Liverpool FC Forum

[Kenny Kan]

That was the recent outcome. Good job,.

I bet you and a few other pinko's on this site are foaming at the mouth with this outcome. In your view I bet justice hasn't been done, and the actual perpetrators in all this are the 'real' victims " "

More nonsense, I'm afraid. I'm simply keen to see that arguments in discussions of this nature have a firm grounding in the facts as they really are, not as you or anyone else would want them to be.

What, like the nonsense that made you look silly in the gardening thread? 

[Boocity]

To get back on topic, I think the Judges comments are a disgrace, he should be sacked, I wonder if he would feel the same if it was his house. Its not couragous to break into someones house its cowardly, anyone who has returned home to find the place trashed and irreplacable possessions stolen or smashed can understand what I mean.

[Boocity]

And if he finds a woman on her own while robbing the place and rapes her, is he being daring

[laza]

btw: thought by seeing the thread title that the old resident perv was back.

Me too, thought the Judgster was offering complimentary reconciliation branch to all those he upset last time around

[andy_g]

I bet you and a few other pinko's on this site are foaming at the mouth with this outcome. In your view I bet justice hasn't been done, and the actual perpetrators in all this are the 'real' victims " "

come on, bam.... even you must know deep down that that's a ridiculous thing to say. we all know full well who you are referring to when you start going on about pinkos (note the lack of apostrophe, by the way. we're not talking about anything that belongs to a pinko, we are talking about more than one pinko    ) but you seem to make these incredibly general and inaccurate swipes at what you believe they (we?) actually stand for. what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

[Kenny Kan]

I bet you and a few other pinko's on this site are foaming at the mouth with this outcome. In your view I bet justice hasn't been done, and the actual perpetrators in all this are the 'real' victims " "

come on, bam.... even you must know deep down that that's a ridiculous thing to say. we all know full well who you are referring to when you start going on about pinkos (note the lack of apostrophe, by the way. we're not talking about anything that belongs to a pinko, we are talking about more than one pinko    ) but you seem to make these incredibly general and inaccurate swipes at what you believe they (we?) actually stand for. what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

Come on Andy.... Given the peculiar social and cultural disposition of some posters on here I can't believe you're telling me to "come on".

Case in point - I open a thread and SCS avoids the topic and tries to point out some "irony" I fail to see, perhaps you can understand his comment?

In tandem with this post for the second time within a week, the source of the news has been attacked for presumably 'bias' reasons. However, in both issues raised, no matter the bias or political leaning of the sources I've still been attacked merely because the points raised in both articles aren't what people want to hear.

My 'general' swipes that have been directed at a few on here, including you have been made because of the stance certain people have made over and over again. I cannot for the life of me believe somebody to be someone/thing else when they post such ridiculous tripe; on the contrary to how they actually are in real life. I can't believe they'd mascaraed on here as some care free do-gooder then in real life abhor the s.hit they actually spout on here - I give them more credit than that andy. 

what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

I just posted a thread on the ridiculous lauding a judge gave a burglar  Now if you feel that is being "provocative" then I suggest you steer clear from this thread. However, I'm sure it would take more than kid gloves and a feather for you to feel provoked by this 'provocative' topic.

I agree though, I have fallen to SCS level and for that I apologise for 'biting,' I suppose the old saying, 'if you can't beat em join em', one over more rational thinking, like ignoring the provocative SCS in the first instance.

[andy_g]

what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

I just posted a thread on the ridiculous lauding a judge gave a burglar  Now if you feel that is being "provocative" then I suggest you steer clear from this thread. However, I'm sure it would take more than kid gloves and a feather for you to feel provoked by this 'provocative' topic.

i have no issue with the topic of the thread, as long as it can be debated reasonably. i was referring to the pinko comments and your perceived idea of what and how they think. to me, this term 'pinko' and the way you see them is such an enormous generalisation, and in my opinion a hugely inaccurate one as well. it actually makes any kind of proper discussion virtually impossible because right away you are lumping people into this way of thinking that in all probability doesn't really exist. i advocate a more objective way of looking at whatever issue is at hand, to try to take all view points into consideration, and to get in some small way closer to the 'truth'. my impression, and of course i might be wrong, is that your method is closer to finding as many sources as possible that back up whatever bug bear you have about 'cultural marxism', fundamentalism, human rights, or whatever, and ignoring, discounting or ridiculing anything that contradicts it.

[Kenny Kan]

what are you trying to do here anyway? have a reasonable discussion or just be provocative?

I just posted a thread on the ridiculous lauding a judge gave a burglar  Now if you feel that is being "provocative" then I suggest you steer clear from this thread. However, I'm sure it would take more than kid gloves and a feather for you to feel provoked by this 'provocative' topic.

i have no issue with the topic of the thread, as long as it can be debated reasonably. i was referring to the pinko comments and your perceived idea of what and how they think. to me, this term 'pinko' and the way you see them is such an enormous generalisation, and in my opinion a hugely inaccurate one as well. it actually makes any kind of proper discussion virtually impossible because right away you are lumping people into this way of thinking that in all probability doesn't really exist. i advocate a more objective way of looking at whatever issue is at hand, to try to take all view points into consideration, and to get in some small way closer to the 'truth'. my impression, and of course i might be wrong, is that your method is closer to finding as many sources as possible that back up whatever bug bear you have about 'cultural marxism', fundamentalism, human rights, or whatever, and ignoring, discounting or ridiculing anything that contradicts it.

