basic, but all have the same rights under the laws, that means all have the same limitations, or punishments, or jobs, do you want me to continue my list?
You think equality are based upon some absurd notion of now a spread on peoples point of views, no they are based upon all being equal within the eyes of the law, so yes the only spread is happening now, those with the some not having equal rights. Equal rights mean all have the same rights based around the laws within that land.
I find it weird you fail to understand the same eual rights would apply to all people!

You do over think things dont you?

The target is equality. We are not there yet.

You see it as a simply case of people with less rights gaining rights - you see it as a vertical with equality at the top. You are in error.

Try thinking of it as a horizontal with equality being the middle less rights one side more rights the other.

So while a certain individual is denied something another individual either gains a feeling of superiority or attributes a greater value to having that thing. By giving the individual what they are denied you take away the superiority or extra value felt by the other.
the
That is over simplistic and 2 dimensional as it allows the assumption that what is given and taken away is deserved but it may point you in the right direction.

If you can get that picture and think you understand it you can develop it further by applying the argument of equality to prisoners specifically around votes - what does a prisoner gain if given the vote and as opposing their being given the vote is opposing equality are those that oppose votes for prisoners bad for opposing equality.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:58 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

What spread, one law, one rule for any situation ect well that is basic, but all have the same rights under the laws, that means all have the same limitations, or punishments, or jobs, do you want me to continue my list?
You think equality are based upon some absurd notion of now a spread on peoples point of views, no they are based upon all being equal within the eyes of the law, so yes the only spread is happening now, those with the some not having equal rights. Equal rights mean all have the same rights based around the laws within that land.
I find it weird you fail to understand the same eual rights would apply to all people!

You do over think things dont you?

The target is equality. We are not there yet.
The goal is equality

You see it as a simply case of people with less rights gaining rights - you see it as a vertical with equality at the top. You are in error.
Really, I see equality as what it is equality for all on all aspects in that society for all citizens

Try thinking of it as a horizontal with equality being the middle less rights one side more rights the other.
gobbldygook

So while a certain individual is denied something another individual either gains a feeling of superiority or attributes a greater value to having that thing. By giving the individual what they are denied you take away the superiority or extra value felt by the other.
Again what have they been denied, if a law already exists on a number of things like the work place, marriage etc, how are you in fact losing something when you have in affect lost nothing from the start being he fact the law is the same, the rules are the same, the only difference is based on some not having these rights Sorry did you just say "Superiority" taken away? Well fuck me sideways, so you are saying a feeling which is morally wrong is now some loss? That is an illusions, superiority only comes from the laws or means that allow it and how you can excel for a limited time in example with sports . I cannot believe you argue now over emotive yet again as if this is in anyway an actual loss

That is over simplistic and 2 dimensional as it allows the assumption that what is given and taken away is deserved but it may point you in the right direction.
It was absurd, it fail to show how actually anyone loses any rights in the first place if other gain what they already have. You decided to create an optical illusion to the debate, based on no sound methodology, but a set of principles you just invented or borrowed.

If you can get that picture and think you understand it you can develop it further by applying the argument of equality to prisoners specifically around votes - what does a prisoner gain if given the vote and as opposing their being given the vote is opposing equality are those that oppose votes for prisoners bad for opposing equality.

No I get the picture now, your illogical view has society needing to keep the need and law to keep a feeling of superiority over others and by thus discriminate, because we need this feeling of superiority in life to be happy now apparently, which of course is absurd. So what Sphinx has just argued in affect is racism, homophobia, sexism is a feeling of superiority to be maintained because people need to feel superior over others and continue with discriminating against these groups, with using what I can only describe logic from Mein Kampf because superiority in regards to equality is a need to continue discrimination. Jesus where did you get that bull from, people need to feel superior and it would be a loss. The point you miss is that superiority was an illusion, you never ever had it, only laws made it acceptable to. Yo can still obtain a feeling of actual superiority in plying games, sports and countless many other aspects, you do not have the right to have this over different groups of humans

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:12 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

You do over think things dont you?

