Today's news from London

First topic message reminder :



https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/gang-member-who-donned-clown-mask-while-waving-shotgun-during-east-london-police-chase-faces-jail-a4053316.html

A loaded shotgun was found in the car, while cartridges were discovered on the ground nearby. Forensic testing showed it had not been fired on the night of July 26 last year.

Akinsoji was on trial alongside Nathaniel Lewis, 23, Darnell Joseph-Newill, 21, and Troy Ifill, 22, who were also said to be associated with east London gangs, who had formed an alliance under the name "Northside Newham".







https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-47058948

Worcester acid attack accused sent 'nailed it!' text


More about this story here...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6619069/Father-organised-ACID-attack-three-year-old-son-Home-Bargains.html

Father 'organised ACID attack on his three-year-old son in Home Bargains to ruin wife's divorce bid by making her appear an unfit mother - after he asked imam whether it was Islamic to murder her and their three children' 



A court sketch today showing (left to right) Norbert Pulko, Saied Hussini, the father of the boy (who cannot be identified), Martina Badiova, Adam Cech, Jabar Paktia and Jan Dudi





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47045490

Three teenagers have been arrested after a 17-year-old boy was stabbed to death in a street attack in north London.

The victim, who died at the scene on Caledonian Road, Islington, on Tuesday, has been named as Nedim Bilgin.

Two male suspects, aged 16 and 17, were arrested nearby on suspicion of murder, and an 18-year-old man was arrested at an address in Islington, the Met Police said.

All three remain in custody.





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-47061701

Gang 'smuggled immigrants in dinghy' into Kent

Thomas Mason, 36, Hoa Thi Nguyen, 49, and Chi Tan Huynh, 41...

And...

Nazmi Velia, 32, of Park Street Lane, St Albans
Egert Kajaci, 35, of Turner Drive, Oxford
Erald Gapi, 27, of Marine Tower, Deptford
Wayne Lee, 46, of Grasmere Close, Watford




https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47054348

Croydon 'zombie knife' sentence overturned








https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47059020

Park Lane doorman murder accused appear in court

Haroon Akram, 25, Adham Khalil, 20, and Adham Elshalakany, 23, appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court earlier.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Curious about your theory of racism = tribalism.  When you say racism is tribalism "writ large" are you saying that the natural state of man is tribalism?  I get that you are saying that racism is a natural state of tribalism, but is it a natural state of human beings?

And is 'natural' the same as 'moral'?

yes I am saying the natural state of man is tribalism, family tribe, village, you dont evolve out of a million years of evolution in a few thousand years.
look at how many tribes people belong to today. family, block, sports team, city, state, country, hemisphere. Many people would be willing to fight or in some cases die to protect many of those. racism is just an extension of tribalism.
A case in point would be that american missionary who was killed by the lost tribe recently. they were being tribal and  racist in their attack and murder of him.

So you are saying that racism is natural?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Curious about your theory of racism = tribalism.  When you say racism is tribalism "writ large" are you saying that the natural state of man is tribalism?  I get that you are saying that racism is a natural state of tribalism, but is it a natural state of human beings?

And is 'natural' the same as 'moral'?

moral is a very fluid state.

So you are saying that morality doesn't exist? At least you agree with Nietzsche on that.

So, if morality doesn't exist, why do you criticize anybody, for anything? Anything goes, right?

Its not that morality doesnt exist, but that morality depends on your POV. Morals after all are merely the "code" by which you choose to live. Some of the items of this code of course are shared with others, and become "laws" either enforced by statute or by other means,, and these then become the "morals of society" which in fact need not be of necessity good. Others are "personal" morals, a kind of individual code of honor which may or may not accord with society's views and indeed may at times exceed society's morals.

for instance I consider myself perfectly moral in shooting my own dinner and consider immoral those who criticise me for doing that, whilst chowing down on meat killed by proxy, simply because they haven't got the nads to strangle their own dinner......

