UK: More than a million sign petition for Trump state visit to be cancelled

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

16 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

More butthurt liberal propaganda written by sore losers desperately trying to come to terms with the fact that they lost a referendum in the UK and an election in the US. And hopefully the next elections in France, Netherlands, Italy etc. I see lately they're trying to attach negative connotations to the word 'populist'. Rather than look inwardly at their own failed policies for the reasons they lost, they insult those who voted against their agenda. Typical liberal MO in other words.

 

A Little Englander squealing about a beautifully sardonic put down by someone clearly far more literate than he.

 

Butthurt indeed.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

I was of course referring to Radical Islamic Terrorism. As for the "race" element, calling people racist is the most used weapon in the left's arsenal, one which they use so often now that it has lost all meaning. People in the UK are so worried about being called racist that it stops them from ciriticizing unacceptable practices and behaviour of other cultures. And it has led to the current situation we have now where people try and excuse or justify what is happening in Europe by past actions by "white people", ie slavery, Nazis, wars in the middle east etc. Because "we" did all those horrible things in the past, it must therefore be okay for it to be happening to us. White guilt. Sorry but I don't buy into this mentality. I don't disagree that populations are kept in check by inventing enemies and lying to the people. It is happening now, but not in the way you are implying. It is quite the opposite actually. We are being lied to and sold the BS that Islam is a religion of peace and they all want to come and live happily with us and enrich our culture. The other lie is that of the left wing establishment who now label anyone with common sense and the ability to think for themselves and question the narrative as 'racist', 'populist', 'xenophobe', 'islamaphobe' etc etc, and brainwashed into believing that they are driven by hate and fear. But in around 20 years based on current forecasts of birthrates and unhindered migration, Europe will be majority Muslim. And then what do you think will happen?? Just like that maniacal Immam says, "Sharia Law will be coming to a town near you soon".

 

Putting racially based expressions in quotation marks does not make them any less racist.

 

The word racist has far from lost its meaning, as evidenced by the constant protests about old white Little Englanders being victimized by the nasty snowflakes.

 

You do realize that posting about muslim birthrates causing the overthrow of Europe immediately marks you as fringe. Please continue inhabiting your bubble where you are the only one with common sense and the ability to reason.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Godwin's Law is not actually a law. You do realize this don't you? There are many instances where comparisons to historical figures is valid and, in fact necessary. Using a rhetorical device invented to aid critical expression is not a satisfactory refute of an argument. It seems that you are using it because you have no sensible response.

In the case of trumpists, alt-right, etc. Godwin's internet "law" does not apply because Godwin's "law" is defunct if what you're talking about actually has something to do with Nazis. The trumpist / alt-right movement definitely has something to do with extremist right wing nationalists,  Nazis, etc. Look into the background of the alt-right, Pepe the Frog meme for evidence. Yes it's a neo-fascism for the internet age but that doesn't mean it's not alarming -- it's a direct threat on liberal democracies globally in favor of ultra nationalistic, totalitarian regimes. It's explicitly supported by white supremacists, fascists, and Nazis globally, including of course in the U.S. Many credible political commentators including holocaust survivors have noted the close parrellels to the rise of trump to the rise of Hitler. trump himself has installed in the white house as his top and massively powerful advisory, BANNON, an icon of the alt-right movement with all those fascist associations intact. So forget the Godwin's law on anything about trump. 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Jingthing

[Pimay1]

8 hours ago, JaySonic said:

Donald Trump does not drink because he converted to Islam decades ago. This whole anti-Muslim stance is to hide his faith from the world.

 

The Mexican wall is just a front to get construction funding for what will become the world's largest mosque, on the California border 

 

Thats also why he has four wives. He's not really divorced from the other three, they are part of his stable of obedient lassies. 

 

That also explains why his tacky residence furnishings look the way they do - he shared an interior decorator with Saddam Hussein 

Jay could you post some links to back up your accusations and predictions? If not I will disregard your post as nothing more than sour grapes.

[Sule9]

Jay could you post some links to back up your accusations and predictions? If not I will disregard your post as nothing more than sour grapes.

[348GTS]

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Hate speech is not free speech. You have no idea about the make up of the group of people protesting Mr. Yiannopoulos' scheduled presentation at U.C. Berkley. Your own bigotry defines and you have no compunction about luring them as violent. Your assertion that their protest at Mr. Yiannopoulos and his circus side show of self aggrandizing provocations, most of which are at the expense of other people, is intolerance.