Racist, bigot and all the other fascist names under the sun have been thrown my way Andy - so don't get hung up on the pinko-lefto ad-hom you've been pigeon hold with.

And your impression is wrong Andy. I could post (if I wanted to), much more critique on 'Cultural Marxism'. I think even Karl Marx would turn in his grave to see that a number of his theories have been morphed into some kind of 1960's neo-Marxist "dialectic" process in which it has had a major effect on 20th century philosophy, sociology, culture, and politics, inspiring especially the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s. *see Dialectic of Enlightenment* When primarily Karl Marx was interested in a classless society. Yet, instead it has resulted today in some of the most pathetic laws, policies, social and cultural dispositions that have made them anything but dialectic. Instead, it's brought into existence appeasement, pinko thought policing, even more discrimination, state nanny-ism and almost any other 'ism' that's banded about today as though it is the age of enlightenment.

So, Andy, back to the topic - the Judge who somehow had the audacity to say to a burglar that he was courageous for breaking into people's homes defies belief. Only, and in my view, only, could someone attempt to say something THAT provocative in this day and age and hope to get away with it; such is it that norms have almost been reversed by this neo-Marxist thought (that's pervaded society unconsciously for decades bringing people up believing perpatrators are the victims and vice-versa) and everything is undergone with red-taped political correctness, Andy.

You stated it was courageous to break into homes Andy?

Would it be fair to say then, that you think it would be a courageous act Andy, to pick a young child up off the street and stab her to death and dump her body off somewhere?

Both are crimes [breaking law] both are morally wrong that is of course, if you believe these wrongs to be the abnorms of general society and it's citizens , both of these crimes have a perpetrator and a victim. So, can you differentiate for me the courageousness of both these crimes, and if you can't, why not?

[andy_g]

Racist, bigot and all the other fascist names under the sun have been thrown my way Andy - so don't get hung up on the pinko-lefto ad-hom you've been pigeon hold with.

yeah, but they're right 

So, Andy, back to the topic - the Judge who somehow had the audacity to say to a burglar that he was courageous for breaking into people's homes defies belief. Only and in my view, only could someone attempt to say something THAT provocative in this day and age and hope to get away with it such is that norms have almost been reversed by this neo-Marxist thought (that's pervaded society unconsciously for decades bringing people up believing perpatrators are the victims and vice-versa) and everything is undergone with red-taped political correctness, Andy.

You stated it was courageous to break into homes Andy?

Would it be fair to say then, that you think it would be a courageous act Andy, to pick a young child up off the street and stab her to death and dump her body off somewhere?

Both are crimes [ breaking lawful crimes] both are morally wrong that is of course if you believe these wrongs to be the abnorms of general society and it's citizens , both of these crimes have a perpetrator and a victim. So, can you differentiate for me the courageousness of both these crimes, and if you can't, why not?

i stand by it - it takes balls to walk into somebody's home to take their stuff, being fully aware of what could happen if you are caught in the act. that's not to say i think its right, or even that i admire the people that do it though, of course. breaking the law in general must take some degree of courage - less for breaking the speed limit, more for robbery or violent crime, or even drug dealing. lets not confuse the concept of courage with the generally positive meaning of courageous. maybe lets not even call it courage, lets call it balls, chutzpah, spunk, guts, or whatever else so we don't confuse ourselves. would you say that it takes absolutely no balls whatsoever to commit a crime that you know full well could land you with several years in prison, a serious beating, or both?

i think you let the idea of political correctness get to you too much. its important that society becomes more progressive, that for the good of all we try to act more humanely and to take decisions based on an objective view of all the factors involved. i personally see this as a much more conducive way forward for a healthy society than reactionary right wing politics, but i'm also aware that many mistakes will be made as we try and get our heads around it. it looks like the judge in question here made one of them.

one thing i would agree with you on, is that in an attempt to establish 'fairness' a lot of situations have gone way too far in the opposite direction. i'm sure that one day, after a few oscillations backwards and forwards, the correctness pendulum will occupy a healthy position in the middle.

the 'perpetrator as victim' scenario is, as well, more complex than you make out for your argument. its plainly obvious that the person who robs a house is not more of a victim than the people who were robbed - in that instance. what we need to look at more though, are the social factors that have brought that individual to commit a crime. its highly possible that in many other circumstances in this person's life they have been a victim of one kind or another. this doesn't mean that we have to give them a big cuddle and let them off, but it does mean we have to be a little more open minded about how we deal with criminals.

[Kenny Kan]

Even though I may not agree with all of it, that was a good/fair post Angy d.

And I see we've found some common ground.....  [strikethrough]one thing i would agree with you on, is that in an attempt to establish 'fairness' a lot of situations have gone way too far in the opposite direction.[/strikethrough] We both believe I'm a racist.

