Current Events > Liverpool Girl Found Guilty of Hate Crime For Posting Rap Lyrics

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 3:46:45 AM #156:	JE19426 posted... It proves it quite articulately. How so? JE19426 posted... That doesn't say the UK is a police state. It proves it quite articulately. JE19426 posted... I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you. Where have I said otherwise? Still much closer to the US than other developed countries in Europe, both socially and physically. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902165021] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>It proves it quite articulately.</quote> How so? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>That doesn't say the UK is a police state.</quote> It proves it quite articulately. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you.</quote> Where have I said otherwise? Still much closer to the US than other developed countries in Europe, both socially and physically.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SubtletyRefuge 05/29/18 4:01:32 AM #157:	JE19426 posted... GiggetySplicer posted... It's pretty police stateish How so? Look, I love trashing on yanks as much as the next bloke but you are absolutely mental if you believe we haven't been becoming more and more authoritarian. --- Real subtle <cite>SubtletyRefuge posted [p:902165310] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiggetySplicer posted...</cite> <quote>It's pretty police stateish</quote> How so?</quote> Look, I love trashing on yanks as much as the next bloke but you are absolutely mental if you believe we haven't been becoming more and more authoritarian.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 4:13:17 AM #158:	GiftedACIII posted... How so? I already explained how it proves it. It proves it quite articulately. Nope. Try again. Where have I said otherwise? Still much closer to the US than other developed countries in Europe, both socially and physically. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying at the end of post 154. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902165534] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>How so?</quote> I already explained how it proves it. <quote>It proves it quite articulately.</quote> Nope. Try again. <quote>Where have I said otherwise? Still much closer to the US than other developed countries in Europe, both socially and physically.</quote> Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying at the end of post 154.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 4:14:54 AM #159:	JE19426 posted... I already explained how it proves it. No you didn't. JE19426 posted... Nope. Try again. I already explained how it proves it. JE19426 posted... Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying there. Seems to be a thing with you. I honestly question if it's due to some kind of issue. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902165562] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I already explained how it proves it.</quote> No you didn't. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Nope. Try again.</quote> I already explained how it proves it. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying there. </quote> Seems to be a thing with you. I honestly question if it's due to some kind of issue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 4:19:27 AM #160:	GiftedACIII posted... No you didn't. Yes I did. In post 155. I already explained how it proves it. Nope. Try again. Seems to be a thing with you. How so? I honestly question if you have some kind of issue that makes you be this way. Seeing as how you think a Wikipedia that doesn't claim the UK is a police state somehow proves the UK is a police state, I'd say you are more likely the one with an issue. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902165636] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>No you didn't.</quote> Yes I did. In post 155. <quote>I already explained how it proves it.</quote> Nope. Try again. <quote>Seems to be a thing with you.</quote> How so? <quote>I honestly question if you have some kind of issue that makes you be this way.</quote> Seeing as how you think a Wikipedia that doesn't claim the UK is a police state somehow proves the UK is a police state, I'd say you are more likely the one with an issue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 4:26:13 AM #161:	JE19426 posted... Yes I did. In post 155. Nope. Try again. JE19426 posted... Nope. Try again. I already proved it. JE19426 posted... Seeing as how you think a Wikipedia that doesn't claim the UK is a police state somehow proves the UK is a police state, I'd say you are more likely the one with an issue. lol even barring the shitpost slinging, this is a hilariously brain dead reach which is definitely more how someone with an issue would think. Speaking of shitposting though I'm really disappointed. I thought you used to be someone who'd make reasonable thought out arguments but now all you do is spam the same low effort shitposts. You really want to do this song and dance until the end? If so, that's fine by me, I have all my work cleared up this week, I have plenty of time on my hands. You started this shitposting after you realized you were wrong so I believe it's only fair and my courtesy to end it with me. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902165779] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes I did. In post 155.</quote> Nope. Try again. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Nope. Try again.</quote> I already proved it. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Seeing as how you think a Wikipedia that doesn't claim the UK is a police state somehow proves the UK is a police state, I'd say you are more likely the one with an issue.</quote> lol even barring the shitpost slinging, this is a hilariously brain dead reach which is definitely more how someone with an issue would think. Speaking of shitposting though I'm really disappointed. I thought you used to be someone who'd make reasonable thought out arguments but now all you do is spam the same low effort shitposts. You really want to do this song and dance until the end? If so, that's fine by me, I have all my work cleared up this week, I have plenty of time on my hands. You started this shitposting after you realized you were wrong so I believe it's only fair and my courtesy to end it with me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:52:51 AM #162:	GiftedACIII posted... Nope. Try again. There's no need, I got it right in post 155. I already proved it. Wrong. Try again. lol even barring the shitpost slinging, this is a hilariously brain dead reach which is definitely more how someone with an issue would think. I didn't make a brain dead reach at all. You've spend the last 4 posts since post 154 insisting that an article that doesn't mention the UK at all, and I mean it literally does not mention the UK or any of it's countries at all, not once, somehow proves that the UK is a police state. You've also spend those posts claiming you don't understand, how an article that claims the burden of proof lies on the person making a statement, rather than those they are trying to convince, and it does so in incredible simple terms, giving multiple examples, proves that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim not the one they are trying to convince. It's quite obvious if you think what I've said in my last paragraphs are true, and you've spend multiple posts claiming so, you have issues. I don't know what those issues are, maybe your English isn't very good, maybe you are drunk or high or other intoxicated, maybe you hit your head or may you have learning disability but clearly you have issues. You started this shitposting after you realized you were wrong I haven't shitposted at all in this topic, but I would like to know what you think I'm wrong about. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902167378] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>Nope. Try again. </quote> There's no need, I got it right in post 155. <quote>I already proved it. </quote> Wrong. Try again. <quote>lol even barring the shitpost slinging, this is a hilariously brain dead reach which is definitely more how someone with an issue would think.