You're European now

[Tezcatlipoca]

You make it up as you go along.

 

I'm going to assume this is an attempt at humour, and that you are able to tell the difference between my two statements you've quoted.

I've clearly touched a nerve explaining how I believe you are misinterpreting the articles to which you link, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone else subscribes to your assertions either.

 

Again, the issue here is that no amount of rational argument is going to change your stance, which rather invalidates discussion.

You admit yourself that my interpretation of your position as an immovable Euro-skeptic despite all evidence to the contrary is correct, you repeatedly quote then respond to your own material (I can only assume under the impression that doing so lends credibility), and then declare that "you think I'm a Euro-skeptic zealot nut and don't want to give my side of the argument any ammo by agreeing with me at all.", which is beginning to sound a touch paranoid.

 

In point of fact, and I admit influenced by your thread behaviour, yes, I do think you're 'a Euro-skeptic zealot nut'. I also believe you are both confused by - and wrong about - a European reintroduction of the death penalty.

 

And why do I choose not to answer some of your questions?

For the exact same reason that many people refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate. They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

 

It might be that Bookworm and others have more patience with you. I do not.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Tezcatlipoca

[Castlebest]

Oh, and Crusher, while you're here, would you PLEASE sort out that "Your" in the title? It's "You're European now".

 

Although on matters of grammar, we're agreed. Can somebody please correct the thread title?

 

I did think to myself what is a European Now and how do I get my hands on one?

 

Yam all bein very picky, this is a bostin thread for ya to have a good natter on

[Castlebest]

I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. That's ok. I'm not wallowing in self-pity! If people that disagree post I will still do my best to respond solely to what they say and nothing more.

 

Funny that as I started the thread and I have got some consensus with my outlook

 

As for the title change in your post, do you work for RBS by any chance?

[renegotiation]

Sorry, but I have been attending to other issues. I am now able to respond for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

I'm going to assume this is an attempt at humour, and that you are able to tell the difference between my two statements you've quoted.

 

Ok, but barely.

 

 

 

I've clearly touched a nerve explaining how I believe you are misinterpreting the articles to which you link, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone else subscribes to your assertions either.

 

No you haven't touched a nerve at all. I just speak my mind with logic. Moreover, I try not to speak for others as you seem to.

 

 

 

Again, the issue here is that no amount of rational argument is going to change your stance, which rather invalidates discussion.

 

I think that statement could well be applied to you in my opinion.

 

 

 

You admit yourself that my interpretation of your position as an immovable Euro-skeptic despite all evidence to the contrary is correct

 

You are saying you are wrong?

 

 

 

you repeatedly quote then respond to your own material (I can only assume under the impression that doing so lends credibility), and then declare that "you think I'm a Euro-skeptic zealot nut and don't want to give my side of the argument any ammo by agreeing with me at all.", which is beginning to sound a touch paranoid.

 

I would say that you are the one who repeats a position without basis and assumes that it gives you credibility. Everything that I have stated is based upon fact. If you have a problem with any of the facts that I have presented, then please highlight these facts.

 

 

 

In point of fact, and I admit influenced by your thread behaviour, yes, I do think you're 'a Euro-skeptic zealot nut'. I also believe you are both confused by - and wrong about - a European reintroduction of the death penalty.

 

You will have your opinion, correct or not. I am not confused or wrong at all. If there is 'really serious dissent' against being part of this corrupt and illegal E.U., to the extent that it might break up, then they WILL use it. I'm amazed that anyone would doubt that.

 

 

 

And why do I choose not to answer some of your questions?

 

No, because you can't.

 

 

 

For the exact same reason that many people refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate. They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

 

The same could be said of you and Nick griffin, but I would rather argue my valid points intellectually than ignore someone.

 

 

 

It might be that Bookworm and others have more patience with you. I do not.

 

I have a lot of respect for Bookworm and all the Site Team as it goes. You have my sincere sympathy.

[renegotiation]

Funny that as I started the thread and I have got some consensus with my outlook

 

As for the title change in your post, do you work for RBS by any chance?

 

Ah, but I wouldn't be resigning if I was with RBS. I'd be retiring with my huge pension.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm a little bemused as to why you've resurrected the thread at all, to be honest. If I recall correctly, you made a series of confused, indefensible statements regarding your belief that the death penalty was being reintroduced, in response to which the flaws in your thinking were pointed out by myself and others. Repeatedly.

