3 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

It is called a hypothetical argument. Your reactions to it suggest that you have been indoctrinated.

"Don't shoot the messenger."

 

 

Your ‘hypothesis’ reads a lot like what psychologists refer to as ‘projection’.

14 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

" In classical logic, hypothetical syllogism is a valid argument form which is a syllogism having a conditional statement for one or both of its premises. An example in English: If I do not wake up, then I cannot go to work. If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid."

Here is your hypothetical syllogism

" If he was referred to as a "Man who wants to preserve the 2000 year old British Culture" the progressives (LOL) would boycott the newspaper, use bullhorns to carry their message, and advocate violence against those who do not 'believe'."

The above is the hypothetical part. What's below you asserted as a statement of fact. It is not part of the syllogism. So your defense is invalid.

"Their methods share disturbing similarities with those of the early National Socialist German Workers' Party."

Seems this guy has so many different names.......even his supporters are confused.

2 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

Citation required

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.^[1] For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Just now, hyku1147 said:

It is a conditional statement. You are free to disprove it.

You don't seem to get it. The conditional statement does not include this:

"Their methods share disturbing similarities with those of the early National Socialist German Workers' Party."

I think you should give give your recent intake of the definition of syllogism some time to to be digested and assimilated so you won't keep repeating the same error.

 

2 hours ago, markaoffy said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/british-court-recognises-sharia-law-landmark-divorce-case/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_ArCrpVS2t0HB this is the reality and Tommy and many more will not be silenced

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

The article does not support your argument it actually disproves it. Marriages carried out under Sharia law can now come under British law when there is a divorce. Would that not be a victory for the likes of Tommy?

4 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

Why  are  you jumping to conclusions?

You asked for a citation.

Or were you looking for a citation about you personally?

Just now, hyku1147 said:

I disagree.

How would their (hypothetical) actions be dis-similar to those of the early National-Socialist German Workers' Party?

Wow! You still don't get it. You stated as a hypothetical what their methods would be, but you stated as a fact that their methods are similar to German National Socialists.

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wow! You still don't get it. You stated as a hypothetical what their methods would be, but you stated as a fact that their methods are similar to German National Socialists.

He’s trolling.

13 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If I was looking for a hero it wouldn’t be a convicted wife beating mortgage fraudster.

 

But then as my grandfather used to say, water finds its own level.

You forgot football hooligan.  And a worn out one at that who has to find other ways of feeding his ego.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

The whole world is moving to the right and you complain about the great tide of liberalism.

 

The whole world is moving right precisely because the liberal approaches of the last few decades are not working regarding immigration. (I say this as a liberal.)

 

Islam is the enemy of liberalism. (I say this as someone who has worked in several muslim countries, not as a phobe.)

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

The whole world is moving right precisely because the liberal approaches of the last few decades are not working regarding immigration. (I say this as a liberal.)

 

Islam is the enemy of liberalism. (I say this as someone who has worked in several muslim countries, not as a phobe.)

Since you clearly are not a ‘Liberal’ we’ll take your word on these matters shall we?

 

Erm.... no.

 

 

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

But a full one to realise how vile the hate robbinson promotes is. 

I've always viewed it as justified patriotism

I guess it depends which side you're on.

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I've always viewed it as justified patriotism

I guess it depends which side you're on.

I’m always against the side promoting hate. 

2 hours ago, Voodoochile said:

Make a suggestion........

In the mean time he is doing something,  and his voice is being heard all the way over in the US. And he is giving some hope to the English people who have no more or very little left in their political leaders.

 

what are you doing??

Basil Fawlty and Mr Bean were heard of all the way over in the US too.

double post

7 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

One way or another, the leftists were going to take Tommy Robinson out of action and they did.

 

Rather than lose face that the present UK government and past governments policies of open door immigration have failed, whereas they have been covering up Muslim gangs catastrophic child abuse, child murders and Muslims trying to gain strong footholds, that includes terrorists, fanatics, criminals that are destroying British communities and culture, anyone who dares speak up against it, will be labelled a member of the far right, described as a racist and persecuted by the authorities.

 

Although Tommy Robinson is now out of jail, he will be on continuous surveillance by the police. Even if he says boo to a goose he`ll be arrested and thrown back into jail in record time, which was the plan all along.

 

To the leftists and the Muslims the leftists support, Tommy Robinson is their public enemy number one, they really do fear this guy, because he has blown their rotten policies into the open.

 

I have donated money to Tommy`s campaigns and will continue to do so.

The leftists did not take him out. His own disrespect of the law did. This was a contempt of court case. He intentionally interfered with a legal process.

