Laksi clash victim's family upset by NHRC's 'negligence'

[djjamie]

So, no comment on the post, only the poster - to be expected.

You, my friend are a hypocrite.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/714117-1-killed-in-fight-between-rival-monk-food-sellers/?p=7612628

"This years "Tenuous Link of the Year" Award has an early contender for first place."

I have a lot more example too dickyknee that he has aimed at me, but I am not one to embarrass someone and will not fall to his lows. I just wanted to make my point.

I'm sorry, but with that post of yours, you deserved nothing but.

Blaming the government for the death of one of two people fighting over who provides monk food - what do you expect?

OK, interesting.

So it OK when you attack the poster and not the post, but under no circumstances is anyone else allowed to do it and you will ensure they are held to account if they do. So the "attack the poster and not the post" is used by you when it suits your agenda, but is not applicable to you.

Sounds like yinglucks adherence to the constitution when it suits her agenda. She says everyone should work within the constitutional framework then the next day says she will not accept the NACC's ruling on her. I see why you gravitate to her style of leadership now. You share the same trait.

Another trait you share of hers is contextomy in which you make an interpretation of what I said and distort its intended meaning and then using that to argue your point. "Blaming the government for the deaths"…I did not say that. The person that killed the other was solely to blame, but I did say the government set the example and the killer did not have a very good role model to follow in the form of the PTP.

So you have highlighted your a hypocrite and a Contextomist as well.

[timewilltell]

That man is lucky to be alive.

Thanks god.

Isn't that god bless enough already?

Being paralysed is not something most people would be singing in joy about. There is far too little done to help people who are victims of crime and far too much done to help those who are the perpetrators from halving sentences for a last minute guilty plea to giving them pardons once a year. It is time for society to gang up against criminals including the corrupt.

[fab4]

OK, interesting.

So it OK when you attack the poster and not the post, but under no circumstances is anyone else allowed to do it and you will ensure they are held to account if they do. So the "attack the poster and not the post" is used by you when it suits your agenda, but is not applicable to you.

Sounds like yinglucks adherence to the constitution when it suits her agenda. She says everyone should work within the constitutional framework then the next day says she will not accept the NACC's ruling on her. I see why you gravitate to her style of leadership now. You share the same trait.

Another trait you share of hers is contextomy in which you make an interpretation of what I said and distort its intended meaning and then using that to argue your point. "Blaming the government for the deaths"…I did not say that. The person that killed the other was solely to blame, but I did say the government set the example and the killer did not have a very good role model to follow in the form of the PTP.

So you have highlighted your a hypocrite and a Contextomist as well.

Not interesting at all, just logical. You say this

"This incident typifies that some gullible folk in the population tend to follow the moral standings of the people in power. When people in power denounce the rule of law and decide that they will only respect it when it suits them then some of the populous will follow suit. The govt set the example…The people follow"

One would read that as, the people follow the standards that the government set.

You write that in a reply to a thread where two monk food sellers fight and one is shot and killed. By doing so you are linking the two "facts" together. Ergo, you're blaming the government for the actions of these people - you state that in your phrase "The govt set the example...The people follow".

No amount of tautology defends your ridiculous statement. The Award nomination stands.

Edited March 31, 2014 by fab4

[rubl]

comment on content:

Thanks for the clarification that 'our rights agencies' may be the "Asian Human Rights Commission". I think that may be a bit farfetched though. The 'our' suggests a Thai organisation. So, still not sure what 'our rights agencies' are.

Of course the reference to 2010 I will not comment on as that's totally off topic here. Plug your nonsense elsewhere, enough topics to do so.

You see that's your problem right there. Read something you don't agree and it's an immediate response - it's nonsense. If you had an open mind and read it you would see that there were some very good points made but hey that's your loss.

Just confirming what we already know. I personally think that it's very important that the agenda led NHRC report is shown up for it's shortcomings but to you, no, it doesn't conform with your firmly made up mind therefore it's nonsense.To be expected from a person who is adjusting painfully slowly to the realisation that the military might have been responsible for several deaths and still finds it in himself to try and defend the soldiers responsible for the deaths in the wat.

but thats off topic.

you see, that's your problem. You try to plug some program, and when someone remarks on it and refuses to play along, you start the accusations.

Any remarks the AHRC may have made on 2010 have NO relevance to the "Laksi clashes in January 2014".

Also till now it's not clear that with "our rights agencies" the AHRC is meant.

[djjamie]

OK, interesting.

So it OK when you attack the poster and not the post, but under no circumstances is anyone else allowed to do it and you will ensure they are held to account if they do. So the "attack the poster and not the post" is used by you when it suits your agenda, but is not applicable to you.

Sounds like yinglucks adherence to the constitution when it suits her agenda. She says everyone should work within the constitutional framework then the next day says she will not accept the NACC's ruling on her. I see why you gravitate to her style of leadership now. You share the same trait.

Another trait you share of hers is contextomy in which you make an interpretation of what I said and distort its intended meaning and then using that to argue your point. "Blaming the government for the deaths"…I did not say that. The person that killed the other was solely to blame, but I did say the government set the example and the killer did not have a very good role model to follow in the form of the PTP.

So you have highlighted your a hypocrite and a Contextomist as well.

Not interesting at all, just logical. You say this

"This incident typifies that some gullible folk in the population tend to follow the moral standings of the people in power. When people in power denounce the rule of law and decide that they will only respect it when it suits them then some of the populous will follow suit. The govt set the example…The people follow"

One would read that as, the people follow the standards that the government set.

You write that in a reply to a thread where two monk food sellers fight and one is shot and killed. By doing so you are linking the two "facts" together. Ergo, you're blaming the government for the actions of these people - you state that in your phrase "The govt set the example...The people follow".

No amount of tautology defends your ridiculous statement. The Award nomination stands.

So, no comment on the post, only the poster - to be expected.

The govt set the example…The people follow. The govt didn't make the people do it though. No one forced the person to do it. A father setting an example for his son does not get arrested if his son murderes someone. That is silly and akin to PTP logic. The father only set the example. The son committed the murder. He only has himself to blame. You are assuming that is what I meant so you could attack the poster….Not the post.

I can link many facts together. I went to the market and found a dead body. With PTP logic an assumption could by made by linking those facts together to. That assumption being that I am the murderer. Of course an educated person would understand that one fact linked to the other fact does not create an assumption that I committed the murder. An educated person would simply read the post as it was without an agenda driven belief so as to allow an easy attack on the poster….Not the post.

If you still need this explained to you then one can understand your love of the PTP and the UDD. They keep it simple for their supporters too, but their supporters have an average schooling level of the 7th grade.

So you have highlighted your a hypocrite and a Contextomist………...again.

​Best if you don't understand what someone saying then feel free to PM me and I will explain it for you. If you are not happy with that explanation then don't try to purport that you know more about what I am writing than I do.

I wrote it ergo I know what message I was relaying.