The target is equality. We are not there yet.
The goal is equality

You see it as a simply case of people with less rights gaining rights - you see it as a vertical with equality at the top. You are in error.
Really, I see equality as what it is equality for all on all aspects in that society for all citizens

Try thinking of it as a horizontal with equality being the middle less rights one side more rights the other.
gobbldygook

So while a certain individual is denied something another individual either gains a feeling of superiority or attributes a greater value to having that thing. By giving the individual what they are denied you take away the superiority or extra value felt by the other.
Again what have they been denied, if a law already exists on a number of things like the work place, marriage etc, how are you in fact losing something when you have in affect lost nothing from the start being he fact the law is the same, the rules are the same, the only difference is based on some not having these rights Sorry did you just say "Superiority" taken away? Well fuck me sideways, so you are saying a feeling which is morally wrong is now some loss? That is an illusions, superiority only comes from the laws or means that allow it and how you can excel for a limited time in example with sports . I cannot believe you argue now over emotive yet again as if this is in anyway an actual loss

That is over simplistic and 2 dimensional as it allows the assumption that what is given and taken away is deserved but it may point you in the right direction.
It was absurd, it fail to show how actually anyone loses any rights in the first place if other gain what they already have. You decided to create an optical illusion to the debate, based on no sound methodology, but a set of principles you just invented or borrowed.

If you can get that picture and think you understand it you can develop it further by applying the argument of equality to prisoners specifically around votes - what does a prisoner gain if given the vote and as opposing their being given the vote is opposing equality are those that oppose votes for prisoners bad for opposing equality.

No I get the picture now, your illogical view has society needing to keep the need and law to keep a feeling of superiority over others and by thus discriminate, because we need this feeling of superiority in life to be happy now apparently, which of course is absurd. So what Sphinx has just argued in affect is racism, homophobia, sexism is a feeling of superiority to be maintained because people need to feel superior over others and continue with discriminating against these groups, with using what I can only describe logic from Mein Kampf because superiority in regards to equality is a need to continue discrimination. Jesus where did you get that bull from, people need to feel superior and it would be a loss. The point you miss is that superiority was an illusion, you never ever had it, only laws made it acceptable to. Yo can still obtain a feeling of actual superiority in plying games, sports and countless many other aspects, you do not have the right to have this over different groups of humans

You know one day you might actually try pausing and thinking about what I am saying.

I am not saying we need to keep feelings of superiority I am saying that those are an example of what is lost - and that people dont like loosing things. A weak persons sense of security is wrapped up in their being allowed to feel superior to someone else and when you take away that superiority it deliberately impacts on the persons sense of security which is lost.

So do you believe prisoners should get the vote?

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

No I get the picture now, your illogical view has society needing to keep the need and law to keep a feeling of superiority over others and by thus discriminate, because we need this feeling of superiority in life to be happy now apparently, which of course is absurd. So what Sphinx has just argued in affect is racism, homophobia, sexism is a feeling of superiority to be maintained because people need to feel superior over others and continue with discriminating against these groups, with using what I can only describe logic from Mein Kampf because superiority in regards to equality is a need to continue discrimination. Jesus where did you get that bull from, people need to feel superior and it would be a loss. The point you miss is that superiority was an illusion, you never ever had it, only laws made it acceptable to. Yo can still obtain a feeling of actual superiority in plying games, sports and countless many other aspects, you do not have the right to have this over different groups of humans

You know one day you might actually try pausing and thinking about what I am saying.

I am not saying we need to keep feelings of superiority I am saying that those are an example of what is lost - and that people dont like loosing things. A weak persons sense of security is wrapped up in their being allowed to feel superior to someone else and when you take away that superiority it deliberately impacts on the persons sense of security which is lost.

So do you believe prisoners should get the vote?

Dear me make a gaff then try to retract it by bullshitting. You gave an example of something we are trying to replace with equality. Sorry but they never really had them in the first place they were feelings that were allowed, of which even after you can still experience many feelings including superiority, so again it is an absurd view to argue against equality.

Prisoners nope, broke the law, and if you break the law you already lose equality and rights because you are sent to jail for example. thus the person has given up his rights through punishment by committing and being found guilty of that crime only for the length of time they serve

Maybe you might post something which is actually valid when I am back tomorrow, so far your view o stop equality or sorry your view it does not work is because of now emotions, which you never lose. I do not like to see Arsenal lose, it does though not mean I have lost he ability to feel superior if I have won a game I have played myself as we all gloat at times, as I am doing now with your counters :D

Sorry Sphinx your notion of losing now feelings, which can be brought on by man situation is silly to say the least, which is off the back of a claim people do not like to lose the ability of.
There are some things I would like to do, I recognise though, that I cannot, I then have moved on!