As TDYK says morals can be very fluid, and whilst at times the morals of the right can be suspect, the morals of the left are so fluid one is left wondering just what morals they actually subscribe to....vis the rabid antisemitism of the current left here in this country.

Vic wrote:Some of the items of this code of course are shared with others, and become "laws" either enforced by statute or by other means,, and these then become the "morals of society" which in fact need not be of necessity good.

To say that morals is a product of human imagination, is the same as saying they don't exist. If not imagination, whence does it come?

I agree with everything you said, except to try and reify something that is illusory.

I'd argue that point quill....society is a product of human imagination and clearly it exists, religion, however much the object of worship may fall short of reality, is a product of human imagination and clearly exists. Science, for all that ITS components may be real and tangible (with the exception of the hairy fringes of quantum physics) is still a product of human imagination, (what knows the shrew of atoms and quarks?)

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes I am saying the natural state of man is tribalism, family tribe, village, you dont evolve out of a million years of evolution in a few thousand years.
look at how many tribes people belong to today. family, block, sports team, city, state, country, hemisphere. Many people would be willing to fight or in some cases die to protect many of those. racism is just an extension of tribalism.
A case in point would be that american missionary who was killed by the lost tribe recently. they were being tribal and  racist in their attack and murder of him.

So you are saying that racism is natural?

I am saying it is a consequence of tribalism and a million years of evolution. You may well be able to control it now a days, but the kernel is there in your lizard brain along with flight or fight

Lord Foul wrote:Its not that morality doesnt exist, but that morality depends on your POV. Morals after all are merely the "code" by which you choose to live. Some of the items of this code of course are shared with others, and become "laws" either enforced by statute or by other means,, and these then become the "morals of society" which in fact need not be of necessity good. Others are "personal" morals, a kind of individual code of honor which may or may not accord with society's views and indeed may at times exceed society's morals.

for instance I consider myself perfectly moral in shooting my own dinner and consider immoral those who criticise me for doing that, whilst chowing down on meat killed by proxy, simply because they haven't got the nads to strangle their own dinner......

As TDYK says morals can be very fluid, and whilst at times the morals of the right can be suspect, the morals of the left are so fluid one is left wondering just what morals they actually subscribe to....vis the rabid antisemitism of the current left here in this country.

morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

To say that something "exists" that is a part of the imagination, is questionable.

Besides the 'fact' of thought (as distinct from the 'content' of thought), all that is real is that which can be detected by the senses (empiricism) and certain urgencies (eg, fear of falling).

One such urgency is self-interest and self-preservation. Whence comes the golden rule: do onto others that which you might wish to be done onto yourself. That's just a logical extenuation of self-preservation. But it's the foundation of a lot of rules.

Original Quill wrote:To say that something "exists" that is a part of the imagination, is questionable.

Besides the 'fact' of thought (as distinct from the 'content' of thought), all that is real is that which can be detected by the senses (empiricism) and certain urgencies (eg, fear of falling).

One such urgency is self-interest and self-preservation.  Whence comes the golden rule: do onto others that which you might wish to be done onto yourself.  That's just a logical extenuation of self-preservation.  But it's the foundation of a lot of rules.

I prefer..."do unto others as they would do unto you......but do it first"

morals also change by culture, here the age of consent is 16 and it is morally and legally wrong to have sex with someone under that age, in nigeria it is 11. So you can have sex with an 11 year old there and be doing nothing wrong but do it a few thousand miles north and you would be on a nonce wing before your feet could touch the ground.
who is morally right and who wrong in that case, of course we would claim to be morally right, but are we able to say a black state is morally wrong because of that. Isn't that racist?
Morals are minefield and what is morally right today might be morally wrong tomorrow.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Its not that morality doesnt exist, but that morality depends on your POV. Morals after all are merely the "code" by which you choose to live. Some of the items of this code of course are shared with others, and become "laws" either enforced by statute or by other means,, and these then become the "morals of society" which in fact need not be of necessity good. Others are "personal" morals, a kind of individual code of honor which may or may not accord with society's views and indeed may at times exceed society's morals.

for instance I consider myself perfectly moral in shooting my own dinner and consider immoral those who criticise me for doing that, whilst chowing down on meat killed by proxy, simply because they haven't got the nads to strangle their own dinner......