 

That your best response to this, over seven weeks later, is the rather childish "You have my sincere sympathy. :-)" is symptomatic of your continuing lack of any real argument. Ad hominem really is the last refuge in debate.

 

Of course you're upset the flaws in your assertions were pointed out, which culminated in "I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. [my emphasis]", but how many more times do you need the same thing repeated to you..? Or do you think if you tell us Europe is reintroducing the death penality enough times it will suddenly become true?

Edited January 24, 2010 by Tezcatlipoca

[renegotiation]

I'm a little bemused as to why you've resurrected the thread at all, to be honest. If I recall correctly, you made a series of confused, indefensible statements regarding your belief that the death penalty was being reintroduced, in response to which the flaws in your thinking were pointed out by myself and others. Repeatedly.

 

Incorrect. Everything was based on fact and I backed it all up. There were no flaws whatsoever. That's exactly what they have done. You can argue that it was done with no sinister intent and that it will never be used, but you can't argue that it hasn't happened i'm afraid. Sorry.

 

 

 

That your best response to this, over seven weeks later, is the rather childish "You have my sincere sympathy. :-)" is symptomatic of your continuing lack of any real argument.

 

All my arguments have been fully sourced and backed up. This was already the case several weeks ago before my previous response . My last post, admittedly after a while because I had other issues to attend to in life, was simply in response to yuor previous weak effort.

 

 

 

Ad hominem really is the last refuge in debate.

 

That would make you a bad debater then, because almost all the ad hominem stuff has come from you. You don't seem capable of addressing facts backed up with sources.

 

 

 

Of course you're upset the flaws in your assertions were pointed out, which culminated in "I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. [my emphasis]",

 

I am not upset at all. You seem to be the one that is upset making ad hominem attacks and unable to address any of the facts I have presented. I reiterate, all backed up with concrete sources. You don't seem to be able to accept that for some reason though. Otherwise, I would be happy to have made my point and move on. If you wish to post more nonsense though, then of course I will be happy to debate further. As an aside, do you actually think this country being in a huge mess has nothing to do with disinterested people? It's a shocking state of affairs.

 

 

 

but how many more times do you need the same thing repeated to you..? Or do you think if you tell us Europe is reintroducing the death penality enough times it will suddenly become true?

 

I don't need it repeated to me at all. I know exactly what has happened and why it has happened. It is 'true' regardless of whether I say it or not. If I say it isn't true it will still be true bcause it is true. Accept it and digest it. Feel free to make other arguments about intent and the possibility of future application. I have just raised this issue because it is very serious and I care.

 

Let me guess. You believe the official account of 9/11 and think we went to Iraq concerned about WMD? Maybe you need to visit confused.com?

 

P.S. I predicted well in advance that the Jersey paedo case would get dropped like a hot potato and covered up. I predicted well in advance that the OFT wouldn't take on a new test case. Quite surprising considering the Supreme Court guided them towards the right path. I could go on. Am I psychic? No, I know full well how sick the world is and just apply common sense.

Edited January 25, 2010 by renegotiation

[Tezcatlipoca]

Everything was based on fact and I backed it all up. There were no flaws whatsoever. That's exactly what they have done.

 

Not so, as more than one person has had to explain to you. You'll excuse me if, rather than have to run through this again, I simply quote one of my previous posts (original post in italics, comments in non-italics to explain context):

 

"The problem here is not that myself, Bookworm, or anyone else denies the existence of the articles to which you refer; it's that we do not agree with yours and Rixon's [Rixon Stewart, noted conspiracy theorist and one of the based-on-fact-and-backed-up sources renegotiation originally linked to] interpretation of those articles.

Let me put it more simply. Your statement "22 states [in Europe] reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow" is simply wrong. No state has reintroduced the death penalty, and nor would it."

 

This is further qualified by my earlier statement:

 

"The death penalty means, specifically, the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.

The articles you post are catering for exceptional circumstance, which exists in the law of all countries, and is a long way from constituting a "sneaked in" [renegotiation asserted that the wholesale reintroduction of the death penalty had been sneaked in by Europe] death penalty."