You offered up only one thing they could lose so far would not change the view in the head of the person if they already feel superior and people can still feel superior thus nothing has been lost

Night

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:47 pm

Yes - violence can be contagious. Human beings still operate in a pack, subconsciously. We have peers, equals and individuals that we see as lesser. If our peer group exerts violence then this will naturally be filtered down the hierarchy to a degree.

You also have to look at the physiology of violence in the human body, hormones are secreted and the adrenaline rush can become addictive.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:51 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

You know one day you might actually try pausing and thinking about what I am saying.

I am not saying we need to keep feelings of superiority I am saying that those are an example of what is lost - and that people dont like loosing things. A weak persons sense of security is wrapped up in their being allowed to feel superior to someone else and when you take away that superiority it deliberately impacts on the persons sense of security which is lost.

So do you believe prisoners should get the vote?

Dear me make a gaff then try to retract it by bullshitting. You gave an example of something we are trying to replace with equality. Sorry but they never really had them in the first place they were feelings that were allowed, of which even after you can still experience many feelings including superiority, so again it is an absurd view to argue against equality.

Prisoners nope, broke the law, and if you break the law you already lose equality and rights because you are sent to jail for example. thus the person has given up his rights through punishment by committing and being found guilty of that crime only for the length of time they serve

Maybe you might post something which is actually valid when I am back tomorrow, so far your view o stop equality or sorry your view it does not work is because of now emotions, which you never lose. I do not like to see Arsenal lose, it does though not mean I have lost he ability to feel superior if I have won a game I have played myself as we all gloat at times, as I am doing now with your counters :D

Sorry Sphinx your notion of losing now feelings, which can be brought on by man situation is silly to say the least, which is off the back of a claim people do not like to lose the ability of.
There are some things I would like to do, I recognise though, that I cannot, I then have moved on!

You offered up only one thing they could lose so far would not change the view in the head of the person if they already feel superior and people can still feel superior thus nothing has been lost

Night

If you think it is right that prisoners do not get the vote then you cannot claim to believe in equality.
There is absolutely no difference between prisoner equality, gay equality, race equality or any other groups equality. You are taking a small number of people assigning them to a group and coming up with a list reasons why they do not deserve equality.

Incidentally you really need to stop assuming I am posting my opinion when I am trying to post an overview of the issue.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:18 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Dear me make a gaff then try to retract it by bullshitting. You gave an example of something we are trying to replace with equality. Sorry but they never really had them in the first place they were feelings that were allowed, of which even after you can still experience many feelings including superiority, so again it is an absurd view to argue against equality.

Prisoners nope, broke the law, and if you break the law you already lose equality and rights because you are sent to jail for example. thus the person has given up his rights through punishment by committing and being found guilty of that crime only for the length of time they serve

Maybe you might post something which is actually valid when I am back tomorrow, so far your view o stop equality or sorry your view it does not work is because of now emotions, which you never lose. I do not like to see Arsenal lose, it does though not mean I have lost he ability to feel superior if I have won a game I have played myself as we all gloat at times, as I am doing now with your counters :D

Sorry Sphinx your notion of losing now feelings, which can be brought on by man situation is silly to say the least, which is off the back of a claim people do not like to lose the ability of.
There are some things I would like to do, I recognise though, that I cannot, I then have moved on!

You offered up only one thing they could lose so far would not change the view in the head of the person if they already feel superior and people can still feel superior thus nothing has been lost

Night

If you think it is right that prisoners do not get the vote then you cannot claim to believe in equality.
There is absolutely no difference between prisoner equality, gay equality, race equality or any other groups equality. You are taking a small number of people assigning them to a group and coming up with a list reasons why they do not deserve equality.

Incidentally you really need to stop assuming I am posting my opinion when I am trying to post an overview of the issue.

Final post
No you gave a very absurd view point over loss, being emotions, which you never lose.
On prisoners, again part of the punishment is to lose rights, one of hem being freedom. You are already denying them access in society or if you like call it positive discrimination. They still have equal rights as punishment is a temp measure, thus a period of time. The object is to have equality for all, which is obtained, some rights are an automatic reduction due to the nature of applying the punishment of prisons. They have abused equal rights by committing crimes, they are thus denied some rights, as prisons will never have the same rights as the rest of society, as it is a place where all rules different, in affect not the same as society. But in prison all prisoners have the same rights, so two levels to equity for two different Scotties, one criminal serving time and then the rest of humanity Thus they are not part of society we live in and have their own rules required for jail and in Jail, nobody is able to vote, thus equality for you due to the crime.