</quote> I didn't make a brain dead reach at all. You've spend the last 4 posts since post 154 insisting that an article that doesn't mention the UK at all, and I mean it literally does not mention the UK or any of it's countries at all, not once, somehow proves that the UK is a police state. You've also spend those posts claiming you don't understand, how an article that claims the burden of proof lies on the person making a statement, rather than those they are trying to convince, and it does so in incredible simple terms, giving multiple examples, proves that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim not the one they are trying to convince. It's quite obvious if you think what I've said in my last paragraphs are true, and you've spend multiple posts claiming so, you have issues. I don't know what those issues are, maybe your English isn't very good, maybe you are drunk or high or other intoxicated, maybe you hit your head or may you have learning disability but clearly you have issues. <quote>You started this shitposting after you realized you were wrong</quote> I haven't shitposted at all in this topic, but I would like to know what you think I'm wrong about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 6:22:14 AM #163:	JE19426 posted... There's no need, I got it right in post 155. Wrong try again. JE19426 posted... Wrong. Try again. Nope. I got it right. JE19426 posted... I didn't make a brain dead reach at all. You've spend the last 4 posts since post 154 insisting that an article that doesn't mention the UK at all, and I mean it literally does not mention the UK or any of it's countries at all, not once, somehow proves that the UK is a police state. You've also spend those posts claiming you don't understand, how an article that claims the burden of proof lies on the person making a statement, rather than those they are trying to convince, and it does so in incredible simple terms, giving multiple examples, proves that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim not the one they are trying to convince. It's quite obvious if you think what I've said in my last paragraphs are true, and you've spend multiple posts claiming so, you have issues. I don't know what those issues are, maybe your English isn't very good, maybe you are drunk or high or other intoxicated, maybe you hit your head or may you have learning disability but clearly you have issues. Wait, you can't actually be this dull can you? The whole point of me making that hyperbole was that you said you never claimed you needed a source to make statements which of course implies that you don't need a source at all to make statements. So yes or no, do you need sources to make a statement. Second, the whole point of me denying your burden of proof article was emulating your denying that restricting jokes and song lyrics falls under the overbearing presence of civil authorities that describe police states and demanding sources for that when that's the most simplified logical conclusion. I'm doing the same thing. Your source says outright that it's philosophy of religion so you need another source to prove that it has anything to do with what we're talking about. JE19426 posted... I haven't s*posted at all in this topic, but I would like to know what you think I'm wrong about. If you seriously think spamming "how so", "source?" like a broken record even towards the most simplified logical conclusions and other low effort garbage like "I have it on another tab" but not giving it and that "you've never made claims" for things that you did and obviously believe in isn't obvious shitposting then there is something severely mentally wrong with you. But you are just shitposting big time and denying it. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902167930] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>There's no need, I got it right in post 155. </quote> Wrong try again. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Wrong. Try again.</quote> Nope. I got it right. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> I didn't make a brain dead reach at all. You've spend the last 4 posts since post 154 insisting that an article that doesn't mention the UK at all, and I mean it literally does not mention the UK or any of it's countries at all, not once, somehow proves that the UK is a police state. You've also spend those posts claiming you don't understand, how an article that claims the burden of proof lies on the person making a statement, rather than those they are trying to convince, and it does so in incredible simple terms, giving multiple examples, proves that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim not the one they are trying to convince. It's quite obvious if you think what I've said in my last paragraphs are true, and you've spend multiple posts claiming so, you have issues. I don't know what those issues are, maybe your English isn't very good, maybe you are drunk or high or other intoxicated, maybe you hit your head or may you have learning disability but clearly you have issues.</quote> Wait, you can't actually be this dull can you? The whole point of me making that hyperbole was that you said you never claimed you needed a source to make statements which of course implies that you don't need a source at all to make statements. So yes or no, do you need sources to make a statement. Second, the whole point of me denying your burden of proof article was emulating your denying that restricting jokes and song lyrics falls under the overbearing presence of civil authorities that describe police states and demanding sources for that when that's the most simplified logical conclusion. I'm doing the same thing. Your source says outright that it's philosophy of religion so you need another source to prove that it has anything to do with what we're talking about. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I haven't s*posted at all in this topic, but I would like to know what you think I'm wrong about.</quote> If you seriously think spamming "how so", "source?" like a broken record even towards the most simplified logical conclusions and other low effort garbage like "I have it on another tab" but not giving it and that "you've never made claims" for things that you did and obviously believe in isn't obvious shitposting then there is something severely mentally wrong with you. But you are just shitposting big time and denying it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 6:46:52 AM #164:	GiftedACIII posted... Wrong try again. Nope. No need. Nope. I got it right. Wrong, try again. The whole point of me making that hyperbole was that you said you never claimed you needed a source to make statements which of course implies that you don't need a source at all to make statements. So yes or no, do you need sources to make a statement. I already answered that question. Second, the whole point of me denying your burden of proof article was emulating your denying that restricting jokes and song lyrics falls under the overbearing presence of civil authorities that describe police states and demanding sources for that when that's the most simplified logical conclusion. Which is pretty ridiculous, as they are very different things.Treating them the same thing is ludicrous. Furthermore claiming that, enforcing a law that has existed through multiple goverments changes in a democratic society, with free enough for people to complain about the laws if they want, is overbearing is not a logical conclusion at all. Your source says outright that it's philosophy of religion so you need another source to prove that it has anything to do with what we're talking about. My source is titled "Philosophy of Religion" but it is about burden of proof in general so no I don't need a new source. If you seriously think spamming "how so", "source?" like a broken record even towards the most simplified logical conclusions and other low effort garbage like "I have it on another tab" but not giving it and that "you've never made claims" for things that you did and obviously believe in isn't obvious shitposting then there is something severely mentally wrong with you. You presented no obvious conclusion and I put as much into my posts as you put into yours, if mine low effort enough to be shitposts then so was yours. If you were shitposting why would you expect me to do anything else in reply? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902168381] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>Wrong try again. </quote> Nope. No need. <quote>Nope. I got it right. </quote> Wrong, try again. <quote>The whole point of me making that hyperbole was that you said you never claimed you needed a source to make statements which of course implies that you don't need a source at all to make statements. So yes or no, do you need sources to make a statement.</quote> I already answered that question. <quote>Second, the whole point of me denying your burden of proof article was emulating your denying that restricting jokes and song lyrics falls under the overbearing presence of civil authorities that describe police states and demanding sources for that when that's the most simplified logical conclusion.</quote> Which is pretty ridiculous, as they are very different things.Treating them the same thing is ludicrous. Furthermore claiming that, enforcing a law that has existed through multiple goverments changes in a democratic society, with free enough for people to complain about the laws if they want, is overbearing is not a logical conclusion at all. <quote>Your source says outright that it's philosophy of religion so you need another source to prove that it has anything to do with what we're talking about. </quote> My source is titled "Philosophy of Religion" but it is about burden of proof in general so no I don't need a new source. <quote>If you seriously think spamming "how so", "source?" like a broken record even towards the most simplified logical conclusions and other low effort garbage like "I have it on another tab" but not giving it and that "you've never made claims" for things that you did and obviously believe in isn't obvious shitposting then there is something severely mentally wrong with you.</quote> You presented no obvious conclusion and I put as much into my posts as you put into yours, if mine low effort enough to be shitposts then so was yours. If you were shitposting why would you expect me to do anything else in reply?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 7:15:20 AM #165:	JE19426 posted... Nope. No need. Wrong. Try again. JE19426 posted... Wrong, try again. Nope. No need. JE19426 posted... I already answered that question. By shitposting and being intellectually disingenous saying you don't need it to survive which is obviously not what we're talking about. JE19426 posted... Which is pretty ridiculous, as they are very different things.Treating them the same thing is ludicrous. Furthermore claiming that, enforcing a law that has existed through multiple goverments changes in a democratic society, with free enough for people to complain about the laws if they want, is overbearing is not a logical conclusion at all. Not at all. How are they different? And no, you're the one claiming it's different. The burden of proof here is on you now. And your argument is basically that no law can be bad as long as their governments were so called democratic and had the capability to change that. It's ok to use gay panic as a defense to kill gay people in more than half the states in the US. Since US is democratic enough with free enough will for people to openly complain about the laws that means it's not a bad inhumane law according to your logic. Hell, execution too. Clearly it can't be bad if the majority of citizens think it's humane right? A law can still be overbearing and bad even if the society it's in is supposedly democratic and free enough for things to change. This should be common sense. JE19426 posted... My source is titled "Philosophy of Religion" but it is about burden of proof in general so no I don't need a new source. And no reason to think such a biased title would apply to everything so yes you do. JE19426 posted... You presented no obvious conclusion and I put as much into my posts as you put into yours, if mine low effort enough to be s*posts then so was yours. If you were sposting why would you expect me to do anything else in reply? Posts 122, 124, and 126 all were honest replies by me and met by your "how so, source?" and "nuh uh" shitposts. Stop being so full of shit. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902168883] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> Nope. No need. </quote> Wrong. Try again. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Wrong, try again.</quote> Nope. No need. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I already answered that question. </quote> By shitposting and being intellectually disingenous saying you don't need it to survive which is obviously not what we're talking about. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Which is pretty ridiculous, as they are very different things.Treating them the same thing is ludicrous. Furthermore claiming that, enforcing a law that has existed through multiple goverments changes in a democratic society, with free enough for people to complain about the laws if they want, is overbearing is not a logical conclusion at all. </quote> Not at all. How are they different? And no, you're the one claiming it's different. The burden of proof here is on you now. And your argument is basically that no law can be bad as long as their governments were so called democratic and had the capability to change that. It's ok to use gay panic as a defense to kill gay people in more than half the states in the US. Since US is democratic enough with free enough will for people to openly complain about the laws that means it's not a bad inhumane law according to your logic. Hell, execution too. Clearly it can't be bad if the majority of citizens think it's humane right? A law can still be overbearing and bad even if the society it's in is supposedly democratic and free enough for things to change. This should be common sense. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>My source is titled "Philosophy of Religion" but it is about burden of proof in general so no I don't need a new source.</quote> And no reason to think such a biased title would apply to everything so yes you do. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> You presented no obvious conclusion and I put as much into my posts as you put into yours, if mine low effort enough to be sposts then so was yours. If you were s*posting why would you expect me to do anything else in reply? </quote> Posts 122, 124, and 126 all were honest replies by me and met by your "how so, source?" and "nuh uh" shitposts. Stop being so full of shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 05/29/18 10:01:56 AM #166:	JE19426 posted... GiftedACIII posted... And how does that prove anything? It proves it quite articulately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state That doesn't say the UK is a police state. Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US. I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you. You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:902173544] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote> And how does that prove anything?</quote> It proves it quite articulately. <quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state</quote> That doesn't say the UK is a police state. <quote>Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US.</quote> I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you.</quote> You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balrog0 05/29/18 10:04:55 AM #167:	M_Live posted... Mal_Fet posted... Just so we're clear, if Snap Dogg had a concert in the UK, would the police tackle him to the ground and arrest him? I mean, this basically happened in the US to NWA at one of their concerts many years ago. They were arrested for performing Fuck The Police. also, the UK regularly bans travel for controversial artists Tyler the Creator was banned from the UK a couple years ago for being a threat to public order for instance --- It's one more thing we do to the poor, the deprived: cut out their tongues . . . allow them a language as lousy as their lives <cite>Balrog0 posted [p:902173650] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>M_Live posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Just so we're clear, if Snap Dogg had a concert in the UK, would the police tackle him to the ground and arrest him?</quote> I mean, this basically happened in the US to NWA at one of their concerts many years ago. They were arrested for performing Fuck The Police.</quote> also, the UK regularly bans travel for controversial artists Tyler the Creator was banned from the UK a couple years ago for being a threat to public order for instance</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AcFan87 05/29/18 10:05:38 AM #168:	Deadpool_18 posted... Whats wrong with Britain these days? Literally goddamn everything. <cite>AcFan87 posted [p:902173684] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>Whats wrong with Britain these days? Literally goddamn everything.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ammonitida 05/29/18 10:17:52 AM #169:	Kineth posted... Esrac posted... silentwing26x posted... Kineth posted... So this one thing happened that's ridiculous and y'all are treating it like it's a common occurrence for a narrative. it is certainly a horrifying precedent It's also not the only event of its type, considering that youtuber who was arrested and put on trial because of a joke video he made. It's still not that common. Not justifying it, but tap the brakes. This is so fucking miniscule compared to the bigger shit that's going on that engenders this to happen. If this story is true, then it should never happen even once. It should be an outrage. <cite>Ammonitida posted [p:902174111] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Esrac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>silentwing26x posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kineth posted...</cite> <quote>So this one thing happened that's ridiculous and y'all are treating it like it's a common occurrence for a narrative.</quote> it is certainly a horrifying precedent</quote> It's also not the only event of its type, considering that youtuber who was arrested and put on trial because of a joke video he made.</quote> It's still not that common. Not justifying it, but tap the brakes. This is so fucking miniscule compared to the bigger shit that's going on that engenders this to happen.</quote> If this story is true, then it should never happen even once. It should be an outrage.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pillowpantz 05/29/18 12:43:14 PM #170:	Rap music is racist? Shocking. --- https://imgur.com/b3gLOdA https://imgur.com/4O42xr1 https://youtu.be/hcrjb5dzhvw http://archive.is/Zp6HT <cite>Pillowpantz posted [p:902180935] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>Rap music is racist? Shocking.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Oatcakes 05/29/18 2:09:15 PM #171:	darkjedilink posted... JE19426 posted... GiftedACIII posted... And how does that prove anything? It proves it quite articulately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state That doesn't say the UK is a police state. Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US. I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you. You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state? Is America some magical country where the police can never come into your house (when you don't want them to)? Nah, didn't think so. --- F.C. Stokalona https://imgur.com/CJ0dPBq <cite>Oatcakes posted [p:902185561] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote> And how does that prove anything?</quote> It proves it quite articulately. <quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state</quote> That doesn't say the UK is a police state. <quote>Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US.</quote> I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you.</quote> You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state?</quote> Is America some magical country where the police can never come into your house (when you don't want them to)? Nah, didn't think so.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 05/29/18 2:23:47 PM #172:	Oatcakes posted... darkjedilink posted... JE19426 posted... GiftedACIII posted... And how does that prove anything? It proves it quite articulately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state That doesn't say the UK is a police state. Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US. I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you. You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state? Is America some magical country where the police can never come into your house (when you don't want them to)? Nah, didn't think so. Without a warrant? It sure is. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:902186422] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>Oatcakes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote> And how does that prove anything?</quote> It proves it quite articulately. <quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state</quote> That doesn't say the UK is a police state. <quote>Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US.</quote> I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you.</quote> You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state?</quote> Is America some magical country where the police can never come into your house (when you don't want them to)? Nah, didn't think so.</quote> Without a warrant? It sure is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Oatcakes 05/29/18 2:33:08 PM #173:	darkjedilink posted... Oatcakes posted... darkjedilink posted... JE19426 posted... GiftedACIII posted... And how does that prove anything? It proves it quite articulately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state That doesn't say the UK is a police state. Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US. I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you. You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state? Is America some magical country where the police can never come into your house (when you don't want them to)? Nah, didn't think so. Without a warrant? It sure is. A quick Google says police can enter your home without a warrant. --- F.C. Stokalona https://imgur.com/CJ0dPBq <cite>Oatcakes posted [p:902187013] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Oatcakes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote> And how does that prove anything?</quote> It proves it quite articulately. <quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state</quote> That doesn't say the UK is a police state. <quote>Your government spies on its civilians, restricts the internet along with other free speech, interferes in elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign-us-election-laws, and has some of the worst crime rates and quality of life https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/sep/29/uk-worst-quality-of-life-europe out of all developed countries barring the US.</quote> I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you.</quote> You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state?</quote> Is America some magical country where the police can never come into your house (when you don't want them to)? Nah, didn't think so.</quote> Without a warrant? It sure is.