 

The relevant section of Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR states, and I quote: "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

 

You are confusing the existence of an article - which nobody has at any point denied - that says a state may make provision for the death penalty in exceptional circumstance (then further mitigated by a reference that such can only be applied in accordance with law), with an actual attempt by Europe to reintroduce the death penalty into society at large (I refer you back to your clear statement "22 states reintroduced the death penalty yesterday"). Just because it is factually accurate that the penalty is mentioned in these articles, it doesn't follow that it is factually accurate they are present because of a desire nor attempt to reintroduce them. That's where we cross the boundary from fact into supposition.

 

Let me put it even more simply for you; it is a fact that the sea is wet. I might personally believe that it's wet because the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it so, but that doesn't quite make it true. I can bang on about it until I'm blue in the face, and point to the fact the sea is wet as proof of my belief, but no matter how often I repeat my own posts or resurrect my old threads, it is still no more true than when I started. This is classic confirmation bias, the stalwart psychology of many a religious belief and the foundation of most conspiracy theories.

 

You believe the official account of 9/11 and think we went to Iraq concerned about WMD? Maybe you need to visit confused.com?

 

Yeah, about that behaviour we were discussing...

 

For the record, whilst there's little doubt about the illegality of the Iraq 'war' and the shameful behaviour of our government over the issue (a subject on which I've campaigned numerous times), I for one would very much like to see you tell us all the TRUTH about 9/11; really, I would. I suggest you should start a new thread about it, so as not to hijack this one, which is pretty much concluded (assuming it doesn't have another miraculous resurrection another two months down the line).

And before you rush to reference your other resurrected thread that mentions 9/11 briefly but which everyone ignored, I mean a thread containing ideas that you have had of your own, not just a link to somebody else's ideas.

Of course, since your assertions are "fully sourced and backed up", you will be sure to clearly state the facts that have led you to your conclusions on 9/11 for us, won't you..?

Edited January 25, 2010 by Tezcatlipoca

[determindator]

Post 76 'Unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.'

 

This is like a contradiction in terms.Surely not 'unduly' if it raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

[renegotiation]

Not so, as more than one person has had to explain to you. You'll excuse me if, rather than have to run through this again, I simply quote one of my previous posts (original post in italics, comments in non-italics to explain context):

 

"The problem here is not that myself, Bookworm, or anyone else denies the existence of the articles to which you refer; it's that we do not agree with yours and Rixon's [Rixon Stewart, noted conspiracy theorist and one of the based-on-fact-and-backed-up sources renegotiation originally linked to] interpretation of those articles.

Let me put it more simply. Your statement "22 states [in Europe] reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow" is simply wrong. No state has reintroduced the death penalty, and nor would it."

 

This is further qualified by my earlier statement:

 

"The death penalty means, specifically, the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.

The articles you post are catering for exceptional circumstance, which exists in the law of all countries, and is a long way from constituting a "sneaked in" [renegotiation asserted that the wholesale reintroduction of the death penalty had been sneaked in by Europe] death penalty."

 

The relevant section of Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR states, and I quote: "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

 

You are confusing the existence of an article - which nobody has at any point denied - that says a state may make provision for the death penalty in exceptional circumstance (then further mitigated by a reference that such can only be applied in accordance with law), with an actual attempt by Europe to reintroduce the death penalty into society at large (I refer you back to your clear statement "22 states reintroduced the death penalty yesterday"). Just because it is factually accurate that the penalty is mentioned in these articles, it doesn't follow that it is factually accurate they are present because of a desire nor attempt to reintroduce them. That's where we cross the boundary from fact into supposition.

 

Let me put it even more simply for you; it is a fact that the sea is wet. I might personally believe that it's wet because the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it so, but that doesn't quite make it true. I can bang on about it until I'm blue in the face, and point to the fact the sea is wet as proof of my belief, but no matter how often I repeat my own posts or resurrect my old threads, it is still no more true than when I started. This is classic confirmation bias, the stalwart psychology of many a religious belief and the foundation of most conspiracy theories.

 

I have already fully addressed everything you have just stated. You are just going round in circles like a dog with a bone. If you are too ignorant to undrestand it isn't my fault. If you have anything 'new' you wish to add I will happily address it.