As TDYK says morals can be very fluid, and whilst at times the morals of the right can be suspect, the morals of the left are so fluid one is left wondering just what morals they actually subscribe to....vis the rabid antisemitism of the current left here in this country.

morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

But there have always been people in each age who knew those "morals" were wrong and fought for reform.

Original Quill wrote:To say that something "exists" that is a part of the imagination, is questionable.

Besides the 'fact' of thought (as distinct from the 'content' of thought), all that is real is that which can be detected by the senses (empiricism) and certain urgencies (eg, fear of falling).

One such urgency is self-interest and self-preservation.  Whence comes the golden rule: do onto others that which you might wish to be done onto yourself.  That's just a logical extenuation of self-preservation.  But it's the foundation of a lot of rules.

religions exist, but are built entirely on imagination.

To say that something "exists" that is a part of the imagination, is questionable.

Besides the 'fact' of thought (as distinct from the 'content' of thought), all that is real is that which can be detected by the senses (empiricism) and certain urgencies (eg, fear of falling).

One such urgency is self-interest and self-preservation. Whence comes the golden rule: do onto others that which you might wish to be done onto yourself. That's just a logical extenuation of self-preservation. But it's the foundation of a lot of rules.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

But there have always been people in each age who knew those "morals" were wrong and fought for reform.

yes but they were no more morally right because of it because morals change all the time. Society imposes its moral structure on people to basically enforce what society wants. society is just another tribe.

Deanx wrote:religions exist, but are built entirely on imagination.

Imagination ≠ reality. The fact of religion might exist, but none of the content.

yes, but.....religion (the fact thereof) is purely a matter of human imagination......

Original Quill wrote:

Deanx wrote:religions exist, but are built entirely on imagination.

Imagination ≠ reality.  The fact of religion might exist, but none of the content.

but religions do exist, that is a solid fact. they may have been made up by people who want to control others, but they do exist. and in some case the basic tenets of religions are the basis of all morality.
Be nice to each other. dont kill each other. Are all you need.

the rest is more or less men ensuring woman do all the work and belong to them.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

But there have always been people in each age who knew those "morals" were wrong and fought for reform.

yes  but they were no more morally right because of it because morals change all the time. Society imposes its moral structure on people to basically enforce what society wants. society is just another tribe.

So you deny the existence of objective morality? What a strange position for a conservative to hold.

Lord Foul wrote:yes, but.....religion (the fact thereof) is purely a matter of human imagination......

I agree...I think we all agree. Dean says "built on", you say "a matter of" and I say "content"....I think we all mean the same thing. The denotation religion exists; the stuff of religion is bullshite.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
yes  but they were no more morally right because of it because morals change all the time. Society imposes its moral structure on people to basically enforce what society wants. society is just another tribe.

So  you deny the existence of objective morality? What a strange position for a conservative to hold.

Yeah, that's where I was going too. If you believe in Nietzsche and the existentialists, you don't want to be at a Bible meeting.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Its not that morality doesnt exist, but that morality depends on your POV. Morals after all are merely the "code" by which you choose to live. Some of the items of this code of course are shared with others, and become "laws" either enforced by statute or by other means,, and these then become the "morals of society" which in fact need not be of necessity good. Others are "personal" morals, a kind of individual code of honor which may or may not accord with society's views and indeed may at times exceed society's morals.

for instance I consider myself perfectly moral in shooting my own dinner and consider immoral those who criticise me for doing that, whilst chowing down on meat killed by proxy, simply because they haven't got the nads to strangle their own dinner......