 

The case he  was live broadcasting was subject to blanket reporting restrictions imposed under the Contempt of Court Act. The Section 4 (2) order is regularly applied in cases to ensure that a fair trial is provided. Interference in the proceedings can result in a dismissal of  charges or a mistrial. Mr. Robinson's actions had potential to sabotage three linked trials. I note that he readily admitted to his  contempt of court.

 

He wanted to protest and to name and shame. That is his  right. He did not have the right to interfere in a judicial process and to possibly allow three cases to be lost because of his publicity stunt. This was a long standing law enacted to protect the integrity of the  judicial process. It's all about respect for the rule of law, especially since Yaxley-Lennon  was subject to conditions arising from a previous  Contempt of Court conviction.

4 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

The leftists did not take him out. His own disrespect of the law did. This was a contempt of court case. He intentionally interfered with a legal process.

 

The case he  was live broadcasting was subject to blanket reporting restrictions imposed under the Contempt of Court Act. The Section 4 (2) order is regularly applied in cases to ensure that a fair trial is provided. Interference in the proceedings can result in a dismissal of  charges or a mistrial. Mr. Robinson's actions had potential to sabotage three linked trials. I note that he readily admitted to his  contempt of court.

 

He wanted to protest and to name and shame. That is his  right. He did not have the right to interfere in a judicial process and to possibly allow three cases to be lost because of his publicity stunt. This was a long standing law enacted to protect the integrity of the  judicial process. It's all about respect for the rule of law, especially since Yaxley-Lennon  was subject to conditions arising from a previous  Contempt of Court conviction.

Spot on and well said!

13 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can't abide this ape 

 

He's giving bigots like me a bad name.

 

I want a reduction in U.K. Muslims but this should be achieved by much more subtle means. We don't need UKIP types.

 

Actually the number of members of any religious groups in the UK isn't important. What is important is that they all conform to the laws, customs and expected behavioral norms. Any who can't should leave.

 

Tolerance for people to follow their religion is fine. Any behavior contradictory to law, culture, custom and excepted behavioral norms isn't and should be shown zero tolerance.

 

The mistake of the liberals is to impose an acceptance and demand change from the host communities.

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

 

The whole world is moving right precisely because the liberal approaches of the last few decades are not working regarding immigration. (I say this as a liberal.)

 

Islam is the enemy of liberalism. (I say this as someone who has worked in several muslim countries, not as a phobe.)

So you say the previous poster was wrong in saying there is a liberal tide.

 

Because yes, I agree, the world is moving right. I don't agree with your reasoning though.

Tommy Robinson was a citizen journalist reporting on Muslim rape gangs. That was his crime. In the UK you cannot say anything about the crimes being committed so as not to offend the Muslim community.

7 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Actually the number of members of any religious groups in the UK isn't important. What is important is that they all conform to the laws, customs and expected behavioral norms. Any who can't should leave.

 

Tolerance for people to follow their religion is fine. Any behavior contradictory to law, culture, custom and excepted behavioral norms isn't and should be shown zero tolerance.

 

The mistake of the liberals is to impose an acceptance and demand change from the host communities.

Exactly how any normal British person feels.....

It totally intrigues me how anyone can defend a religion that can force young girls into forced marriages.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

It totally intrigues me how anyone can defend a religion that can force young girls into forced marriages.

Because that's a universal feature of Islam? All Muslim women young or old are forced into marriages? And if you mean arranged marriages, are all Muslim women forced into those? In fact, the poorer a region is the more likely it is that forced and arranged marriages will exist regardless of the prevalent religion..

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

It totally intrigues me how anyone can defend a religion that can force young girls into forced marriages.

And what about selling your daughters into slavery? Here's what they say about that:

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are."

12 minutes ago, MichaelJay said:

Tommy Robinson was a citizen journalist reporting on Muslim rape gangs. That was his crime. In the UK you cannot say anything about the crimes being committed so as not to offend the Muslim community.

Why don't you read up on why he was arrested first, and get back to us later.

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because that's a universal feature of Islam? All Muslim women young or old are forced into marriages? And if you mean arranged marriages, are all Muslim women forced into those? In fact, the poorer a region is the more likely it is that forced and arranged marriages will exist regardless of the prevalent religion..

OK, now you have explained it, that makes it correct does it. And I meant forced, you use what word you think fits your argument the best.

Just now, vogie said:

OK, now you have explained it, that makes it correct does it. And I meant forced, you use what word you think fits your argument the best.

No, but it doesn't make it universal as you seem to believe. Like virtually every other major world religion, there are lots of varieties of Islam.

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And what about selling your daughters into slavery? Here's what they say about that:

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are."

You are the master of deflection.

Just now, vogie said:

You are the master of deflection.

And you are the emperor of over-generalization.