So you tell me to not assume your opinions yet claimed yesterday you presumed incorrectly I backed the FGM. So practice what you preach, as you do it constantly this in just about every debate we have, I am not bothered, but you are even though you do it yourself. There is a life lesson there for you .
To me you did try and pull the wool over posters eyes here with first using emotions as being a loss, using the only one you could claim lose if people matched the levels of equality you have, superiority. The reality is people could still feel superior, smelly already thinks and believes this in regards to Africans, even though science shows him to be very wrong. So the emotion is not lost and never would be, you can easily still feel superior, just in the eyes of the law you are all equal

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:26 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

If you think it is right that prisoners do not get the vote then you cannot claim to believe in equality.
There is absolutely no difference between prisoner equality, gay equality, race equality or any other groups equality. You are taking a small number of people assigning them to a group and coming up with a list reasons why they do not deserve equality.

Incidentally you really need to stop assuming I am posting my opinion when I am trying to post an overview of the issue.

Final post
No you gave a very absurd view point over loss, being emotions, which you never lose.
On prisoners, again part of the punishment is to lose rights, one of hem being freedom. You are already denying them access in society or if you like call it positive discrimination. They still have equal rights as punishment is a temp measure, thus a period of time. The object is to have equality for all, which is obtained, some rights are an automatic reduction due to the nature of applying the punishment of prisons. They have abused equal rights by committing crimes, they are thus denied some rights, as prisons will never have the same rights as the rest of society, as it is a place where all rules different, in affect not the same as society. But in prison all prisoners have the same rights, so two levels to equity for two different Scotties, one criminal serving time and then the rest of humanityi

So you tell me to not assume your opinions yet claimed yesterday you presumed incorrectly I backed the FGM. So practice what you preach, as you do it constantly this in just about every debate we have, I am not bothered, but you are even though you do it yourself. There is a life lesson there for you .
To me you did try and pull the wool over posters eyes here with first using emotions as being a loss, using the only one you could claim lose if people matched the levels of equality you have, superiority. The reality is people could still feel superior, smelly already thinks and believes this in regards to Africans, even though science shows him to be very wrong. So the emotion is not lost and never would be, you can easily still feel superior, just in the eyes of the law you are all equal

I am giving up on a top ten of stupid things said by didge - there are simply too many.

2 different levels of equity means equality - that is simply indescribable.

by Guest Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:40 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Final post
No you gave a very absurd view point over loss, being emotions, which you never lose.
On prisoners, again part of the punishment is to lose rights, one of hem being freedom. You are already denying them access in society or if you like call it positive discrimination. They still have equal rights as punishment is a temp measure, thus a period of time. The object is to have equality for all, which is obtained, some rights are an automatic reduction due to the nature of applying the punishment of prisons. They have abused equal rights by committing crimes, they are thus denied some rights, as prisons will never have the same rights as the rest of society, as it is a place where all rules different, in affect not the same as society. But in prison all prisoners have the same rights, so two levels to equity for two different Scotties, one criminal serving time and then the rest of humanityi

So you tell me to not assume your opinions yet claimed yesterday you presumed incorrectly I backed the FGM. So practice what you preach, as you do it constantly this in just about every debate we have, I am not bothered, but you are even though you do it yourself. There is a life lesson there for you .
To me you did try and pull the wool over posters eyes here with first using emotions as being a loss, using the only one you could claim lose if people matched the levels of equality you have, superiority. The reality is people could still feel superior, smelly already thinks and believes this in regards to Africans, even though science shows him to be very wrong. So the emotion is not lost and never would be, you can easily still feel superior, just in the eyes of the law you are all equal

I am giving up on a top ten of stupid things said by didge - there are simply too many.

2 different levels of equity means equality - that is simply indescribable.

Actually you are the one being the complete dumbo throughout.

Two systems, each with equality for all living with these systems. Prisoners once sentenced cease to be part of society, they are placed into a different society due to punishments for crimes, but each has equal rights within each system, you thus still have equal rights within the societies you live in! In affect they are very separate from each other, as only prisoners have to remain locked within this society whilst they serve their time.

Seems all you could hit back with was a poor attempt at assuming my level of intelligence which is ironic after asking me not to assume, hilarious you were made to look silly here and you came up with the daft assertion of superiority arguing they would lose this feeling somehow, which they would only chose to lose themselves, as the law is the same for all in that society/

This all started after your very first post which I showed was a very poor choice of an event to argue for contagious violence where there would be so many predictability, little evidence to back vigilantism and with most of all the worst part you wrongly assumed this would automatically descend all to violence simply off two people making allegations or that others might not step in to have the Plaice resolve this or assist the man.