As TDYK says morals can be very fluid, and whilst at times the morals of the right can be suspect, the morals of the left are so fluid one is left wondering just what morals they actually subscribe to....vis the rabid antisemitism of the current left here in this country.

morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

That is true actually.

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

That is true actually.

Yeah, it sounds a lot like Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision, where he says: "political ideas are time and space."

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
morals are as fluid as a river. 500 years ago it was morally acceptable to burn women at the stake for knowing a bit of herblore. 200 years ago it was morally acceptable to have slaves, today it isn't, morals change all the time. 60 years ago it was shameful to have a baby outside of marriage, today it is more unusual to have it within it seems. 50 years ago it was morally wrong to be homosexual, today it is fine. So please dont use the morals argument as they can change with the flip of a switch

That is true actually.

Yeah, it sounds a lot like Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision, where he says: "political ideas are time and space."

Absolutely. The “truth” is always fluid and a matter of personal perspective.

No Eddie... the truth is always the truth... it will never pretend to be anything... however, bullshit will always pretend not to be bullshit, and always pretend to be truth...


Truth will always stand up to scrutiny... in fact, truth welcomes scrutiny and question, as it has nothing to fear from being shown to be itself...


However... bullshit hates scrutiny and question as it hides in the shadows, fearing being exposed for what it really is...!

Tommy Monk wrote:No Eddie... the truth is always the truth... it will never pretend to be anything... however, bullshit will always pretend not to be bullshit, and always pretend to be truth...


Truth will always stand up to scrutiny... in fact, truth welcomes scrutiny and question, as it has nothing to fear from being shown to be itself...


However... bullshit hates scrutiny and question as it hides in the shadows, fearing being exposed for what it really is...!

We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?
And what is truth? Is it an unchanging law?

I actually do think there's one objective moral, that harming the innocent is wrong.

Of course, you can have endless discussions about what constitutes harm and what constitutes innocence, but it's a good starting point, I think.

Raggamuffin wrote:
I didn't misread anything. Andy said that Tommy said something bad, and you automatically believed him and suggest that Tommy should have been put in the basement.


Please get your head out of your arse and check out those sort of claims before you comment on them.

Please get YOUR head out of his arse first before ordering others to get their heads out of their arses.
You arrive in threads in a state of excitement screeching at people to stop "bullying" him like you are his mother.
Put your legendary Miss Marple skills to good use & find the thread then everyone can form their own opinion.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:In any case let's not pretend that just because we are all ''entitled to our opinion'' , there is NO limit to how eyewateringly crass & insensitive we can be. There is!

Eg if a woman's baby has a cot death and you tweet that it's your opinion that the poor baby deserved to die [because you dislike the mother for whatever reason] the plod will 'have a word' if the mother becomes distressed and pursues the matter. ''Opinion'' or not.

Extreme cruelty is an offence - this is a little known fact.

you or anyone being offended is your problem not the person giving the offence. there is absolutely nothing wrong in being offensive. It often gets to the root a lot quicker than all the worthy words trying to avoid offence. I think out in youtube land there are excellent clips of both stephen fry and billy Connelly making exactly those points.
Just because something offends you does not mean it automatically offends everyone. for instance I could be highly offended by much spouted by corbn and his cronies, as much as I would like it, I don't think he should be shut down for it.

You are a complete stranger to me - just a name on a forum, I don't know you from a hole in the wall. 
 & I have NO idea what you're going on about.   


But the word "offence" certainly seems to have triggered you something rotten. 
Let me put your mind at rest: I meant 'offence' as in criminal offence/felony/misdemeanour.  A legal term.
I did not mean it as in ''taking offence''.


As an aside - If the extreme example I cited did not touch your soul in any way, 
then yes, one of us HAS got a problem.
Clue ….. not me.

Jules wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:In any case let's not pretend that just because we are all ''entitled to our opinion'' , there is NO limit to how eyewateringly crass & insensitive we can be. There is!

Eg if a woman's baby has a cot death and you tweet that it's your opinion that the poor baby deserved to die [because you dislike the mother for whatever reason] the plod will 'have a word' if the mother becomes distressed and pursues the matter. ''Opinion'' or not.

