TheSinner.net Messageboards

JJZM wrote:I couldn't be arsed to write an essay...

OK, I have to ask... how much of what you wrote do you actually believe to be true? The troll label has (in the past) been all-too readily applied to people with differing views on this forum, so I'm loathe to make any assumptions. But seriously, are you being genuine?

RedCelt69 wrote:

JJZM wrote:I couldn't be arsed to write an essay...

OK, I have to ask... how much of what you wrote do you actually believe to be true? The troll label has (in the past) been all-too readily applied to people with differing views on this forum, so I'm loathe to make any assumptions. But seriously, are you being genuine?

And this questions comes from someone who recently wrote, in all seriousness,

RedCelt69 wrote:Jesus Christ but I hate feminists so very very much.

jollytiddlywink wrote:And this questions comes from someone who recently wrote, in all seriousness,

RedCelt69 wrote:Jesus Christ but I hate feminists so very very much.

Hidden somewhere in there, you were trying to make a point. But it's lost on me.

I've explained why I hate feminists. Your inability to understand that explanation is your problem, not mine.

I'm interested to see if the poster can explain his position.

What on earth is the issue here?

JJZM just gave his opinion on things i.e. he'd like the Met to operate more like the Belfast police force who are more experienced in rioting and the like.

Not sure what you want cleared up mate? I just gave my two cents as jequirity said.

I'm not looking for a argument so I can progress to be a prized member of the St Andrews Debating Society like yourself.

RedCelt69 wrote:

jollytiddlywink wrote:And this questions comes from someone who recently wrote, in all seriousness,

RedCelt69 wrote:Jesus Christ but I hate feminists so very very much.

Hidden somewhere in there, you were trying to make a point. But it's lost on me.

I've explained why I hate feminists. Your inability to understand that explanation is your problem, not mine.

I'm interested to see if the poster can explain his position.

The implication is you're calling a guy a troll for doing what you did, writing some angry noise that thinks the emotion is justification and explanation.

I'm sure you know this because it isn't hard to work out and that you're being intentionally obtuse.

JJZM wrote:Not sure what you want cleared up mate? I just gave my two cents as jequirity said.

I'm not looking for a argument so I can progress to be a prized member of the St Andrews Debating Society like yourself.

There was so much wrong with what you wrote, that I was intrigued enough to ask whether you believed it to be true. And you apparently do. I am not (nor do I have any desire to be) a member of a debating society. Just... if you weren't looking for an argument, why did you post something so inflammatory (on the internet, of all places)?

Allow me to explain:-

JJZM wrote:I couldn't be arsed to write an essay but I was pretty darn embarrassed at the government's inability to respond to groups of yobs taking advantage of the nation's capital city.

It was less "the government" and more "the police". And it happened in places other than London... which is the capital of England (where the riots took place) not the UK. I'm making that point, because you repeatedly refer to Britain, when the rioting was restricted solely to England.

The police shot dead a black guy in mysterious circumstances. Why mysterious? Because the full details weren't immediately made available. The police were the only ones at the scene who opened fire. Not that unusual if the dead guy had been threatening to shoot them with his own gun... but was he? Did he even own a gun? Well, we still don't know.

In a background of race-based stop-and-searches that (shamefully, still) happen far too often, many of the locals protested outside the police station. After a lot of waiting around, some of the more restless ones decided that a quiet and lawful protest wasn't enough. So they "went off on one". The police didn't storm in with the full violence they are capable of. Why? Well, they'd just killed a man (possibly an innocent man) and this was a protest against the police.

This was a sensible thing to do... with one caveat; elsewhere, people saw the police adopt a hands-off approach. This was a green light for the property vandalism/theft that followed over the next few nights. The big mistake was that the police were still in their original position of better-not-be-violent. When they should have gone in to prevent the crime, they decided to search the CCTV recordings and arrest people in their homes. Great arrest rate - shitty for the victims.

It was a decision by a Met officer who (thankfully) blew his chances of securing the position of the (empty) top position. It wasn't the government (who were mostly all on holiday).

JJZM wrote:I'm currently interning in the USA and it made me ashamed to be British

The list is far too long, but I'll opt for a single reason why a Brit (in America) has zero reason to be ashamed of his nationality; Guantanamo Bay. If a mishandled police situation made you ashamed (in America, FFS) to be British, then you are reason enough for me to be ashamed to share your nationality.

