• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Palestine discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which words were those? The ones where you told me to read the report?

It's up to you to make coherent criticisms of my arguments/statements. You're very good at one line posts ending in "lmao" or "lmfao", but not so much when asked to back up your accusations.

@mal3volent , it kinda started with the answer to...

And, a lot of the following posts did make it seem as if this was a huge thing, I thought.
The Italian mafia did a lot of shit. I don't hate Italians
Hell, I'm German and there was that one German group in the 1940's

The Reuters article with Musk trying to use this politically, as some are here, even said...


A child sexual abuse scandal that revealed how gangs of mostly Pakistani men had groomed, trafficked and raped young ->white girls<- (gasp) more than a decade ago, has returned to the political agenda in Britain following criticism from Elon Musk.

I just saw a protest today outside of a local Tesla dealership. I hope to see more of that.

Anyway, I was just trying to give some perspective.

That's all great, but it is a diversion from the original disagreement that started this most recent string of comments. I think you'll agree now that I myself have said nothing wrong and all of my statements have been consistent.
 
It's up to you to make coherent criticisms of my arguments/statements. You're very good at one line posts ending in "lmao" or "lmfao", but not so much when asked to back up your accusations.



That's all great, but it is a diversion from the original disagreement that started this most recent string of comments. I think you'll agree now that I myself have said nothing wrong and all of my statements have been consistent.
Yea my criticism was that you didn't read the report you cited which said the exact opposite of what you were claiming. You have reacted the exact same to me numerous times over the years on this forum including recently in this thread. I tend to treat people the way that they treat me. Golden rule and all that
 
@-=SS=- would you say this is a fair way to characterize it? I don't mean to speak out of turn.
No that's a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.

I mean if you look at where we are now in British culture, and actually on this thread (re: 'far-right' accusations), people like me (which is actually the 'silent majority' of the public who are too afraid to express it) wanted a dialogue 20 years ago about a reasonable approach to immigration for example i.e. not unlimited open-door immigration. But no, we were shut down, disparaged, and now we've reached the point where we are in a fucking mess and the detractors still can't even face a true discussion about all of it without resorting to 'far-right' accusations etc. They have nothing to offer up except trying to shut down the discussion before it begins.
I have had many encounters with SS and they have demonstrated to me that they aren't interested in engaging in good faith
That's fucking rich coming from you. You seem to operate under this smug erroneous assumption that no one else sees through your charade, but you've just dropped the ball and everyone can see it.. because your assertion that the Pakistani rape gangs thing is 'nonsense' is absolute flagrant bullshit.

I'm not going to sit here and listen to you deny what is actual reality. I fucking live here, ok. I know what the score is. You think that just by reading some snippet of a government report that you understand, that you can just read what amounts to a news headline, that that gives you a full depth of knowledge of all of this. Don't even fucking try. Stay in your lane.
 
Looking at the total numbers of rapes doesn't account for whites being ~74% of the UK population while muslims are only ~6.5%

Those numbers broken down by per capita between groups will show a much clearer picture
Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous
 
No that's a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.

I mean if you look at where we are now in British culture, and actually on this thread (re: 'far-right' accusations), people like me (which is actually the 'silent majority' of the public who are too afraid to express it) wanted a dialogue 20 years ago about a reasonable approach to immigration for example i.e. not unlimited open-door immigration. But no, we were shut down, disparaged, and now we've reached the point where we are in a fucking mess and the detractors still can't even face a true discussion about all of it without resorting to 'far-right' accusations etc. They have nothing to offer up except trying to shut down the discussion before it begins.

That's fucking rich coming from you. You seem to operate under this smug erroneous assumption that no one else sees through your charade, but you've just dropped the ball and everyone can see it.. because your assertion that the Pakistani rape gangs thing is 'nonsense' is absolute flagrant bullshit.
Should I cite the past posts where you claim that all measurements of the electromagnetic spectrum to analyze chemical components is entirely wrong? Or any of the others? We have quite a long history of me explaining mechanisms while citing studies and you dismissing everything because you simply "don't agree"
 
It's up to you to make coherent criticisms of my arguments/statements. You're very good at one line posts ending in "lmao" or "lmfao", but not so much when asked to back up your accusations.
It's one of the ways in which we hand-waive away points that we don't have a good way to back up or conclude. Right wing folks will often use "do your own research/IYKYK" or "cope and seethe" (or other things like this). It's the biggest tell that someone doesn't actually fully know to offer a compelling defense but doesn't know how to say that, want to admit it, or thing you'll know it.

It's tell that I have picked up on with trolls and people like Elon, but also when someone I might generally agree with is struggling to justify a statement. Interestingly it is also an Anti-AI tell as they will never do this in a natural way (so far as I've been able to deduce).
That's all great, but it is a diversion from the original disagreement that started this most recent string of comments. I think you'll agree now that I myself have said nothing wrong and all of my statements have been consistent.
 
Yea my criticism was that you didn't read the report you cited which said the exact opposite of what you were claiming.

You can say that all day long, but until you back it up with something it means absolutely nothing. The last time I pressed you, all you could do was quote someone else who isn't me.
 
You can say that all day long, but until you back it up with something it means absolutely nothing. The last time I pressed you, all you could do was quote someone else.
Yes because I was about to quote the report after reading it but when I came back to the thread @brokedownpalace10 had beaten me to it

Should I quote it anyhow since you want me to copy and paste it?
 
Should I cite the past posts where you claim that all measurements of the electromagnetic spectrum to analyze chemical components is entirely wrong? Or any of the others? We have quite a long history of me explaining mechanisms while citing studies and you dismissing everything because you simply "don't agree"
So I hear you - there are things when read with a certain supposition in mind could seem like that but that's in fact my own bias at work assuming I know where the statement is coming from, and drawing a conclusion that is false. It took me not operating under the assumption that this was the case, and re-approaching what he was saying, to realize that maybe I wasn't actually giving him the benefit of the doubt. It also meant that I didn't necessarily have to agree with him, but that I didn't have to disagree with him because I assumed it was just coming from a place of malicious intent. Instead, it helped me to see that my own biases were at work in my own political views, and that I was being manipulated to ignore real legitimate things by a group with a vested interest in what narratives I was buying into.

It's liberating when you can do this because you can start to recognize what beliefs you have because they're actually the beliefs you want, and what beliefs you have because they're what you're told to believe.
 
Here is another example of this two-tier, political correct, establishment meddling. A man attempted to burn a Quran in front of the Turkish embassy in London, and another man came up to him and started to stab him. The man who burned the book is remanded in custody, the man who attempted to kill him is let out on bail.

EDIT: There was a man in Sweden recently who did the same and was killed in his home if I remember correctly. So much for 'tolerance'. They can't tolerate burning of a book (or cartoons of their 'prophet'), so they respond by trying to fucking kill the person instead of engaging in a dialogue. Spin it anyway you like, but that is clear representation of a culture that is not on the same level as ours. It just isn't.

 
Here is another example of this two-tier, political correct, establishment meddling. A man attempted to burn a Quran in front of the Turkish embassy in London, and another man came up to him and started to stab him. The man who burned the book is remanded in custody, the man who attempted to kill him is let out on bail.


Which to me reads as a glaring example of how established thought is awful at self monitoring for utter hypocrisy/indifference.
 
So I hear you - there are things when read with a certain supposition in mind could seem like that but that's in fact my own bias at work assuming I know where the statement is coming from, and drawing a conclusion that is false. It took me not operating under the assumption that this was the case, and re-approaching what he was saying, to realize that maybe I wasn't actually giving him the benefit of the doubt. It also meant that I didn't necessarily have to agree with him, but that I didn't have to disagree with him because I assumed it was just coming from a place of malicious intent. Instead, it helped me to see that my own biases were at work in my own political views, and that I was being manipulated to ignore real legitimate hings by a group with a vested interest in what narratives I was buying into.

It's liberating when you can do this because you can start to recognize what beliefs you have because they're actually the beliefs you want, and what beliefs you have because they're what you're told to believe.
I had given the benefit of the doubt a chance when I first joined this forum. I have since learned that it. I have learned that some other users are not willing to do the same, nor engage with evidence in good faith. In that case the best I can do is provide the evidence contrary to the claims in the thread for passersby
 
I had given the benefit of the doubt a chance when I first joined this forum. I have since learned that it. I have learned that some other users are not willing to do the same, nor engage with evidence in good faith. In that case the best I can do is provide the evidence contrary to the claims in the thread for passersby
Honestly - once you buy into that way of thinking, you stop giving people any opportunity to evolve/change. You write them off as being 'this type of way' or simply "evil/mean/wrong" which fosters a divide in why we struggle to hear anyone's views that we might not understand, and learn, from.

I learn the most from people I disagree with, even if it's how better to understand why I disagree with them.

Like: right now, you operate in a way that is based in what you believe to be true. Some of it is true, and some of it isn't.

Can you tell me what is true and what isn't?

(To be clear, i"m not saying this is only the case with you, we all do this).

When we become better at listening to and trying to understand the perspectives of people we don't agree with, we become better at looking for our own logical fallacies, which helps us to look at false beliefs we've formed that may feel right for some reason or another.
 
Yes because I was about to quote the report after reading it but when I came back to the thread @brokedownpalace10 had beaten me to it

Should I quote it anyhow since you want me to copy and paste it?

You have much more education than I do. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and teach you how to make persuasive arguments.

1. Tell me what I said that you have a problem with.
2. Show how the sources I used specifically contradict any claims that I have made.

Do not reference what other people might have said. Don't straw man my argument. Don't endlessly filibuster the conversation with nonsense until everyone gets bored and moves on.

Do these basic things if you want to be taken seriously in any conversation like this. You're welcome.
 
Honestly - once you buy into that way of thinking, you stop giving people any opportunity to evolve/change. You write them off as being 'this type of way' or simply "evil/mean/wrong" which fosters a divide in why we struggle to hear anyone's views that we might not understand, and learn, from.

I learn the most from people I disagree with, even if it's how better to understand why I disagree with them.
I give every new person that I meet the benefit of the doubt, but I would be foolish to continue that with people who I have learned to operate in bad faith
 
Here is another example of this two-tier, political correct, establishment meddling. A man attempted to burn a Quran in front of the Turkish embassy in London, and another man came up to him and started to stab him. The man who burned the book is remanded in custody, the man who attempted to kill him is let out on bail.

EDIT: There was a man in Sweden recently who did the same and was killed in his home if I remember correctly. So much for 'tolerance'. They can't tolerate burning of a book (or cartoons of their 'prophet'), so they respond by trying to fucking kill the person instead of engaging in a dialogue. Spin it anyway you like, but that is clear representation of a culture that is not on the same level as ours. It just isn't.


(sigh) Apparently they are both out on bail.

At Westminster Magistrates' Court on Saturday, Mr Coskun spoke through an interpreter as he entered not guilty pleas.
He was released on conditional bail and will appear before the same court for trial on 28 May.
A second man, Moussa Kadri, 59, from Kensington and Chelsea, has been charged with causing actual bodily harm and possessing an offensive weapon.


 
I give every new person that I meet the benefit of the doubt, but I would be foolish to continue that with people who I have learned to operate in bad faith
And I'd say you'd be foolish NOT to with people you've interacted with. What if they gave you a bad first impression for some reason that had nothing to do with why you came to disbelieve them.

What if they were on drugs? What if they were going through a breakup? What if they'd recently experienced an awful trauma? when you formed your opinion of them.
 
You have much more education than I do. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and teach you how to make persuasive arguments.

1. Tell me what I said that you have a problem with.
2. Show how the sources I used specifically contradict any claims that I have made.

Do not reference what other people might have said. Don't straw man my argument. Don't endlessly filibuster the conversation with nonsense until everyone gets bored and moves on.

Do these basic things if you want to be taken seriously in any conversation like this. You're welcome.
You were making the claim that it was a real issue, simply because it was being reported on by a major outlet. That claim was false, a major outlet reporting on a rich nutcase making an absurd claim is not evidence for the claim. You then cited the report as if it substantiated the absurd claim so I read the report, which you very obviously did not, and I suggested you read it so you might modify your opinion on the reporting. Instead of simply reading the report you have chosen to dance around the issue 👏
 
And I'd say you'd be foolish NOT to with people you've interacted with. What if they gave you a bad first impression for some reason that had nothing to do with why you came to disbelieve them.

What if they were on drugs? What if they were going through a breakup? What if they'd recently experienced an awful trauma? when you formed your opinion of them.
I don't give people only a single chance, this learning happens over many interactions over many months to years. Yes I do take into account possible mental status, economic status, and the cultural and material reality of the person I am engaging with. I tend not to make snap judgements on whether a person is engaging in good faith or not because you can't make that judgment over only a few interactions with limited knowledge
 
You were making the claim that it was a real issue, simply because it was being reported on by a major outlet. That claim was false, a major outlet reporting on a rich nutcase making an absurd claim is not evidence for the claim. You then cited the report as if it substantiated the absurd claim so I read the report, which you very obviously did not, and I suggested you read it so you might modify your opinion on the reporting. Instead of simply reading the report you have chosen to dance around the issue 👏
In the end, it sucks to be the person who is in the spotlight, having to defend statements that are pages and pages old. Unfortunately, you are someone that likes to invite it a bit because you immediately write off people who you don't agree with. In general, we get along because I often agree with you and as such, don't often take on perspectives that you disagree with. @-=SS=- on the other hand.... not someone you're going to have a lot of baseline commonality with, but he's a really fucking thoughtful person when he's discussing things. You'd probably learn a lot if you gave him more of a chance, even if you don't change your beliefs to line up with his.

It'll certainly make you better at making the points you are trying to make, because you'll know how to navigate the types of things that people who disagree with you think. It'll also give you more empathy around why they might think the way they do, and when maybe it isn't the best thing to get into a debate with them about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top