Extreme cruelty is an offence - this is a little known fact.

you or anyone being offended is your problem not the person giving the offence. there is absolutely nothing wrong in being offensive. It often gets to the root a lot quicker than all the worthy words trying to avoid offence. I think out in youtube land there are excellent clips of both stephen fry and billy Connelly making exactly those points.
Just because something offends you does not mean it automatically offends everyone. for instance I could be highly offended by much spouted by corbn and his cronies, as much as I would like it, I don't think he should be shut down for it.

You are a complete stranger to me - just a name on a forum, I don't know you from a hole in the wall. 
 & I have NO idea what you're going on about.   


But the word "offence" certainly seems to have triggered you something rotten. 
Let me put your mind at rest: I meant 'offence' as in criminal offence/felony/misdemeanour.  A legal term.
I did not mean it as in ''taking offence''.


As an aside - If the extreme example I cited did not touch your soul in any way, 
then yes, one of us HAS got a problem.
Clue ….. not me.

In the context of 'extreme cruelty' I'd have your meaning was obvious.

But pleaser the RW, they can be such sensitive snowflakes at times

Lol Elzeil, they give it some welly. 
I feel I'm drowning in a sea of raging teenage hormones sometimes, on here. 

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I didn't misread anything. Andy said that Tommy said something bad, and you automatically believed him and suggest that Tommy should have been put in the basement.


Please get your head out of your arse and check out those sort of claims before you comment on them.

Please get YOUR head out of his arse first before ordering others to get their heads out of their arses.
You arrive in threads in a state of excitement screeching at people to stop "bullying" him like you are his mother.
Put your legendary Miss Marple skills to good use & find the thread then everyone can form their own opinion.

Shouldn't it be the person making the accusations who has the responsibility of providing the evidence to back up their claims...!?


But as yet... the mud has been thrown... although we have not seen Andy provide any evidence to back up his bullshit claim... or offer any apology either...!


And you can bet your life that he will never provide any evidence for his claim... and I very much doubt that he will ever apologise either...!

Lord Foul wrote:tommy would only post once every few months if he only reported white crimes of this nature..........

fill in the blanks in the following sentence

the vast majority of violent crime in London and other major cities is committed by......... upon ..........

Yes plese answer that question or is it based on a bias you have?

Then explain to me what relevance the skin colour has on violent crime scientifically?

You see you are actually part of the problem here, when it comes to the racial bias that people do have

I mean 60 years ago who were the gangs in London?

The Krays and the Richardsons, who were white, but was it because of their skin colour, that they were criminals?

You will find London has a high level of gang violence, with a mjority being black, the rest of the cities around the UK is different, so again I ask, what bearing does the skin colour have to you?

You see you never look to see what leads people to crime in the first place  and the core aspects of this. Your first view point on this, is the absurd racial classsifications and only based on a set time in history

You see it has bearing to racists like Tommy, because as seen here, he uses this as a bases against immigration. I mean the first article foes off about no doubt 4 Black British criminals. Yet he claims this is down to immigration. When they grew up in a British culture and turned to crime. You see its very easy to see past the racist drivel that Tommy presentes and like I said. He never would argue and claim a black or Asian person has been wrongly convicted. Even though there is many examples of a miscarriage  against Blacks in both the US and the UK.

You the likes of Tommy and yourself use crime as a means to target immigrants with the same brush. You then make really bullshit arguments, that you really care about the infrutsructure, but makes the poorest arguments about immigration. As if a means to deny people coming here. As we never read the countless wonderful stories of how the majority of immigrants lead good lives, but the minority who are criminals.

So when people rightly point out racism within people, unlike where The Devil You Know claims, its done to shut down debate. That is a red herring by the right and shows in fact they look to defend racists as there was never even a debate to start with here, until I generated one. Which this debate is going strong. Its important to reason why someone is racist, as it proves their political motivations and bias.