 

 

 

 

For the record, whilst there's little doubt about the illegality of the Iraq 'war' and the shameful behaviour of our government over the issue (a subject on which I've campaigned numerous times), I for one would very much like to see you tell us all the TRUTH about 9/11; really, I would. I suggest you should start a new thread about it, so as not to hijack this one, which is pretty much concluded (assuming it doesn't have another miraculous resurrection another two months down the line).

And before you rush to reference your other resurrected thread that mentions 9/11 briefly but which everyone ignored, I mean a thread containing ideas that you have had of your own, not just a link to somebody else's ideas.

Of course, since your assertions are "fully sourced and backed up", you will be sure to clearly state the facts that have led you to your conclusions on 9/11 for us, won't you..?

 

You are beginning to sound like a 'conspiracy theorist'. Governments being responsible for an 'illegal war' that has killed well over 1 million innocent people, 'your words', and then defensively demanding 'truth' about 9/11? Like it's crazy to suggest that they wouldn't be put off by a few thousand deaths to kick it all off? That's a racist comment if ever I heard one. Nick Griffin watch out. You have a rival! As for 9/11 I can sum it up easily in a few sentences. Michael Meacher said:

 

'Look at everything that happened before 9/11, at 9/11, and after 9/11. You will get a much better sense of what is happening than the bogus War On Terror.'

 

I completely agree with Michael Meacher. Please see the videos on this thread and if you really feel the need to respond, then good luck to you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/235645-meacher-von-bulow.html

 

I think i'll take the words of Meacher and Von Bulow, ex-ministers who have no reason to lie and in combination with common sense, over Tezcat. Sorry!

Edited January 26, 2010 by renegotiation

[Tezcatlipoca]

Post 76 'Unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion.'

 

This is like a contradiction in terms.Surely not 'unduly' if it raises them to the level of a valid opinion.

 

Not so. The entire sentence, which defines the context of your quote, is "They [people who refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate] are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion."

 

The word 'unduly' means immoderately, being the antithesis of 'duly', to mean appropriately or in a proper manner. To have a discussion with the likes of Mr Griffin duly raise the debate to the level of valid debate is to do so appropriately and with moderation, which infers that engaging in the debate is in itself a moderate act. In this context, this obviously carries the implication that the issue(s) at hand are worthy of discussion; if they weren't, you wouldn't duly engage with them (and I think most people would agree that Mr Griffin's issues are rarely worth genuine debate).

To duly raise something is correct grammar, but would rather obviously be the opposite of the context of the statement being made, and is thus inappropriate in this case.

 

If, however, engaging in debate with Mr Griffin is to unduly raise the issues to the level of valid opinion, the context undergoes an inversion. The inference becomes that the act of engaging itself is an immoderate act, an extreme act. In this case it refers to the fact that said engagement only elevates what is almost exclusively Mr Griffin's racist and xenophobic tirade to the level of an actual debate.

So the original statement "They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion." is correct in terms of context, grammar and inference.

 

It's also, oddly enough, exactly what I intended it to mean.

[SOD'EM]

Not so. The entire sentence, which defines the context of your quote, is "They [people who refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate] are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion."

 

The word 'unduly' means immoderately, being the antithesis of 'duly', to mean appropriately or in a proper manner. To have a discussion with the likes of Mr Griffin duly raise the debate to the level of valid debate is to do so appropriately and with moderation, which infers that engaging in the debate is in itself a moderate act. In this context, this obviously carries the implication that the issue(s) at hand are worthy of discussion; if they weren't, you wouldn't duly engage with them (and I think most people would agree that Mr Griffin's issues are rarely worth genuine debate).

To duly raise something is correct grammar, but would rather obviously be the opposite of the context of the statement being made, and is thus inappropriate in this case.

 

If, however, engaging in debate with Mr Griffin is to unduly raise the issues to the level of valid opinion, the context undergoes an inversion. The inference becomes that the act of engaging itself is an immoderate act, an extreme act. In this case it refers to the fact that said engagement only elevates what is almost exclusively Mr Griffin's racist and xenophobic tirade to the level of an actual debate.

So the original statement "They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion." is correct in terms of context, grammar and inference.