[Roger Red Hat]

they break into my house I don't care how courageous or brave they are, they're on for a hiding. first heavy object I can lay my hand on and it's wrapping around their bonce.

scum bags

[andy_g]

they break into my house I don't care how courageous or brave they are, they're on for a hiding. first heavy object I can lay my hand on and it's wrapping around their bonce.

scum bags

so would i. if i caught them i'd give them the mother of all hidings. but when they came round i'd give them a nice cup of tea and offer to help them with their personal issues.

[LFC2007]

That was the recent outcome. Good job,.

I bet you and a few other pinko's on this site are foaming at the mouth with this outcome. In your view I bet justice hasn't been done, and the actual perpetrators in all this are the 'real' victims " "

More nonsense, I'm afraid. I'm simply keen to see that arguments in discussions of this nature have a firm grounding in the facts as they really are, not as you or anyone else would want them to be.

What, like the nonsense that made you look silly in the gardening thread? 

Yes, like the nonsense you posted in the gardening thread. As I said in that thread, there is no point in having a debate if the facts upon which your arguments are based are not actually true. Basing your "gardening advice" on the regurgitations of a UKIP MEP whose story cannot be verified is no better. Granted, the Telegraph article you later posted offered a slight improvement in that it included comment from the RHS, but even that did not go nearly far enough in enabling the reader to arrive at their own, informed, conclusion. It failed to carry comment from the EU, or the agencies concerned, and did not go to the effort of citing precisely which EU Regulations you would be violating, which is, of course, absolutely essential to know in order to determine the veracity of the claim. You, though, were content to take the word of both publications, rather than investigate and be sure about your own "advice".

Sometimes, however, it's not even the sources themselves that are wanting; it is your own reading of those sources that lets you down. Here, for example, you neglected to read the BBC article you posted carefully and concluded, erroneously, that the couple in question had been "charged" when in fact they had only been arrested, and were later released without charge. That makes all the difference.

Truth is, if you were being objective about these matters you would seek to make sure that your conclusions bore a sound reflection in the facts, and not just a select few facts, either. You might just be riled by the attitude of the particular judge in question, which is fine and something most of us can agree upon, or you might use the example of the bugnutty judge to illustrate a wider point about the judicial system, but for that -- if you were being objective -- you would also seek a commensurate degree of evidence to support what is a much wider claim. It's no good just seizing on a few single instances as evidence of a widespread problem when there are well over a million people sentenced following a criminal conviction every year in England and Wales alone. As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, where is the evidence that this something or other that you're banging on about 'pervades' the system or is the 'norm'?

[Boxscarf]

This is what happens left-wing and Liberal views become the norm. This is why Britain needs another Margaret Thacther, but a Thatcher with more of Mussolini outlook on things, remember no trains ran late when Mussolini was in power. (They were running on time before Mussolini got into power).

[Kenny Kan]

Yes, like the nonsense you posted in the gardening thread. As I said in that thread, there is no point in having a debate if the facts upon which your arguments are based are not actually true.

So, you're still in denial about this as you keep referring to it at as "nonsense"and ergo the arguments based are actually true. Like I said, just because an argument is bias it does not rule out the fact that it cannot be true. You appear to have a problem with this, not me, even when this has been backed up by the RHS. If you want exclusive evidence so you can be "informed" that is your prerogative but you go and search for such evidence to satisfy your own needs. In fact, the rest of your paragraph is superfluous nonsense that attempts to squirm out of, an already lost debate. 

Sometimes, however, it's not even the sources themselves that are wanting; it is your own reading of those sources that lets you down. Here, for example, you neglected to read the BBC article you posted carefully and concluded, erroneously, that the couple in question had been "charged" when in fact they had only been arrested, and were later released without charge. That makes all the difference.

Yes, I made a typo. However, the couple weren't far off being charged with GBH. Never mind, 'commonsense' prevailed even though I personally  see no need for an arrest in order to investigate the circumstances in which a victim of a foul crime were forced to defend themselves.

Truth is, if you were being objective about these matters you would seek to make sure that your conclusions bore a sound reflection in the facts, and not just a select few facts, either. You might just be riled by the attitude of the particular judge in question, which is fine and something most of us can agree upon, or you might use the example of the bugnutty judge to illustrate a wider point about the judicial system, but for that -- if you were being objective -- you would also seek a commensurate degree of evidence to support what is a much wider claim. It's no good just seizing on a few single instances as evidence of a widespread problem when there are well over a million people sentenced following a criminal conviction every year in England and Wales alone. As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, where is the evidence that this something or other that you're banging on about 'pervades' the system or is the 'norm'?

Never once here, did I say I was seeking to be objective on the matter, that's your presumptuous straw-man argument you've conjured up. As, already has been stated, if one is dispositioned  with a certain viewpoint and care to expand on that viewpoint it doesn't make their argument false. We're not in a courtroom, we're not on a University forum board, we're on a general chat discussion board on an LFC forum. If you would like to alter this discourse I suggest you have a word with admin, if one isn't allowed to speak up about their beliefs and theories because 'you' don't want to hear it, or that you demand empirical evidence on every subject that is brought up, speak to them.