 

You are aware of Milos Yiannopoulos? I would doubt it. I would suggest that you are having a knee-jerk reaction to another of donald's insipid tweets about this issue and the call for 'Freedom of Speech'.

 

Nobody is censoring Mr. Yiannopoulos. He can still spread his vile and bigoted views. It is just most people are telling him that his kind of divisive and hateful self promoting BS is not wanted on their campuses or at their venues. Let him write something and put it on Facebook (if he is not also banned from that) but to exploit his manufactured infamy to extract revenue and other benefits is not going to be tolerated by sensible people.

 

You, of course, have swallowed his BS whole.

 

 

Oh dear, we have a live one here. Not even sure where to start with you. Firstly I am well aware of Milo and have been for a couple of years. He is a very eloquent speaker and FAR more informed on these topics than you and I. The fact that you have bought in to the whole "anti Milo" diatribe and are virtually justifying the protests against him and excusing the abhorrent behaviour exhibited by the people involved basically invalidates your argument. This protest was not an isolated incident, it has happened several times in the past and I have watched several videos of their actions. Do you understand what the word "bigot" actually means?? Because many "liberals" throw this word around so often whilst blissfully ignorant to the fact that their own behaviour is exactly that - bigoted. If you think that Milo's talks are "hate speech" then you must surely not understand what hate speech is. If you want hate speech, feel free to browse Twitter for anti Trump tweets calling for him and his supporters to be killed or listen to BLM chanting about killing cops. In the minds of these clueless millenial liberals, anything that opposes their views or disagrees with their opinions is automatically rejected as "hate speech". It is just another example of them not being able to tolerate other people's opinions without being able to string together a coherent or valid argument containing any facts or evidence, so they just shout it down in barage of name calling, usually of descriptions ending with -ist or -phobe. Your assertation that he is not wanted on campuses is of course complete nonsense. If he was not wanted, then there would not be hundreds/thousands of students lining up to get in. This would be no different to a bunch of church groups standing outside a rock concert trying to prevent people going in to the venue because they don't like what the band is singing about. It is very simple, if you don't like it then don't go and watch. The problem is that the left only care about their own views and demand any dissenting views to be removed or censored. If you don't get why this is extremely dangerous, then there is no hope of having any rational debate with you. Your opinions here have lost credibility, and here is why -  you are trying to justify your hatred of "intolerance" and "bigotry" and "vileness" by justifying the opposing side's use of...... wait for it....... intolerance, bigotry and vileness..... What a joke !!

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Godwin's Law is not actually a law. You do realize this don't you? There are many instances where comparisons to historical figures is valid and, in fact necessary. Using a rhetorical device invented to aid critical expression is not a satisfactory refute of an argument. It seems that you are using it because you have no sensible response.

 

Really? I wasn't aware that it wasn't a "real" law. Thanks for pointing that out. Where would we be without such wisdom and intellect on this forum? Clue: Try reading and understanding things in the context in which they were written. Might make more sense?

 

 

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

A Little Englander squealing about a beautifully sardonic put down by someone clearly far more literate than he.

 

Butthurt indeed.

 

Wow... here we go again with the name-calling and insults. You're letting the liberal side down here I'm afraid. This is why most sensible people who use common sense don't take people like you seriously. You have no clue how literate I may or may not be, although I am able to string together coherent posts that put forward my views articulately so there goes that theory.... Of course you would see that "put down" as being "beautifully sardonic" because it was aimed at the huge portion of the population that disagrees with you and WON. That is textbook butthurt right there. You are obviously using the term Little Englander as an insult, which speaks volumes about you. However you're not even close. I am neither British or American. Not that it's relevent as I am entitled to my opinions regardless, or are you implying that only certain demographics views count? Oh dear........

 

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Putting racially based expressions in quotation marks does not make them any less racist.

 

The word racist has far from lost its meaning, as evidenced by the constant protests about old white Little Englanders being victimized by the nasty snowflakes.

 

You do realize that posting about muslim birthrates causing the overthrow of Europe immediately marks you as fringe. Please continue inhabiting your bubble where you are the only one with common sense and the ability to reason.

 

Sigh... the use of quotation marks was to ...... **quote terms used in the post I was quoting**. I know that must seem difficult to grasp, but here's a hint - the clue is in the name!!  "Old White Little Englanders" ?? "Victimized" ?? You're losing credibility with each passing sentence, to be honest I am rapidly losing interest in responding and already regretting it. Posting facts about birthrates doesn't make me "fringe" or anything else for that matter. (More labelling based on opposing views...??) Again it was something brought up in the context of the conversation I was having with Jay. Try to keep up please. Oh and by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, it is the millenial "slowflakes" that are always claiming victimization, not those horrible old white people you are rambling on about. We now live in a grievance and victim culture propogated mostly by the left, and this is (ironically) something that Milo often discusses in his speeches.

 

 

4 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

Arguing with the dreary intellectually underpowered and ethically under-squeamish can be tedious at times.

 

Yawn.... the irony in that comment is astounding.... I don't know why I bother sometimes to be honest...

[evadgib]

Cinderella's other shoe:

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/178844

[JetsetBkk]

10 hours ago, JaySonic said:

And how about that Trump fellow, trying to prevent other people who want to come to the USA, from entering? Based on religious grounds? What is the difference between that and your example? 

 

It is not a Muslim or a religion-based ban and the list is not Trump's - it is from the Obama administration:

 

"The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries. "

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

 

 

Extract from the Executive order - no word about religion:

 

"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas)."

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

 

 

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. It is not on the (Obama Administration's) list.

Pakistan is the next ............... ditto.

India is the next .....................ditto.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by JetsetBkk

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

Of course I'm a Trump supporter. The alternative was that disgusting crooked Hillary. No one in their right mind would vote for her.

 

Hence the term "loony lefties".

 

There is no point justifying one deplorable person by comparing them to another. HRC is gone, history never to return. the fact is that now the 'alternative' is in the Oval office he is proving a disaster for America and is a crook pf a politician, in fact he will redefine the term. So there is no need for you to blindly approve his appalling actions and behaviour. THAT is the worrying thing about current Trump supporters. I get the election bit, but now he is currently destroying the USA, it's credibility and it's reputation.

 

I know a lot of business people in Russia who are laughing hard at what is going on in the USA. In the bars of Moscow the USA is now the running joke during evening conversations over a beer. it never was before.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, 348GTS said:

 

Oh dear, we have a live one here. Not even sure where to start with you. Firstly I am well aware of Milo and have been for a couple of years. He is a very eloquent speaker and FAR more informed on these topics than you and I. The fact that you have bought in to the whole "anti Milo" diatribe and are virtually justifying the protests against him and excusing the abhorrent behaviour exhibited by the people involved basically invalidates your argument. This protest was not an isolated incident, it has happened several times in the past and I have watched several videos of their actions. Do you understand what the word "bigot" actually means?? Because many "liberals" throw this word around so often whilst blissfully ignorant to the fact that their own behaviour is exactly that - bigoted. If you think that Milo's talks are "hate speech" then you must surely not understand what hate speech is. If you want hate speech, feel free to browse Twitter for anti Trump tweets calling for him and his supporters to be killed or listen to BLM chanting about killing cops. In the minds of these clueless millenial liberals, anything that opposes their views or disagrees with their opinions is automatically rejected as "hate speech". It is just another example of them not being able to tolerate other people's opinions without being able to string together a coherent or valid argument containing any facts or evidence, so they just shout it down in barage of name calling, usually of descriptions ending with -ist or -phobe. Your assertation that he is not wanted on campuses is of course complete nonsense. If he was not wanted, then there would not be hundreds/thousands of students lining up to get in. This would be no different to a bunch of church groups standing outside a rock concert trying to prevent people going in to the venue because they don't like what the band is singing about. It is very simple, if you don't like it then don't go and watch. The problem is that the left only care about their own views and demand any dissenting views to be removed or censored. If you don't get why this is extremely dangerous, then there is no hope of having any rational debate with you. Your opinions here have lost credibility, and here is why -  you are trying to justify your hatred of "intolerance" and "bigotry" and "vileness" by justifying the opposing side's use of...... wait for it....... intolerance, bigotry and vileness..... What a joke !!

 

 

 

 

Really? I wasn't aware that it wasn't a "real" law. Thanks for pointing that out. Where would we be without such wisdom and intellect on this forum? Clue: Try reading and understanding things in the context in which they were written. Might make more sense?