JJZM wrote:good thing I'm from N. Ireland so I have dual Nationality.

...because nobody from Northern Ireland has any reason to be ashamed of their countrymen.

JJZM wrote:Not that I'm pro-Nazi or anything but by contrast, in Nazi Germany during the reign of Hitler, yobs like this would be relocated to concentration camps and the unrest would be taken care of swiftly.

I think that people who hold your views should be "relocated to concentration camps"... see where illiberalism goes so badly wrong? I'm guessing not, as the repugnance of that one sentence dismisses all hope that reason and understanding can be applied to you.

JJZM wrote:Britain needs to man-up a bit and learn from Belfast's police force - who know how to deal with a good riot.

Belfast is in Britain, so you seem a smidgen confused. Cardiff, Swansea, Glasgow & Edinburgh... completely riot-free. Perhaps (in your Gestapo-state dream world) England needs to "man-up a bit".

Go read a history book*, FTLOG... and make an effort to understand some of it.


* Preferably not one written by David Starkey.

RedCelt69 wrote:And it happened in places other than London... which is the capital of England (where the riots took place) not the UK. I'm making that point, because you repeatedly refer to Britain, when the rioting was restricted solely to England.

Wrong and wrong. England doesn't have a capital, and London is the capital of the UK. The English riots took place in several English cities, one of which is the capital of the UK, but isn't the capital of England, because England has no capital of its own. Clear?

RedCelt69 wrote:Belfast is in Britain, so you seem a smidgen confused.

No, Belfast is not in Britain. It isn't in Britain now, and it never has been. Belfast isn't in Great Britain, either. If you're going to presume to lecture others on these points, and suggest in brusque language that they may wish to "read a history book" and try to understand even a little of it, then I would suggest it might be best if you took the time to make sure you understand the subject yourself.

And explaining to your own satisfaction why you hate feminists "so very very much" doesn't mean you have any valid reasons. It just means that you applied a much lower burden of proof than anyone else did. You'll note nobody else on that thread accepted your given reasons as being worth anything. I'm not saying the truth is democratic, but argument is. If you've convinced nobody but yourself, it doesn't say much for your argument.

jollytiddlywink wrote:Wrong and wrong. England doesn't have a capital, and London is the capital of the UK.

I was half right, half wrong. England very much does have a capital city - and that city is London. It is also supposed to be the capital of the UK, which is something that perplexes me as I'm sure that the UK didn't used to have a capital city of its own. Either way, I was half right. As were you. Let's call that half a point each (as I know you value "winning" and "losing" so very much).

jollytiddlywink wrote:No, Belfast is not in Britain. It isn't in Britain now, and it never has been. Belfast isn't in Great Britain, either.

"Britain" (& "UK") are both shorthand terms for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain* and Northern Ireland". Belfast very much is in Britain. On that, I was very much right and you were very much wrong. One and a half points to me, half a point to you.

jollytiddlywink wrote:If you're going to presume to lecture others on these points, and suggest in brusque language that they may wish to "read a history book" and try to understand even a little of it, then I would suggest it might be best if you took the time to make sure you understand the subject yourself.

Say that to yourself in a mirror.

jollytiddlywink wrote:And explaining to your own satisfaction why you hate feminists "so very very much" doesn't mean you have any valid reasons. It just means that you applied a much lower burden of proof than anyone else did.

Hatred requires proof now, instead of... oh, I dunno, being an emotion? Strange.

Regardless, I did explain my reasons.

jollytiddlywink wrote:You'll note nobody else on that thread accepted your given reasons as being worth anything. I'm not saying the truth is democratic, but argument is. If you've convinced nobody but yourself, it doesn't say much for your argument.

Being right in a sea of wrong people doesn't make you any less right. You can call argument democratic all you like, personally I don't even remotely care that some people were too stupid to understand my position (I gave it my best shot). Which I've told you before. But hey ho...


* Geographically, Great Britain is the largest island in the British Isles (and excludes every other island, including places like the Hebrides/Shetlands/Orkneys... or, even, the Isle of Wight). Politically, Great Britain does include those islands... but not Ireland, which is why the full title is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). When saying "Great Britain" the context indicates whether you're referring to the geographic island or the political island group. Saying "Britain" or "UK" and you're referring to the political entity that includes Northern Ireland.