So you really need to get over if you make a poor choice and move on, I do make them myself also, but here you as usual allowed your pride to counter cloud your views instead of making any sense.

So again practice what you preach on assuming. having said that, have a good evening

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:21 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I am giving up on a top ten of stupid things said by didge - there are simply too many.

2 different levels of equity means equality - that is simply indescribable.

Actually you are the one being the complete dumbo throughout.

Two systems, each with equality for all living with these systems. Prisoners once sentenced cease to be part of society, they are placed into a different society due to punishments for crimes, but each has equal rights within each system, you thus still have equal rights within the societies you live in! In affect they are very separate from each other, as only prisoners have to remain locked within this society whilst they serve their time.

Seems all you could hit back with was a poor attempt at assuming my level of intelligence which is ironic after asking me not to assume, hilarious you were made to look silly here and you came up with the daft assertion of superiority arguing they would lose this feeling somehow, which they would only chose to lose themselves, as the law is the same for all in that society/

This all started after your very first post which I showed was a very poor choice of an event to argue for contagious violence where there would be so many predictability, little evidence to back vigilantism and with most of all the worst part you wrongly assumed this would automatically descend all to violence simply off two people making allegations or that others might not step in to have the Plaice resolve this or assist the man.

So you really need to get over if you make a poor choice and move on, I do make them myself also, but here you as usual allowed your pride to counter cloud your views instead of making any sense.

So again practice what you preach on assuming. having said that, have a good evening

Tell you what didge how about we settle with you thinking I am stupid and I thinking you are stupid?

by Guest Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:28 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Actually you are the one being the complete dumbo throughout.

Two systems, each with equality for all living with these systems. Prisoners once sentenced cease to be part of society, they are placed into a different society due to punishments for crimes, but each has equal rights within each system, you thus still have equal rights within the societies you live in! In affect they are very separate from each other, as only prisoners have to remain locked within this society whilst they serve their time.

Seems all you could hit back with was a poor attempt at assuming my level of intelligence which is ironic after asking me not to assume, hilarious you were made to look silly here and you came up with the daft assertion of superiority arguing they would lose this feeling somehow, which they would only chose to lose themselves, as the law is the same for all in that society/

This all started after your very first post which I showed was a very poor choice of an event to argue for contagious violence where there would be so many predictability, little evidence to back vigilantism and with most of all the worst part you wrongly assumed this would automatically descend all to violence simply off two people making allegations or that others might not step in to have the Plaice resolve this or assist the man.

So you really need to get over if you make a poor choice and move on, I do make them myself also, but here you as usual allowed your pride to counter cloud your views instead of making any sense.

So again practice what you preach on assuming. having said that, have a good evening

Tell you what didge how about we settle with you thinking I am stupid and I thinking you are stupid?

The point is I do not think you are stupid and never have but your view points on this topic are stupid!

by Beekeeper Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:00 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
just look at the L/W homophobes and racists/bigots on here....AND the R/W realists...who are equally deluded

I reckon IF I shoved a 351 c.i. 'Cleveland' big block donk up your big-end and kick started it,
Herr Kacklekopf ~ then the resultant fireworks would leave you with a somewhat distinctive limp for the rest of your miserable existence !

pirat

by Beekeeper Sun Feb 02, 2014 1:46 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tess. wrote:
there seem to be quite a few who are so keen to prove how pc they are that they're racist against whites!

Well, if you're determined not to give liberals the benefit of being able to tell you what we believe in, and instead insist upon making up conspiracy theories or casting everything we say and do in the worst light possible, then yeah -- we totally hate white people. Even though if you're talking the U.S. and U.K., we are white people. But I guess that just makes us race traitors or something, right?

Please, tell me more about my beliefs, since you obviously understand my thinking far better than I do despite my previously-assumed exclusive access to my own mind.

Another Typical "Tess" absurd outburst, wasn't it !?!

DESPITE the fact that I doubt whether Tess could even recognise a genuine "Liberal" if she were to ever trip over one, let alone a real live communist or socialist (which she apparently believes are one and the same ~ shades of Drinky !), she ALWAYS seems more than willing to tell suspected "Liberals" just ehat they must be thinking, at least in line with her narrow and twisted views of the world !

AND WHEN she inevitably misses her target by "the proverbial mile" with her first salvoes, then she will accuse them of maintaining multiple IDs, despite having NO evidence whatsoever.. Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content