 

 

 

Wow... here we go again with the name-calling and insults. You're letting the liberal side down here I'm afraid. This is why most sensible people who use common sense don't take people like you seriously. You have no clue how literate I may or may not be, although I am able to string together coherent posts that put forward my views articulately so there goes that theory.... Of course you would see that "put down" as being "beautifully sardonic" because it was aimed at the huge portion of the population that disagrees with you and WON. That is textbook butthurt right there. You are obviously using the term Little Englander as an insult, which speaks volumes about you. However you're not even close. I am neither British or American. Not that it's relevent as I am entitled to my opinions regardless, or are you implying that only certain demographics views count? Oh dear........

 

 

Sigh... the use of quotation marks was to ...... **quote terms used in the post I was quoting**. I know that must seem difficult to grasp, but here's a hint - the clue is in the name!!  "Old White Little Englanders" ?? "Victimized" ?? You're losing credibility with each passing sentence, to be honest I am rapidly losing interest in responding and already regretting it. Posting facts about birthrates doesn't make me "fringe" or anything else for that matter. (More labelling based on opposing views...??) Again it was something brought up in the context of the conversation I was having with Jay. Try to keep up please. Oh and by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, it is the millenial "slowflakes" that are always claiming victimization, not those horrible old white people you are rambling on about. We now live in a grievance and victim culture propogated mostly by the left, and this is (ironically) something that Milo often discusses in his speeches.

 

 

 

Yawn.... the irony in that comment is astounding.... I don't know why I bother sometimes to be honest...

 

In the words of Shakespeare as spoken by Polonius in Hamlet, "Since brevity is the soul of wit...", then your diatribe is "tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes", I will be brief. Superciliousness really only works when one is actually superior, so your tone is entirely inappropriate.

 

Yes. You demonstrate that you can string words together. The trick, however, is for them to say something. This and practically all of the posts I have read from you are just endless ad hominem against liberals and some rather pathetic victim mentality stuff about being called names for having a different opinion. I offer as a case in point the issue of Mr. Yiannopoulos.

 

In all of the extensive verbiage around the issue of Mr. Yiannopolulos you do not actually say very much beyond the assertion that he knows more than I. Nowhere is his action or commentary discussed. You use him as a mere foil for your ad hominem against protesters. Let's take an actual situation. During a discussion on Sexism in Science, Mr. Yiannopoulos made the following statement:

 

Gender essentialism, biological determinism, men’s brains and women’s brains are different, there may be a scientific basis to why women don’t succeed as well in science. Blech, puke, argle-bargle.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/23/the-hopeless-arrogance-of-milo-yiannopoulos/

 

He made this statement to Dr. Emily Grossman https://www.emilygrossman.co.uk saying that women do not have the type of brain suitable for science. Since you have stated that you have followed Milo [sic] for some time, perhaps you can attest to his scientific qualifications that allow him to make this assertion. If he has no qualification, then what is the point of his statement of alternative fact?

 

There is an endless list of his trolling and particularly vile behavior towards women. This is hate speech. Your ponderous  cliche waffle on this issue in no way contradicts this. Hate speech is not free speech. Try discussing some specifics instead of the intellectually underpowered dross that characterise your comments on these issues.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Mr. Yiannopoulos  is a despicable alt-right SUPER TROLL and he feeds off the negative publicity ... so I think the best way to deal with such a clown is to IGNORE HIM. trump, we can't ignore him ... sadly. 

[Flustered]

What is amazing but easy to understand, is the the press (especially the BBC) is trying to keep quiet the petition to support Donald Trump.

 

As of a few days ago it was over 250,000. At that point, they were plastering the anti Donald Trump petition all over the media.

 

When will people understand that this visit was arranged BEFORE the result of the US election. it was penciled in for the President of the United States, not any one particular person. It would have been Hillary Clinton had she won and you know full well that there would not have been a petition because clear thinking people are not like activists, they accept democratic results.

 

Still, wouldn't be a forum if you did not have people on who just want to spend their time winding others up and trying to derail the thread.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Flustered

[JB300]

Jay could you post some links to back up your accusations and predictions? If not I will disregard your post as nothing more than sour grapes.

Come on, that was a joke yeah...

Have you never seen "At Home With The Kumars"?... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kumars_at_No._42

The Queen is Indian... http://www.youtube.com.sg/watch?v=MWvAiqIPAM8

..: As is Shakespeare & Jesus, but not Prince Charles...

& from that description Trump would make a great sketch on the show...

I might not agree with JS's views but that was funny [emoji1303]

Edit: Don't know why my post is fckd up, doesn't look that way when I go to edit it

[348GTS]

2 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

In the words of Shakespeare as spoken by Polonius in Hamlet, "Since brevity is the soul of wit...", then your diatribe is "tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes", I will be brief. Superciliousness really only works when one is actually superior, so your tone is entirely inappropriate.

 

Yes. You demonstrate that you can string words together. The trick, however, is for them to say something. This and practically all of the posts I have read from you are just endless ad hominem against liberals and some rather pathetic victim mentality stuff about being called names for having a different opinion. I offer as a case in point the issue of Mr. Yiannopoulos.

 

In all of the extensive verbiage around the issue of Mr. Yiannopolulos you do not actually say very much beyond the assertion that he knows more than I. Nowhere is his action or commentary discussed. You use him as a mere foil for your ad hominem against protesters. Let's take an actual situation. During a discussion on Sexism in Science, Mr. Yiannopoulos made the following statement:

 

Gender essentialism, biological determinism, men’s brains and women’s brains are different, there may be a scientific basis to why women don’t succeed as well in science. Blech, puke, argle-bargle.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/23/the-hopeless-arrogance-of-milo-yiannopoulos/

 

He made this statement to Dr. Emily Grossman https://www.emilygrossman.co.uk saying that women do not have the type of brain suitable for science. Since you have stated that you have followed Milo [sic] for some time, perhaps you can attest to his scientific qualifications that allow him to make this assertion. If he has no qualification, then what is the point of his statement of alternative fact?

 

There is an endless list of his trolling and particularly vile behavior towards women. This is hate speech. Your ponderous  cliche waffle on this issue in no way contradicts this. Hate speech is not free speech. Try discussing some specifics instead of the intellectually underpowered dross that characterise your comments on these issues.

 

 

 

Yawn, yawn, and more yawn. You are using big words and quoting Shakespeare in order to try and portray yourself as superior but your reasoning is still flawed, and unless I missed something you did not address any of the issues I raised or points that I made. Nothing new there, it is typical fare when debting a liberal, I am used to it unfortunately. But as in your last post, you are basically justifying the concept of attacking people and accusing them of hate speech because you don't agree with their points of view. You keep waffling on about hate speech is not free speech and variations thereof, however you define hate speech as something which is not actually "hateful". Funny how liberals have nothing to say when BLM chant in the street about killing police or pray for the assasination of the president - that's just fine!! Because you agree with it.... But when a conservative gay Trump supporting Brit does a speech which is open to anyone who wants to attend, and not forced upon those who don't, then you're all up in arms in outrage. The hypocrasy is incredible.

Just because you may disagree with Milo because his opinions don't match yours, or they "offend" you (sigh), that does not automatically qualify them as hate speech. Liberals seemingly define hate speech nowdays as anything that contradicts or challenges their views, and shouting it down as hate speech is the only way to silence it because most of them can't actually debate it rationally as they are not informed enough in anything apart from virtue signalling and playing the victim. The point about the Milo protests is that it is not relevent what he is talking about or what he does, you are trying to blame him for the actions and behaviour of a bunch of ignorant uninformed entitled trouble makers. Ridiculous. I don't understand why you care, I mean if you don't like or disagree with him then change the channel when he is on and don't attend his performances. America is a free country. If Milo wants to talk about men and women's brains being different, feminism being worse in his opinion than cancer, Leslie Jones looking like a dude, or whatever other nonsense he cares to spew forth, that is entirely up to him and the people who choose to watch him. This is supposed to be 21st Centruy America, not Europe in the dark ages. People do not have the right to stop him or his audience and cause trouble and damage and hurl things at police just because they don't agree with his opinions !!  If you can't concede this point, then it really is pointless discussing it with you any further.

 

 

[348GTS]

27 minutes ago, Flustered said:

What is amazing but easy to understand, is the the press (especially the BBC) is trying to keep quiet the petition to support Donald Trump.

 

As of a few days ago it was over 250,000. At that point, they were plastering the anti Donald Trump petition all over the media.

 

One thing the BBC could never be accused of is being unbiased.... They lean so far left it is a miracle they don't fall over.