 

It's also, oddly enough, exactly what I intended it to mean.

 

 

 

Teachers pet:p

 

 

 

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Teachers pet:p

 

Nah, it was entirely my fault for using intermediate-level English in my original post on Mr Griffin. I'd have written it in Kiswahili for clarity, but I'm not fluent enough in it to accomodate the contextual shift.

 

I can say 'conspiracy theorist' in Kiswahili, though

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tezcatlipoca

[SOD'EM]

Kiswahili

 

 

Same to you, with bells on:p.

[babybear39]

Ooh! I do love a good conspiracy theory lol

[Tezcatlipoca]

Ooh! I do love a good conspiracy theory lol

 

You're not the only one!

[sequenci]

I've amended the thread title, I hope you don't mind!

[hilaryfrances]

I've amended the thread title, I hope you don't mind!

 

 

thank goodness for that!

[determindator]

Nah, it was entirely my fault for using intermediate-level English in my original post on Mr Griffin. I'd have written it in Kiswahili for clarity, but I'm not fluent enough in it to accomodate the contextual shift.

 

I can say 'conspiracy theorist' in Kiswahili, though

 

D'you know I'm still not convinced about your theory about 'what happened before the big bang,' though!

[renegotiation]

D'you know I'm still not convinced about your theory about 'what happened before the big bang,' though!

 

Careful, she'll have you dressed like this soon:

 

http://allo.crudo.cz/images/epizody/3/3_12.jpg

 

'Bring in determindator!' :eek:

[Tezcatlipoca]

D'you know I'm still not convinced about your theory about 'what happened before the big bang,' though!

 

Er...I suspect you are alluding the three month old thread you've just resurrected in which you asked the question "What happened before the Big Bang?" and I responded thusly. My response isn't a theory in answer to your question. My response is a breakdown of why I think the question itself is flawed, assuming a particular premise (which is why the word 'if' starts the second paragraph).

Unless of course you're talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster I mentioned at the time, in which case - and I'll let you in on a secret here - I just might have been using his Pastafarian Highness to take the proverbial...

 

You must have been hunting through a lot of old threads before resurrecting that one; I'm touched.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Tezcatlipoca

[determindator]

Didn't do any hunting, just have a fascination with the subject so it was easy just to press my CP list of threads i've posted on and hey presto the thread appeared! Thought Caggers may want to endulge and give a theory.

 

Glad you're touched!!

[renegotiation]

Not so. The entire sentence, which defines the context of your quote, is "They [people who refuse to engage Nick Griffin in debate] are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion."

 

The word 'unduly' means immoderately, being the antithesis of 'duly', to mean appropriately or in a proper manner. To have a discussion with the likes of Mr Griffin duly raise the debate to the level of valid debate is to do so appropriately and with moderation, which infers that engaging in the debate is in itself a moderate act. In this context, this obviously carries the implication that the issue(s) at hand are worthy of discussion; if they weren't, you wouldn't duly engage with them (and I think most people would agree that Mr Griffin's issues are rarely worth genuine debate).

To duly raise something is correct grammar, but would rather obviously be the opposite of the context of the statement being made, and is thus inappropriate in this case.

 

If, however, engaging in debate with Mr Griffin is to unduly raise the issues to the level of valid opinion, the context undergoes an inversion. The inference becomes that the act of engaging itself is an immoderate act, an extreme act. In this case it refers to the fact that said engagement only elevates what is almost exclusively Mr Griffin's racist and xenophobic tirade to the level of an actual debate.

So the original statement "They are neither frightened of what he says, nor think he's right, but discussing the issues unduly raises them to the level of a valid opinion." is correct in terms of context, grammar and inference.

 

It's also, oddly enough, exactly what I intended it to mean.

 

What utter nonsense. Now, where do I begin?

 

Some times it's best to just agree to disagree...

[Tezcatlipoca]

It's time to settle down now, renegotation.

 

 

If you carry on, you'll have to go on the naughty-step, mmkay?

[renegotiation]

It's time to settle down now, renegotation.

 

 

If you carry on, you'll have to go on the naughty-step, mmkay?

 

Determindator told me the punishment was worth the thrill...

 

How old are you in that picture by the way? You look like the butter wouldn't melt...

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation