• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Sod the jubilee!

Could you show me where from my first post the place that I said that you personally was being aggressive.. I just said, in my last few posts that I was referring to yesterdays fierce row.. nvm
Click to expand...

Your not agressive, just a complete clueless dafty. I'm not cheer leading crackhead but I agree with what he's said and have said it before on here I think.

Since the jubilee is over this thread should probably just be closed, it's getting absolutely nowhere, just basically persuing a difference of opinions, where people are never going to agree or come to any worthwhile agreement.

One thing I will say is why do people even bother watching any of it if they don't like it? I don't really have a problem with us having a queen, as it does bring in alot of tourism and money, although I do believe we would still get alot of these tourists (not all) coming over just to see Buckingham Palace and all the other pieces of history dotted over the country. The queen does seem like a nice woman, I don't have any problem with the immediate family ie Charles, William, Harry etc. It's more all these dukes, dutchess's and their arrogant offspring roaming around clubs off their faces while we pay 6 figure sums a year for their security etc that bugs me.

You can say what you want about the jubilee but I'm willing to bet it was at least good for the economy. Even if it did nip most of our heads seeing it on the news.
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
When you say I think I know it all, it is implied that I am unopen to changing my opinion. I can see how someone can disagree with my facts if they have another set of facts, otherwise how is that possible? They are just basing it entirely on emotion, which is stupid and no way to run any sort of society. And, if you wouldn't mind stating explicitly what it is about my style you dislike - other than the fact that it disagrees with you, that would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

How the fuck can you not see what it is about your style that irks me....?

It's in this post I've just quoted, it's in every post on this page.

And the implication that "[you are] unopen to changing [your] opinion" is made by you. It's true, you are unopen to changing your opinion. But I don't want you to change your opinion.

For you, a conversation, debate whatever the fuck you want to call it, has to result in one party changing their opinion and agreeing with the other. I don't want, or need you to change your opinion to validate my own opinions. Sorry, the Guardian's opinions.
 
Mailmonkey said:
How the fuck can you not see what it is about your style that irks me....?

It's in this post I've just quoted, it's in every post on this page.

And the implication that "[you are] unopen to changing [your] opinion" is made by you. It's true, you are unopen to changing your opinion. But I don't want you to change your opinion.

For you, a conversation, debate whatever the fuck you want to call it, has to result in one party changing their opinion and agreeing with the other. I don't want, or need you to change your opinion to validate my own opinions. Sorry, the Guardian's opinions.
Click to expand...

You still haven't actually said what the problem is? Pin point it and be direct! Or are you just saying that you dislike me on an emotional level, and you can't actually verbalise why you don't like my style?
 
Cornishman said:
MSB, he pinpointed it in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

So the problem is that I find the objective of a discussion to be to try and get the person with opposing views come to some sort of consensus with me based on objectivity, whereas he wants to just state his opinion based purely on gut instinct? To me a debate isn't just stating your opinion and where you stand and having done with it. It's about seeing how well your hard thought out position stands up to rational criticism, and being challenged by people of equal or greater intelligence on the other side of the spectrum. It is also a way of gathering new information. I don't think that it is a necessity that one side comes over to the other, because that very rarely happens. But I at least like to be informed of the logic that underpins their belief system (if there is any), so that I may use that to improve my own. This is how a conventional debate in a debating society would proceed, and it certainly how I am used to discussing subject matter after having been to university. If they are doing it just to state their opinion that's fine, I just assume that when people state their opinions they are prepared to defend their position. Especially when them stating their opinion is most often done in response to me stating my opinion.

I spend, and have spent, an awful lot of time gathering information, talking to people, and experiencing the world to form my opinions. So when someone states an opposing opinion and refuses to back it up with anything but a feeling I don't relate to, it is exceedingly frustrating. If they too have undergone a similar rigorous process before announcing their position then it shouldn't be difficult for them to come back at me in a civil and appropriate manner. If there is something that I have missed nothing makes my day more than being corrected properly, and getting to evolve my position. I appreciate that emotion does come into it, but I clearly have a strong preference for an academic approach. It has always been readily apparent that my problem's with SHM/MM/Sam have all been an issue of hearts vs head. I do genuinely want to understand where people are coming from, but text doesn't transfer feelings, it only transfers logic - which we have already established MM doesn't like.
 
MSB, to me it seems like SHM's Young Team (or whatever we're going to call this clique. I want a fucking name for it!!!) are more used to having debates/conversations/arguments with people in the pub whereas you're more used to doing it in "a conventional debate in a debating society". Hence the wildly different styles, which no doubt annoy fuck out of each other. I imagine your style of debating wouldn't go down too well down the pub, just as mine wouldn't go down too well at Oxbridge. 'Na mean?



Edit - Ya cunt.
 
Last edited:
bogman said:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3949698560/tt0080120

going to be like this soon
Click to expand...
Come out to play?

ace movie, anyways

YellowPolkaDotHalo said:
I cant see why if you or other people that have stepped in cant wait til the row has calmed down a bit.

It is ugly..
Click to expand...

yet you do this continually. generalised YDPH quote, ' I hate it when someone butts in with the discussion/beef I'm having with someone else'.

yet you do it relentlessly yourself. you know this. you may try to justify it with reasons you think are more relevant or superiour than when someone else (like me, PTCH or Rockstar does it), but you're still doing it regardless.

YellowPolkaDotHalo said:
Oh Hello Yella ...Youve got a cheerleader now MSB
Click to expand...

ayeup!

yaaaaaawn! stretchhhhhhh! boring! ... see above quote of yours

[edit]
you're currently here to seemingly stick up for the 'ganged up upon', but it's the same mentality, only in reverse
 
Mr Smokes Blunts. said:
So the problem is that I find the objective of a discussion to be to try and get the person with opposing views come to some sort of consensus with me based on objectivity, whereas he wants to just state his opinion based purely on gut instinct?

I spend, and have spent, an awful lot of time gathering information, talking to people, and experiencing the world to form my opinions.
Click to expand...

But yours is still from gut instinct too. but instead you go off and find the facts to back it up, but your experience in this matter is no greater than anyone else's really is it? Please put me straight if it is. Your skill is in perfecting the art (or trying to) of debate techniques (ie; technicalities) rather than what is truth. technicalities aren't about 'truth', they're about
'get out clauses'. there's a difference.

parttime crackhead said:
MSB, to me it seems like SHM's Young Team (or whatever we're going to call this clique. I want a fucking name for it!!!) are more used to having debates/conversations/arguments with people in the pub whereas you're more used to doing it in "a conventional debate in a debating society". Hence the wildly different styles, which no doubt annoy fuck out of each other. I imagine your style of debating wouldn't go down too well down the pub, just as mine wouldn't go down too well at Oxbridge. 'Na mean?
Click to expand...
he specialises in being 'technically correct', and what I'd class as being a 'box ticker'. It has nothing to do with reality or correctness or truth, but everything to do with get out clauses and pomposity
 
Last edited:
parttime crackhead said:
Nope. You are a genuine idiot. I can't be fucked with you.
Click to expand...

Ok you think i'm and idiot, clown, dafty and proclaimed that you are just more intelligent than me... From your perspective.

From my point of view you misread and misinterpreted something that I wrote. I tried to show you where you had made the ricket a couple of times but you just bulldozed ahead into insults and delusions of grandeur rather than having a look and accepting that you misread my post and insulted me for no reason.

I'm just wondering if you think I couldnt retaliate with the same kind of abuse. I could*.. but its just so immature, shows a lack of restraint and accomplishes nothing in the end does it?

* that doesnt mean I'm not itching to.

Marmalade thinks i'm superior and PTCH sees me as a clown. :D

Show me Marmalade where I butt into venomous rows rather than debates?. I'll be really happy to concede that one because I know it would go against the grain with me and it just hasn't happened.
 
Last edited:
Marmalade said:
But yours is still from gut instinct too. but instead you go off and find the facts to back it up, but your experience in this matter is no greater than anyone else's really is it? Please put me straight if it is. Your skill is in perfecting the art (or trying to) of debate techniques (ie; technicalities) rather that what is truth. technicalities aren't about 'truth', they're about
'get out clauses'. there's a difference.


he specialises in being 'technically correct', and what I'd class as being a 'box ticker'. It has nothing to do with reality or correctness or truth, but everything to do with get out clauses and pomposity
Click to expand...

thanks for your eloquence. :)
 
why do many european threads predictably descend into gay (no homophob) shit, can't you have fisticuffs/sex at dawn and the boring shit be over with?
 
parttime crackhead said:
MSB, to me it seems like SHM's Young Team (or whatever we're going to call this clique. I want a fucking name for it!!!) are more used to having debates/conversations/arguments with people in the pub whereas you're more used to doing it in "a conventional debate in a debating society". Hence the wildly different styles, which no doubt annoy fuck out of each other. I imagine your style of debating wouldn't go down too well down the pub, just as mine wouldn't go down too well at Oxbridge. 'Na mean?



Edit - Ya cunt.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean, but my conversational style in the pub is totally different to my debating style on the internet. It's not too much to expect people to be at least slightly rigorous when they are so wedded to their opinions, is it? It also depends who you drink with I guess. Point taken though, I will lower my expectations of MM/SHM/Sam if they are always going to delegate their opinion formation to the guardian.
 
why don't you join a debating forum?

I'm not suggesting you leave BL, but if it's rigorous debate you seek there must be special places for people like you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top