Edited February 3, 2017 by 348GTS

[JB300]

 

Yawn, yawn, and more yawn. You are using big words and quoting Shakespeare in order to try and portray yourself as superior but your reasoning is still flawed, and unless I missed something you did not address any of the issues I raised or points that I made. Nothing new there, it is typical fare when debting a liberal, I am used to it unfortunately. But as in your last post, you are basically justifying the concept of attacking people and accusing them of hate speech because you don't agree with their points of view. You keep waffling on about hate speech is not free speech and variations thereof, however you define hate speech as something which is not actually "hateful". Funny how liberals have nothing to say when BLM chant in the street about killing police or pray for the assasination of the president - that's just fine!! Because you agree with it.... But when a conservative gay Trump supporting Brit does a speech which is open to anyone who wants to attend, and not forced upon those who don't, then you're all up in arms in outrage. The hypocrasy is incredible.

Just because you may disagree with Milo because his opinions don't match yours, or they "offend" you (sigh), that does not automatically qualify them as hate speech. Liberals seemingly define hate speech nowdays as anything that contradicts or challenges their views, and shouting it down as hate speech is the only way to silence it because most of them can't actually debate it rationally as they are not informed enough in anything apart from virtue signalling and playing the victim. The point about the Milo protests is that it is not relevent what he is talking about or what he does, you are trying to blame him for the actions and behaviour of a bunch of ignorant uninformed entitled trouble makers. Ridiculous. I don't understand why you care, I mean if you don't like or disagree with him then change the channel when he is on and don't attend his performances. America is a free country. If Milo wants to talk about men and women's brains being different, feminism being worse in his opinion than cancer, Leslie Jones looking like a dude, or whatever other nonsense he cares to spew forth, that is entirely up to him and the people who choose to watch him. This is supposed to be 21st Centruy America, not Europe in the dark ages. People do not have the right to stop him or his audience and cause trouble and damage and hurl things at police just because they don't agree with his opinions !!  If you can't concede this point, then it really is pointless discussing it with you any further.

 

 

I think somebody got lost in his own sense of self worth.

If he could maybe give a quick precies of his view/arguments we could (try to) indulge him with some sufficiently intellectual debate.

In the meantime let's leave him to have polemic arguments with himself, just hope they don't get ad hominem or there'll be handbags at dawn:

[348GTS]

2 minutes ago, JB300 said:

I think somebody got lost in his own sense of self worth.

If he could maybe give a quick precies of his view/arguments we could (try to) indulge him with some sufficiently intellectual debate.

In the meantime let's leave him to have polemic arguments with himself, just hope they don't get ad hominem or there'll be handbags at dawn:

 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

Yawn, yawn, and more yawn. You are using big words and quoting Shakespeare in order to try and portray yourself as superior but your reasoning is still flawed, and unless I missed something you did not address any of the issues I raised or points that I made. Nothing new there, it is typical fare when debting a liberal, I am used to it unfortunately. But as in your last post, you are basically justifying the concept of attacking people and accusing them of hate speech because you don't agree with their points of view. You keep waffling on about hate speech is not free speech and variations thereof, however you define hate speech as something which is not actually "hateful". Funny how liberals have nothing to say when BLM chant in the street about killing police or pray for the assasination of the president - that's just fine!! Because you agree with it.... But when a conservative gay Trump supporting Brit does a speech which is open to anyone who wants to attend, and not forced upon those who don't, then you're all up in arms in outrage. The hypocrasy is incredible.

Just because you may disagree with Milo because his opinions don't match yours, or they "offend" you (sigh), that does not automatically qualify them as hate speech. Liberals seemingly define hate speech nowdays as anything that contradicts or challenges their views, and shouting it down as hate speech is the only way to silence it because most of them can't actually debate it rationally as they are not informed enough in anything apart from virtue signalling and playing the victim. The point about the Milo protests is that it is not relevent what he is talking about or what he does, you are trying to blame him for the actions and behaviour of a bunch of ignorant uninformed entitled trouble makers. Ridiculous. I don't understand why you care, I mean if you don't like or disagree with him then change the channel when he is on and don't attend his performances. America is a free country. If Milo wants to talk about men and women's brains being different, feminism being worse in his opinion than cancer, Leslie Jones looking like a dude, or whatever other nonsense he cares to spew forth, that is entirely up to him and the people who choose to watch him. This is supposed to be 21st Centruy America, not Europe in the dark ages. People do not have the right to stop him or his audience and cause trouble and damage and hurl things at police just because they don't agree with his opinions !!  If you can't concede this point, then it really is pointless discussing it with you any further.

 

 

 

At least the transparent superciliousness has been tempered but the faux indifference is likewise infantile and imbecilic. You attack me for not addressing the points that you raise. What points? Your posts are completely full of Alt Right rant. Complete ad hominem. I will, however try to identify some actual issue from the turgid dross. If you did not indulge in so much projection and assumption about your antagonists and focussed on what is being said, you may have more focussed discourse.

 

You allege that I incorrectly define hate speech. This is merely your projection. I pose no definition of hate speech. I merely assert that hate speech is not free speech. We can discuss either proposition but when you put words in my mouth and then attack me for not addressing those words, this leads me to the conclusion that you are not equipped for honest debate.

 

After more ideological rant, complete with Alt Right code words like Virtue Signaling - leave it to the fringe to make virtue an insult - then you actually make an identifiable response to something that I said. You indicate that Milo[sic] believes that feminism is worse than cancer. You then proceed to indulge in the kind of specious personal attack by body shaming Leslie Jones that got Mr. Yiannopoulos banned from twitter and justifiably inspired clear thinking people to protest his behavior.

 

Then you revert back to your ranting about free speech and reinforce the selfish and self serving creed of the Alt Right that believes that they have the right to define others with no consequences.

 

So for the avoidance of doubt, your attempt to define me and demands that I and other accede to your self appointed right to do so is most certainly a step on the path towards hate speech. I have no knowledge of what inadequacies in your life stimulate your clear and definable hatred of others but I am very certain that protest agains such speech is legitimate and justified.

 

Mr. Yiannopoulos, his former boss, Mr. Bannon and the gigantic mass of emotional insecurities that currently occupies the White House purposefully use hate speech and division to achieve their goals. A significant number of people realize this and it explains why hundreds of thousands more people signed the petition to prevent 45's visit to the UK than those who signed the opposing petition. There are clearly not enough Little Englander Brexiteers, your ideological fellow travelers even if you are not one of them, to maintain the grumpy old man dissent.

 

Please also observe that the above was written entirely without the use of italics. If you respond, then we will know that your professed indifference is bogus. If you don't respond, then I will take that as a concession. 

[JB300]

 

... snipped for brevity...

I have no knowledge of what inadequacies in your life stimulate your clear and definable hatred of others but I am very certain that protest agains such speech is legitimate and justified.

 

You introduced the term ad hominem into the discussion (it's not a debate) & then come out with this?

I'm assuming you're an intelligent chap (though you do come across like you've swallowed Dillbert's bullsh1t generator at times) so please, deep breath, leave the man alone play the ball & discuss the point.

I've still not idea what your viewpoint is but will share mine...

1) Do I think Trump is a nutter - Oh hell yes

. 2) Do I think the UK could do with a friend whilst we're going through our own "Wobbles" (not debating that here)... Oh hell yes

. 3) Does that make what Trump is doing right - Oh hell no

. 4) Do I think downgrading his UK visit is the right thing to do - Massive snub, there is no way on this planet he will accept it so it's State visit or no visit, anything in between would do more harm than good.... Does that make it Right?... NO... But let's be real here

As for the rest of the racist, white supremist stuff (not from you I hasten to add), it lost me at the point where people mentioned Nazis as you can't have it all ways either I'm British & have to pay the sins of my forefathers in enslaving a continent or I'm British & my forefathers (Grandfather) died fighting the Nazis... I know which one I consider myself to be

[Scott]

As mentioned, it's not a debate.   It's a discussion.   Continued off-topic posting and bickering will result in suspensions.  

 

[ddavidovsky]

11 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 I merely assert that hate speech is not free speech.

 

Yes it is, because it is not 'hate' at all. It's only 'hate' in a superficial analysis.

 

I agree that 'hate' is an odious mode of expression used by superficial people - but that's most of humanity.

Fact is, there are rational, deep-rooted anthropological reasons for expressing negative emotion at opposing groups - you can't legislate the human out of people by liberal ideology, and it's not healthy to do so, as it only creates a pressure-cooker situation.

 

Just let people say what they need to say, and let those who are the subjects of their antipathy take those criticisms on board and adjust their own behaviour in an appropriate way and the world will be a better place.

[Ace of Pop]

If you did an Are You A Malcontent Lefty Survey. The results would be False .Thanks to the Donald we have a result.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 minute ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Yes it is, because it is not 'hate' at all. It's only 'hate' in a superficial analysis.

 

I agree that 'hate' is an odious mode of expression used by superficial people - but that's most of humanity.

Fact is, there are rational, deep-rooted anthropological reasons for expressing negative emotion at opposing groups - you can't legislate the human out of people by liberal ideology, and it's not healthy to do so, as it only creates a pressure-cooker situation.

 

Just let people say what they need to say, and let those who are the subjects of their antipathy take those criticisms on board and adjust their own behaviour in an appropriate way and the world will be a better place.

 

The anthropological argument is interesting. History is replete with various attempts at social engineering. While I still maintain my assertion that hate speech is not free speech, I do not in any way believe that hate speech should be suppressed. However, purveyors of hate speech do and should have consequences. The subjects of hate speech should be allowed legal remedies. Protesting hate speech is and should be legitimate.

 

My objections in the case of Mr. Yiannopoulos are that the anti-PC bumps argue that protest against his speech is not legitimate and that in my own view Mr. Yiannopoulos is an opportunist who manufactures outrage to achieve his own self interests which may be financial, political, personal or whatever but that he is being rewarded for his intentional provocations.

[Grouse]

I thought this thread was about Trumps mooted visit to the UK?

[ddavidovsky]

58 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

 While I still maintain my assertion that hate speech is not free speech, I do not in any way believe that hate speech should be suppressed. However, purveyors of hate speech do and should have consequences. The subjects of hate speech should be allowed legal remedies. Protesting hate speech is and should be legitimate.

 

You've toned down your opinion, but you still insist on using the term hate speech (without inverted commas) and still want to suppress it. You want the law to protect people's feelings when I've just explained that such antipathy are perfectly acceptable even if crudely expressed. 

 

You can't stop people discriminating, morally or practically. It's human nature. If instead you simply want to suppress people expressing those feelings - then it's the thought police. Liberals want to suppress the expression of negative emotion because it upsets their serene world of plenty. They have more than enough and can afford to spread the largess. They don't understand that most of the world either still don't have the basics, or are threatened in other ways, and are still in a state of struggle. They have no concept of other points of view - that there are people who are not happy with what they have got and need to clamour for change. They - like John Lennon - just want peace - unconditional, perfect peace in which they can live their comfortable lives in serenity. Perfect for them, but they are in a dreamworld.

 

The only practical solution is freedom to express, and freedom to respond. Those who get upset are simply refusing to respond.

[Scott]

Get on the topic and stay on it.  

[ddavidovsky]

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

Get on the topic and stay on it.  

My apologies, if necessary, but I perceive the topic to be about liberalism vs hardline-ism.

[Scott]

42 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

My apologies, if necessary, but I perceive the topic to be about liberalism vs hardline-ism.

I think others disagree with that assessment.   I would suggest that you stick to this person making a visit to this country and if you wish to expand then what obligations one country has to host the leader of another and what might disqualify a person from such a visit.  

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

My apologies, if necessary, but I perceive the topic to be about liberalism vs hardline-ism.

 

How avant-garde. You advocate tenets that do not yet have a name.

 

Perhaps Primitivism would do? Or The Age of Un-enlightenment? Or just plain Recidivism.

 

I would of course, like to explore that but this is now disallowed. Never mind. There will be an opportunity in the future to continue this on a topical thread.

[JetsetBkk]

22 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

On Friday, February 03, 2017 at 5:06 PM, JetsetBkk said:

 

Of course I'm a Trump supporter. The alternative was that disgusting crooked Hillary. No one in their right mind would vote for her.

 

Hence the term "loony lefties".

 

There is no point justifying one deplorable person by comparing them to another. HRC is gone, history never to return. the fact is that now the 'alternative' is in the Oval office he is proving a disaster for America and is a crook pf a politician, in fact he will redefine the term. So there is no need for you to blindly approve his appalling actions and behaviour. THAT is the worrying thing about current Trump supporters. I get the election bit, but now he is currently destroying the USA, it's credibility and it's reputation.

 

I know a lot of business people in Russia who are laughing hard at what is going on in the USA. In the bars of Moscow the USA is now the running joke during evening conversations over a beer. it never was before.

 

But that's the only choice they had - deplorable Trump or crooked Hillary. And the only people I see destroying America are the morons rioting, setting fires and attacking anyone in a "Make America Great" cap.

 

As for your unprovable story about Russians... meh.