</quote> A quick Google says police can enter your home without a warrant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 2:57:51 PM #174:	GiftedACIII posted... Not at all. How are they different? Are you really asking, how an article that goes into incredible depth as to why the person making an initial claim, has the burden of proof, is different to a repeatedly claim that one thing, is logical conclusion to another with no explanation as to why? And no, you're the one claiming it's different. The burden of proof here is on you now. And you are the one claiming they are are the so it's equally on. And your argument is basically that no law can be bad as long as their governments were so called democratic and had the capability to change that. No, my argument is that your opinion doesn't get to override a country as a whole. You don't get to unilaterally declare something the truth. Clearly it can't be bad if the majority of citizens think it's humane right? It can't be overbearing. And no reason to think such a biased title would apply to everything so yes you do. You're really going to judge an article based on it's title and not it's content? And to think you call me a shitposter. Posts 122, 124, and 126 all were honest replies by me and met by your "how so, source?" and "nuh uh" shitposts. Stop being so full of shit. Asking you to source and explain your claims is not supporting regardless of your absurd claims to the contrary. darkjedilink posted... You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state? Every country allows the government to break into people's house, take your belonging and arresting you for committing crimes. So no I don't think it makes the UK a police state. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902188561] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>Not at all. How are they different?</quote> Are you really asking, how an article that goes into incredible depth as to why the person making an initial claim, has the burden of proof, is different to a repeatedly claim that one thing, is logical conclusion to another with no explanation as to why? <quote>And no, you're the one claiming it's different. The burden of proof here is on you now. </quote> And you are the one claiming they are are the so it's equally on. <quote>And your argument is basically that no law can be bad as long as their governments were so called democratic and had the capability to change that. </quote> No, my argument is that your opinion doesn't get to override a country as a whole. You don't get to unilaterally declare something the truth. <quote>Clearly it can't be bad if the majority of citizens think it's humane right?</quote> It can't be overbearing. <quote>And no reason to think such a biased title would apply to everything so yes you do.</quote> You're really going to judge an article based on it's title and not it's content? And to think you call me a shitposter. <quote>Posts 122, 124, and 126 all were honest replies by me and met by your "how so, source?" and "nuh uh" shitposts. Stop being so full of shit.</quote> Asking you to source and explain your claims is not supporting regardless of your absurd claims to the contrary. <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state?</quote> Every country allows the government to break into people's house, take your belonging and arresting you for committing crimes. So no I don't think it makes the UK a police state.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 3:22:40 PM #175:	JE19426 posted... that goes into incredible depth as to why the person making an initial claim, has the burden of proof, is different to a repeatedly claim that one thing, is logical conclusion to another with no explanation as to why? The most simplified common sense vs the most simplified common sense. The article says police states have overbearing civil authorities which is something restricting jokes and song lyrics is. If you deny that obvious common sense well, I can deny that your burden of proof source means anything. It says the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim but how so? JE19426 posted... And you are the one claiming they are are the so it's equally on. Nope. How so? JE19426 posted... No, my argument is that your opinion doesn't get to override a country as a whole. You don't get to unilaterally declare something the truth. ITP "countries are infallible when I feel like it" You literally said this yourself I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you. So why does your opinion "override a country as a whole"? You can't criticize the US with all its police brutality at all with this argument since it's still a democratic country free enough for people to complain and sill has these laws. JE19426 posted... It can't be overbearing. overbearing vrberiNG/Submit adjective unpleasantly or arrogantly domineering. synonyms: Why not? You're really going to judge an article based on it's title and not it's content? And to think you call me a shitposter. It's the same kind of effort you've been giving in your shitposts. You said yourself, why should I give any more effort than you do? Posts 122, 124, and 126 all were honest replies by me and met by your "how so, source?" and "nuh uh" shitposts. Stop being so full of shit. Asking you to source and explain your claims is not supporting regardless of your absurd claims to the contrary. So where's your source for that? Every country allows the government to break into people's house, take your belonging and arresting you for committing crimes. So no I don't think it makes the UK a police state. Source? --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902190081] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> that goes into incredible depth as to why the person making an initial claim, has the burden of proof, is different to a repeatedly claim that one thing, is logical conclusion to another with no explanation as to why? The most simplified common sense vs the most simplified common sense. The article says police states have overbearing civil authorities which is something restricting jokes and song lyrics is. If you deny that obvious common sense well, I can deny that your burden of proof source means anything. It says the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim but how so? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> And you are the one claiming they are are the so it's equally on. Nope. How so? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>No, my argument is that your opinion doesn't get to override a country as a whole. You don't get to unilaterally declare something the truth. </quote> ITP "countries are infallible when I feel like it" You literally said this yourself <quote>I'd say all of that is better than a government that can legally kill you.</quote> So why does your opinion "override a country as a whole"? You can't criticize the US with all its police brutality at all with this argument since it's still a democratic country free enough for people to complain and sill has these laws. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> It can't be overbearing. </quote> overbearing vrberiNG/Submit adjective unpleasantly or arrogantly domineering. synonyms: Why not? <quote>You're really going to judge an article based on it's title and not it's content? And to think you call me a shitposter.</quote> It's the same kind of effort you've been giving in your shitposts. You said yourself, why should I give any more effort than you do? <quote>Posts 122, 124, and 126 all were honest replies by me and met by your "how so, source?" and "nuh uh" shitposts. Stop being so full of shit.</quote> <quote>Asking you to source and explain your claims is not supporting regardless of your absurd claims to the contrary. </quote> So where's your source for that? <quote>Every country allows the government to break into people's house, take your belonging and arresting you for committing crimes. So no I don't think it makes the UK a police state.</quote> Source?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 05/29/18 4:21:37 PM #176:	JE19426 posted... darkjedilink posted... You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state? Every country allows the government to break into people's house, take your belonging and arresting you for committing crimes. So no I don't think it makes the UK a police state. Owning a pair of pliers should never be a crime. That it is in Britain proves that Britain is a police state --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:902193554] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>You think that a government that allows its police to break into your house, steal your tools, then arrest you for knife possession isn't a police state?</quote> Every country allows the government to break into people's house, take your belonging and arresting you for committing crimes. So no I don't think it makes the UK a police state.</quote> Owning a pair of pliers should never be a crime. That it is in Britain proves that Britain is a police state</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Funkydog 05/29/18 4:22:21 PM #177:	darkjedilink posted... That it is in Britain Lol, ok mate. --- https://imgur.com/BGbZK <cite>Funkydog posted [p:902193597] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>That it is in Britain</quote> Lol, ok mate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BrapEnthusiast 05/29/18 4:23:24 PM #178:	they recently arrested a man who was carrying a potato peeler. that sounds like a joke but it's absolutely true. --- it's party time excellent <cite>BrapEnthusiast posted [p:902193663] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>they recently arrested a man who was carrying a potato peeler. that sounds like a joke but it's absolutely true.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