So you tell me based on how you use a time frame and certain places, where you think skin colour has a based to argue agains immigration, because that is essentially the racial claptrap that you are arguing

Lord Foul wrote:I'd argue that point quill....society is a product of human imagination and clearly it exists, religion, however much the object of worship may fall short of reality, is a product of human imagination and clearly exists. Science, for all that ITS components may be real and tangible (with the exception of the hairy fringes of quantum physics) is still a product of human imagination, (what knows the shrew of atoms and quarks?)  

Yet societies laws in the west are based on judeo-christian values and also secular values
In fact many of our basic morals have been made into law
Though shall not steal, though shall not kill etc. As they are  based on sound reasoning to make into law.
As would we like this done to ourselves
So some morals have a bases in sound reality, that does not require immagination, that come from religion.

Whether we like it or not, our core values and morals derive from religion

W/b didge.

Original Quill wrote:W/b didge.

Cheers mate

I think morality should be the bases for society, when its based on the "well being" of people

There is no need of fluidity for that and has a rational bases

I do too, but the question is...what is morality?

Original Quill wrote:I do too, but the question is...what is morality?

To many its based on what is right and wrong. Which can be very fluid, based on the beliefs of people

Where to me the bases for this should be again on the "well being" of people

So poor moral values, where the person holds beliefs to commit violence towards someone in the name of religion. Thinking that they ae doing good. Would conflict with those they wish to harm's "well being". Hence to me, the "well being" of people should be the main core bases of morality.

The only time this comes into conflict, is when someone abuses the well being of people and what consequences there is for this. Is that then effecting their well being, through punishments like imprisonments?

Well that is my opinion

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

He is a prime example of how extreme conservatives have led to the existence of extreme SJWs. Both a nonsense sides of same destructive coin - only, extreme conservatives will never accept that their views have led to the sometimes stupid and dangerous agendas of extreme PC and SJWs.

that problem arose with the term political correctness, what that actually means is not speaking your mind.

Ignoring the core problems themselves.

Racism, sexism etc all led to PC in the first place

Its a flawed concept, but out of a reason to do good. To tackle hate

So there would be no PC if not for racism, etc, when in reality many who are racist, actually hardly speak their minds as a racist, but do so in a round about way. In an attempt to hide their racist views

That is the point you miss

And in reality, near everyone is a social justice warrior in some sense of form.

Look at how you post threads like ones defending Tommy Robinson, which makes you a social justice warrior, but looking to defend someone who is known for his xenophobic views

Look at how smelly wants to stop abortions, just as there is people how defend the rights of women through choice

These are all forms of social justice

Many on the right simple fail to understand, that they too are social justice warriors. They simple have different goals, than those on the left

Original Quill wrote:I do too, but the question is...what is morality?

Dont democrats understand morality??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I do too, but the question is...what is morality?

Dont democrats understand morality??

Everyone has a theory. What exactly do you mean by "understand"?

Jules wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I didn't misread anything. Andy said that Tommy said something bad, and you automatically believed him and suggest that Tommy should have been put in the basement.


Please get your head out of your arse and check out those sort of claims before you comment on them.

Please get YOUR head out of his arse first before ordering others to get their heads out of their arses.
You arrive in threads in a state of excitement screeching at people to stop "bullying" him like you are his mother.
Put your legendary Miss Marple skills to good use & find the thread then everyone can form their own opinion.

Find it yourself, or get your mate to find it. Do your own work for a change and back up what you're saying - or you could retract it, which would be the decent thing to do.

You have a nerve accusing anyone else of "screeching". Your neighbours must get through a lot of earplugs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:
Please get YOUR head out of his arse first before ordering others to get their heads out of their arses.
You arrive in threads in a state of excitement screeching at people to stop "bullying" him like you are his mother.
Put your legendary Miss Marple skills to good use & find the thread then everyone can form their own opinion.

