Red Ken makes Jewish concentration camp guard jibe

mycroft

Sand wrote:

Mycroft, seeing as Red Ken apparently worked for the same employer as Finegold do you reckon its fair to say that Red Ken is also just like a concentration camp guard? In fact, probably moreso as Red Ken seems terribly well educated on the sins of the paper?

Ahem

mycroft wrote:

If you want to have a go at ken attack him for working for the standard.

I'm under no illusion about Livingstone's background, I just think that having a go at him for this is just stupid. There are far worse things he's done, and the Corinthinans' argument is weak at best, criticize him for going ahead and privatising the tube (a major reason he was elected was to stop privatisation of the tube) or rejoining labour, or working as the standards restaurant critic. This, this is just stupid.

monument

The Corinthian wrote:

I notice when you went to Dictionary.com, you skipped over the first few definitions until you found one you liked. Xenophobia,

Don’t bother point out the fact that the definition I chose was from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.

The Corinthian wrote:

while distasteful, does not implicitly incite hatred or violence - that is to say:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/faith/crime/faq.html

There is a big difference between saying “I don’t like X” and “I don’t like X and reckon you should burn out their houses” or is that too politically incorrect for you?

Yes there is.

I think my only real comment on an incitement of hate was that it would be hard to prove, replying to your comment on why doesn’t Livingstone go after the Mail under the incite to hate laws – which was the first mention of incite to hate.

Correct me if I’m wrong - doesn’t the UK’s incite to racial hate cover such incitements beyond just an incite to violence (doesn’t it cover incite to racial hate without violence)?...

The Corinthian wrote:

Hint: Replace X with Michael McDowell and tell me if we should outlaw the first phrase because it logically (according to you) leads to the second.

…Anyway, on this thread I don’t remember saying anything should be outlawed.

The Corinthian wrote:

Who said you were wrong, with the number of excuses you’re pulling out for Livingstone, one’s bound to be right, if only by fluke.

What would you say - better odds then the lotto?

Instead of personal name-calling, I see you are just naming what I’m doing. Daily on this board people try to explain and/or justify plans, actions, and words.

The normal practice is to find fault with such explanations, not just to tell the person they are giving you an explanation (or ‘excuse’), or a number of such.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

It has been explained several times, just not to your satisification. And seeing as you just turned up on this thread to make that smug point, combined with your habit of refusing to listen to argument or reasoning once you've made your mind up on issue means that you don't want to hear an argument you've already decided

Not to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of others. And to date I think I’ve refuted all of your arguments rather than ignore them.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think either the Livingstone or Berlusconi incidents to have been terribly grave. The difference is that you have desperately attempted to paint the two in different contexts, so as to make one seem grave and the other even noble. None of what you have said has marked either incident as markedly different from the other, which has always been my point.

for example, when someone pointed out that contray to your assertion the Mail group was in fact a serious supporter of Hitler and the 3rd Reich, you didn't let that slow you down.

When someone pointed out that contrary to your assertion the Mail group was in fact a serious supporter of Hitler and the 3rd Reich, I admitted I was wrong - which would kind of go against your belief that I’m intergradient.

And hey guess what I still am, you aren't going to let anything change your mind on this issue, and I know how futile it when you've already made up your mind before you've heard the arguments.

Well at least we can both agree on your being smug and sanctimonious.

monument wrote:

I think my only real comment on an incitement of hate was that it would be hard to prove, replying to your comment on why doesn’t Livingstone go after the Mail under the incite to hate laws – which was the first mention of incite to hate.

Correct me if I’m wrong - doesn’t the UK’s incite to racial hate cover such incitements beyond just an incite to violence (doesn’t it cover incite to racial hate without violence)?...

Possibly, but that does not imply an a la carte definition either. From my reading of it, it does not, for better or worse, ban prejudice based upon social class, for example - only where it encourages others to break the law.

…Anyway, on this thread I don’t remember saying anything should be outlawed.

Irrelevant to the example I gave.

The normal practice is to find fault with such explanations, not just to tell the person they are giving you an explanation (or ‘excuse’), or a number of such.

I’ve been doing that for the last few days and the last few pages, but it’s difficult to do when people have a tendency to shift the goalposts with new excuses.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Not to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of others. And to date I think I’ve refuted all of your arguments rather than ignore them.