southcoast09 05/29/18 4:24:30 PM #179:	This is exactly the kind of thing that started happening when Great Britain embraced globalism. They literally do not have freedom of speech. Make Britain Great again. --- Stand for the anthem or sit for the game! <cite>southcoast09 posted [p:902193733] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>This is exactly the kind of thing that started happening when Great Britain embraced globalism. They literally do not have freedom of speech. Make Britain Great again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RainblowDash 05/29/18 4:26:18 PM #180:	Fucking stupid, Snopp Dogg needs to chime in and forgive her and give a f-smack to the courts, or clean up his lyrics. --- Ryzen 7 1700X - Sapphire RX Vega 64 - ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Samsung 960 EVO 500gb - G.Skill TridentZ RGB 16gb - Silverstone SX700 700W <cite>RainblowDash posted [p:902193846] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>Fucking stupid, Snopp Dogg needs to chime in and forgive her and give a f-smack to the courts, or clean up his lyrics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 4:34:52 PM #181:	GiftedACIII posted... The most simplified common sense vs the most simplified common sense. Common sense and explanations aren't the same thing. The article says police states have overbearing civil authorities which is something restricting jokes and song lyrics is. Let's see you source to back up you claim that restricting jokes and songs lyrics is overbearing. If you deny that obvious common sense well, I can deny that your burden of proof source means anything. If you are willing be illogical, you certainly can be. It says the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim but how so? It explains how so in the article I linked. Nope. How so? You aren't claiming that my source and your claims are the same? If so I guess my last few paragraphs were pointless. ITP "countries are infallible when I feel like it" You literally said this yourself Quote where I said that please. So why does your opinion "override a country as a whole"? It doesn't. That's why did I say it didn't claim it did. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902194332] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>The most simplified common sense vs the most simplified common sense.</quote> Common sense and explanations aren't the same thing. <quote>The article says police states have overbearing civil authorities which is something restricting jokes and song lyrics is.</quote> Let's see you source to back up you claim that restricting jokes and songs lyrics is overbearing. <quote>If you deny that obvious common sense well, I can deny that your burden of proof source means anything.</quote> If you are willing be illogical, you certainly can be. <quote>It says the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim but how so? </quote> It explains how so in the article I linked. <quote>Nope. How so?</quote> You aren't claiming that my source and your claims are the same? If so I guess my last few paragraphs were pointless. <quote>ITP "countries are infallible when I feel like it" You literally said this yourself </quote> Quote where I said that please. <quote>So why does your opinion "override a country as a whole"? </quote> It doesn't. That's why did I say it didn't claim it did.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 4:36:03 PM #182:	GiftedACIII posted ... You can't criticize the US with all its police brutality at all with this argument since it's still a democratic country free enough for people to complain and sill has these laws. Of course I can criticise it. Is there a reason I can't? overbearing vrberiNG/Submit adjective unpleasantly or arrogantly domineering. synonyms: Why not? If it was unpleasant they'd be complaining about it. I don't see how a government enforcing a law could be arrogant. It's the same kind of effort you've been giving in your shitposts. I've never made any shitposts. You said yourself, why should I give any more effort than you do? Where did I say you can't shitpost? So where's your source for that? Where's my source for what? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902194404] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted ...</cite> <quote>You can't criticize the US with all its police brutality at all with this argument since it's still a democratic country free enough for people to complain and sill has these laws.</quote> Of course I can criticise it. Is there a reason I can't? <quote>overbearing vrberiNG/Submit adjective unpleasantly or arrogantly domineering. synonyms: Why not? </quote> If it was unpleasant they'd be complaining about it. I don't see how a government enforcing a law could be arrogant. <quote>It's the same kind of effort you've been giving in your shitposts.</quote> I've never made any shitposts. <quote>You said yourself, why should I give any more effort than you do?</quote> Where did I say you can't shitpost? <quote>So where's your source for that?</quote> Where's my source for what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 4:42:13 PM #183:	JE19426 posted... Common sense and explanations aren't the same thing. There's no need for an explanation. That's like saying 1+1=2 needs an explanation. JE19426 posted... Let's see you source to back up you claim that restricting jokes and songs lyrics is overbearing. Let's see your source that the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. JE19426 posted... If you are willing be illogical, you certainly can be. Yeah, just like you. JE19426 posted... It explains how so in the article I linked Your article doesn't explain anything. JE19426 posted... aren't claiming that my source and your claims are the same? If so I guess my last few paragraphs were pointless. They are the same but all of your posts have been pointless because they've been nothing but shitposts from someone who has clear issues. JE19426 posted... It doesn't. That's why did I say it didn't claim it did Where did I say mine did? --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902194739] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Common sense and explanations aren't the same thing. </quote> There's no need for an explanation. That's like saying 1+1=2 needs an explanation. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Let's see you source to back up you claim that restricting jokes and songs lyrics is overbearing.</quote> Let's see your source that the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>If you are willing be illogical, you certainly can be. </quote> Yeah, just like you. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> It explains how so in the article I linked</quote> Your article doesn't explain anything. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>aren't claiming that my source and your claims are the same? If so I guess my last few paragraphs were pointless. </quote> They are the same but all of your posts have been pointless because they've been nothing but shitposts from someone who has clear issues. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>It doesn't. That's why did I say it didn't claim it did</quote> Where did I say mine did?