Find it yourself, or get your mate to find it. Do your own work for a change and back up what you're saying - or you could retract it, which would be the decent thing to do.

You have a nerve accusing anyone else of "screeching". Your neighbours must get through a lot of earplugs.

Nope !
Cos it was not me who brought the subject up, it was Andy.
And it was not me who parachuted in afterwards and made a terrible fuss, it was you.

My only role in this was to try to calm Andy down, nil else.
I believed him …..... without checking the story first. 
You disbelieved him without checking the story first.
So you were just as wrong as I was,  going by your own logic.
You & I were both wrong.

No... raggs knows it was bullshit because she would have seen it already if it were true...


Notice how no evidence has been provided yet from 'run away' Andy...!?


Accusations without evidence are baseless... therefore meaningless waffle!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... raggs knows it was bullshit because she would have seen it already if it were true...


Notice how no evidence has been provided yet from 'run away' Andy...!?


Accusations without evidence are baseless... therefore meaningless waffle!!!

Well i would say this is your perfect opportunity to prove them wrong

Why not openly condemn the murderer of Jo Cox and also condemn the terrorism of Anders Breivik

That would be to me, the best way to dispell false charges, would it not Tommy?

So the floor is yours

Or... what you gonna do about it...!?


Have a meltdown, throw a hissy fit, and threaten me with violence again...!!!???







I'm not a puppet on a string... I will post what I want, when I want...!


What should happen is the false accusations need to be retracted and apologies given...!

No problem

I apologise for offering you out for a fight

I did this, because | knew you would run away

I am sorry about that

Now i am sorry I made you hide under the bed, sorry about that Tommy

I was mean for that  

Now instead of diverting

How about you actually prove the people wrong on their claims?

I will allow you one dodge here, based on you being a snowflake, in how I was poor to you

Why not openly condemn the murderer of Jo Cox and also condemn the terrorism of Anders Breivik

That would be to me, the best way to dispell false charges, would it not Tommy?

So the floor is yours

If as you claim that you have every right to post what you want and refrain from condemning

I would say that even more adds weight to their accusations



So you have the power in your hands to easily refute this by condemning and yet you offer up excuses..

I think most people would place their money on those that accused you of this. When you offer poor excuses not to condemn

I am so happy, that they are now looking more honest than you.

Thor wrote:No problem

I apologise for offering you out for a fight

I did this, because | knew you would run away

I am sorry about that

Now i am sorry I made you hide under the bed, sorry about that Tommy

I was mean for that  

Now instead of diverting

How about you actually prove the people wrong on their claims?

I will allow you one dodge here, based on you being a snowflake, in how I was poor to you    

Why not openly condemn the murderer of Jo Cox and also condemn the terrorism of Anders Breivik

That would be to me, the best way to dispell false charges, would it not Tommy?

So the floor is yours

I haven't run away anywhere dodge..!


If you saw me coming at you... trust me, it would be you doing the running...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:No problem

I apologise for offering you out for a fight

I did this, because | knew you would run away

I am sorry about that

Now i am sorry I made you hide under the bed, sorry about that Tommy

I was mean for that  

Now instead of diverting

How about you actually prove the people wrong on their claims?

I will allow you one dodge here, based on you being a snowflake, in how I was poor to you    

Why not openly condemn the murderer of Jo Cox and also condemn the terrorism of Anders Breivik

That would be to me, the best way to dispell false charges, would it not Tommy?

So the floor is yours

I haven't run away anywhere dodge..!


If you saw me coming at you... trust me, it would be you doing the running...!!!

ha ha you shat your pants mate

What happened the other night then?

Thor wrote:If as you claim that you have every right to post what you want and refrain from condemning

I would say that even more adds weight to their accusations



So you have the power in your hands to easily refute this by condemning and yet you offer up excuses..

I think most people would place their money on those that accused you of this. When you offer poor excuses not to condemn

I am so happy, that they are now looking more honest than you.

I mean Tommy still will not openly condemn

I have to say I now think the others are telling the truth