I don't think you have, and just saying "I disagree" with a dictionary and a thesarus at your side doesn't change the fact you've just said "you're wrong" over and over again and not backed up your point of view

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think either the Livingstone or Berlusconi incidents to have been terribly grave. The difference is that you have desperately attempted to paint the two in different contexts, so as to make one seem grave and the other even noble. None of what you have said has marked either incident as markedly different from the other, which has always been my point.

When did I say it was noble? I said it was stupid. And I've said theres a world of difference between throwing a similar insult at an elected representive during a parlimentary debate, then at a journalist working for paper with a history of nazi sympathizing who doorsteps you leaving an event celebrated a politican who took the kind of moral stand generations of Mail group editors have been moraly repugnant towards, if said journalist carried the weight of history so heavily on his shoulders and was so concerned with the behaviour of people 50 years ago then he should examine the behaviour of his employers during that period.

When someone pointed out that contrary to your assertion the Mail group was in fact a serious supporter of Hitler and the 3rd Reich, I admitted I was wrong - which would kind of go against your belief that I’m intergradient.

No you stood corrected on paper, you didn't change your argument, you didn't try and re examine your point of view because you entered this debate thinking one thing, and when challenged on it you said "I stand corrected" but you did not re examine your argument one bit, on being presented with new evidence challenging your orginal point of view. Typical behaviour for you btw.

Well at least we can both agree on your being smug and sanctimonious.

No just smug, you're the one being sanctimonious going "look here look at the liberals defending one of their own, typical" When it's not the case. I think the blacksmith wants you to finish on the whet stone, that axe looks well grinded.

I’ve been doing that for the last few days and the last few pages, but it’s difficult to do when people have a tendency to shift the goalposts with new excuses.

You're the one playing rugby while the rest of us are playing football.

You guys do suck at rugby btw.

Redleslie2

DadaKopf wrote:

No, I don't think Prince Harry should resign.

I want him to give us nothing less than a no holds barred Nepal style massacre at his alleged father's wedding.

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

Well they're French, ignorance personified + the chip on the shoulder/deep insecurities - the only time theyre polite is when theyre the ones looking for help.

I bet Sand wouldn't be as outraged at Livingstone if he'd come out with rubbish like this for some reason. Pot kettle blah blah.

Criminal is not spelt crinimal.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I don't think you have, and just saying "I disagree" with a dictionary and a thesarus at your side doesn't change the fact you've just said "you're wrong" over and over again and not backed up your point of view

I’ve repeatedly argued on a point-by-point basis, citing sources when necessary.

When did I say it was noble? I said it was stupid.

You may have said it was a little stupid but you have also repeatedly justified his actions too. Not the argument of someone who considered his actions to be in error.

And I've said theres a world of difference between throwing a similar insult at an elected representive during a parlimentary debate, then at a journalist working for paper with a history of nazi sympathizing who doorsteps you leaving an event celebrated a politican who took the kind of moral stand generations of Mail group editors have been moraly repugnant towards, if said journalist carried the weight of history so heavily on his shoulders and was so concerned with the behaviour of people 50 years ago then he should examine the behaviour of his employers during that period.

Stop obfuscating the argument again with that tired and, at this stage, discredited argument. Whatever the Mail Group did 70 years ago (or are you saying they were backing the Nazis 50 years ago, in the 1950’s?) is frankly irrelevant to an employee who is, on top of everything else, Jewish. Especially if you also consider Livingstone worked for the same employer.

And a gaffe, whether carried out in a parliament or at a party is still a gaffe.

Incidentally, there you go again with you justifications – they way you tell it Livingstone should be getting a medal.

No you stood corrected on paper, you didn't change your argument

Because it did not contradict my argument. Show me where it did then.

No just smug, you're the one being sanctimonious going "look here look at the liberals defending one of their own, typical"

You’re not a liberal. I’ve observed that very few who use that label actually are.

monument

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ve been doing that for the last few days and the last few pages, but it’s difficult to do when people have a tendency to shift the goalposts with new excuses.

I am just talking about your comment on my posts - you first said that I was giving too many 'excuses', now I am shifting the goalposts? Is it really me that is shifting the goalposts and giving the excuses?

This place would be an even bigger mess then it is now if everyone was to go around claming that peoples arguments are just "excuses".