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BrapEnthusiast 05/29/18 4:43:02 PM #184:	wish people would stop trolling --- it's party time excellent <cite>BrapEnthusiast posted [p:902194784] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>wish people would stop trolling</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 4:47:48 PM #185:	JE19426 posted... Of course I can criticise it. Is there a reason I can't? Yes. JE19426 posted... If it was unpleasant they'd be complaining about it. I don't see how a government enforcing a law could be arrogant. Same applies to executions, police brutality, and legal discrimination against races and sexuality. JE19426 posted... I've never made any shitposts. All your posts have been shitposts. JE19426 posted... Where's my source for what? That asking people to source claims isn't shitposting --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902195044] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Of course I can criticise it. Is there a reason I can't?</quote> Yes. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>If it was unpleasant they'd be complaining about it. I don't see how a government enforcing a law could be arrogant. </quote> Same applies to executions, police brutality, and legal discrimination against races and sexuality. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I've never made any shitposts.</quote> All your posts have been shitposts. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> Where's my source for what?</quote> That asking people to source claims isn't shitposting</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:02:20 PM #186:	GiftedACIII posted... There's no need for an explanation. That's like saying 1+1=2 needs an explanation. Both of those need explanations. Let's see your source that the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. Ok. Here you go: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm Yeah, just like you. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I assume you are trying to say that I'm bring illogical, but I don't see an explanation why you think that, so I'm not 100% sure of that. Your article doesn't explain anything. LMAO. The article I linked does explain multiple things. They are the same but all of your posts have been pointless because they've been nothing but shitposts from someone who has clear issues. So both of us have done nothing but shitpost in this topic? Where did I say mine did? You said that in all the posts where you claimed the British government is overbearing and that you didn't need to source your claims. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902195925] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>There's no need for an explanation. That's like saying 1+1=2 needs an explanation.</quote> Both of those need explanations. <quote>Let's see your source that the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof.</quote> Ok. Here you go: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm <quote>Yeah, just like you.</quote> I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I assume you are trying to say that I'm bring illogical, but I don't see an explanation why you think that, so I'm not 100% sure of that. <quote>Your article doesn't explain anything. </quote> LMAO. The article I linked does explain multiple things. <quote>They are the same but all of your posts have been pointless because they've been nothing but shitposts from someone who has clear issues.</quote> So both of us have done nothing but shitpost in this topic? <quote>Where did I say mine did?</quote> You said that in all the posts where you claimed the British government is overbearing and that you didn't need to source your claims.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:06:43 PM #187:	GiftedACIII posted... Yes. What is that reason? Same applies to executions, police brutality, and legal discrimination against races and sexuality. I agree that's why I'd never call those arrogant or unpleasant. All your posts have been shitposts. If you think asking people to explain their statements, sourcing a statement, and explaining a statement is shitposting, then I'd like to know what doesn't count as shitposting in your opinion. That asking people to source claims isn't shitposting You are asking for a source right now. Are you shitposting? If so I'm not going to give you a source. If you aren't shitposting then your post is my source. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902196182] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>Yes.</quote> What is that reason? <quote>Same applies to executions, police brutality, and legal discrimination against races and sexuality.</quote> I agree that's why I'd never call those arrogant or unpleasant. <quote>All your posts have been shitposts.</quote> If you think asking people to explain their statements, sourcing a statement, and explaining a statement is shitposting, then I'd like to know what doesn't count as shitposting in your opinion. <quote>That asking people to source claims isn't shitposting</quote> You are asking for a source right now. Are you shitposting? If so I'm not going to give you a source. If you aren't shitposting then your post is my source.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 5:10:38 PM #188:	JE19426 posted... Both of those need explanations Nope. JE19426 posted... Ok. Here you go: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm Quote the part that proves it. JE19426 posted... I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I assume you are trying to say that I'm bring illogical, but I don't see an explanation why you think that, so I'm not 100% sure of that. I don't see an explanation how denying that burden of proof is on the claim maker is illogical. JE19426 posted... LMAO. The article I linked does explain multiple things. LMAO no it doesn't. JE19426 posted... So both of us have done nothing but s*post in this topic? You have. I was being reasonable until you've revealed that all you were going to do was shitpost. JE19426 posted... You said that in all the posts where you claimed the British government is overbearing and that you didn't need to source your claims. How so? Where's your source and explanation for that? --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902196430] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Both of those need explanations</quote> Nope. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Ok. Here you go: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm</quote> Quote the part that proves it. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. I assume you are trying to say that I'm bring illogical, but I don't see an explanation why you think that, so I'm not 100% sure of that.</quote> I don't see an explanation how denying that burden of proof is on the claim maker is illogical. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>LMAO. The article I linked does explain multiple things. </quote> LMAO no it doesn't. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>So both of us have done nothing but s*post in this topic?</quote> You have. I was being reasonable until you've revealed that all you were going to do was shitpost. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> You said that in all the posts where you claimed the British government is overbearing and that you didn't need to source your claims.</quote> How so? Where's your source and explanation for that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 5:14:24 PM #189:	JE19426 posted... What is that reason? I've already said it. Not my fault you're not intelligent enough to understand. JE19426 posted... I agree that's why I'd never call those arrogant or unpleasant. What are they? JE19426 posted... If you think asking people to explain their statements, sourcing a statement, and explaining a statement is s*posting, then I'd like to know what doesn't count as sposting in your opinion. Honestly engaging in a discussion and giving your reasoning what your problem with the claims were rather than spamming low effort "source" "how so?" posts. JE19426 posted... You are asking for a source right now. Are you sposting? If so I'm not going to give you a source. If you aren't sposting then your post is my source. I'm doing whatever you're doing. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902196680] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>What is that reason? </quote> I've already said it. Not my fault you're not intelligent enough to understand. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I agree that's why I'd never call those arrogant or unpleasant. </quote> What are they? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>If you think asking people to explain their statements, sourcing a statement, and explaining a statement is sposting, then I'd like to know what doesn't count as sposting in your opinion. </quote> Honestly engaging in a discussion and giving your reasoning what your problem with the claims were rather than spamming low effort "source" "how so?" posts. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>You are asking for a source right now. Are you sposting? If so I'm not going to give you a source. If you aren't s*posting then your post is my source.</quote> I'm doing whatever you're doing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AcFan87 05/29/18 5:17:52 PM #190:	I have two questions: 1). How is posting rap lyrics even a hate crime? 2). Did Big Brother force her to listen to the two minutes of hate before or after they arrested her? <cite>AcFan87 posted [p:902196874] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>I have two questions: 1). How is posting rap lyrics even a hate crime? 2). Did Big Brother force her to listen to the two minutes of hate before or after they arrested her?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:24:28 PM #191:	GiftedACIII posted... Nope. Yes they do. Do you think addition is something people inherently understand that schools don't need spend time teaching it? Quote the part that proves it. The whole article proves it. I don't see an explanation how denying that burden of proof is on the claim maker is illogical. Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok. LMAO no it doesn't. Wrong, try again. You have. I was being reasonable until you've revealed that all you were going to do was shitpost. I was being perfectly reasonable when I asked to explain your statements and source your statements. How so? Where's your source and explanation for that? Are you really saying that you never claimed the British government is overbearing? If so I guess this discussion is over. I've already said it Where? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902197243] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>Nope.</quote> Yes they do. Do you think addition is something people inherently understand that schools don't need spend time teaching it? <quote>Quote the part that proves it.</quote> The whole article proves it. <quote>I don't see an explanation how denying that burden of proof is on the claim maker is illogical.</quote> Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok. <quote>LMAO no it doesn't. </quote> Wrong, try again. <quote>You have. I was being reasonable until you've revealed that all you were going to do was shitpost.</quote> I was being perfectly reasonable when I asked to explain your statements and source your statements. <quote>How so? Where's your source and explanation for that?</quote> Are you really saying that you never claimed the British government is overbearing? If so I guess this discussion is over. <quote>I've already said it</quote> Where?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:26:56 PM #192:	GiftedACIII posted... What are they? I'm not sure they are anything overall. Honestly engaging in a discussion and giving your reasoning what your problem with the claims were rather than spamming low effort "source" "how so?" posts. How are you supposed to have a reasonable discussion without explanations, or sources? I'm doing whatever you're doing. I'm glad you agree neither of us are shitposting. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902197382] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>What are they?</quote> I'm not sure they are anything overall. <quote>Honestly engaging in a discussion and giving your reasoning what your problem with the claims were rather than spamming low effort "source" "how so?" posts.</quote> How are you supposed to have a reasonable discussion without explanations, or sources? <quote>I'm doing whatever you're doing.</quote> I'm glad you agree neither of us are shitposting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 5:35:46 PM #193:	JE19426 posted... Yes they do. Do you think addition is something people inherently understand that schools don't need spend time teaching it? Yeah, for toddlers. You don't need to explain it to mentally developed adults, which on retrospect I guess you clearly aren't. JE19426 posted... The whole article proves it. No it doesn't. JE19426 posted... Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok. You're the one who brought up illogical. Bad short term memory another symptom of your issue? JE19426 posted... Wrong, try again. Nope, not wrong. Only thing wrong here is your account's existence. JE19426 posted... I was being perfectly reasonable when I asked to explain your statements and source your statements. Spamming how so and source isn't reasonable. JE19426 posted... Are you really saying that you never claimed the British government is overbearing? If so I guess this discussion is over. That's not the thing that I was referring to. And discussion has been over since you started shitposting after you realized you were wrong (which is why you're ignoring everyone else calling out the stupidity of these laws) and now you just want to get the last word in. Too bad that's not going to happen lol. JE19426 posted... Where? Above --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902197933] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes they do. Do you think addition is something people inherently understand that schools don't need spend time teaching it?</quote> Yeah, for toddlers. You don't need to explain it to mentally developed adults, which on retrospect I guess you clearly aren't. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>The whole article proves it. </quote> No it doesn't. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but ok. </quote> You're the one who brought up illogical. Bad short term memory another symptom of your issue? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Wrong, try again.</quote> Nope, not wrong. Only thing wrong here is your account's existence. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> I was being perfectly reasonable when I asked to explain your statements and source your statements. </quote> Spamming how so and source isn't reasonable. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Are you really saying that you never claimed the British government is overbearing? If so I guess this discussion is over. </quote> That's not the thing that I was referring to. And discussion has been over since you started shitposting after you realized you were wrong (which is why you're ignoring everyone else calling out the stupidity of these laws) and now you just want to get the last word in. Too bad that's not going to happen lol. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Where?</quote> Above</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 5:40:55 PM #194:	JE19426 posted... I'm not sure they are anything overall. So you agree with American law that those are valid things and something not be criticized? JE19426 posted... How are you supposed to have a reasonable discussion without explanations, or sources? I did explain and give sources then you asked for more explanation and sources for what is already the most simplified explanation. Though on that note, why do we need explanation and sources for a reasonable discussion? Are you claiming those are needed for a reasonable discussion? You got a source for that? I'm glad you agree neither of us are shitposting. lol. You're still wrong. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902198262] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not sure they are anything overall. </quote> So you agree with American law that those are valid things and something not be criticized? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> How are you supposed to have a reasonable discussion without explanations, or sources?</quote> I did explain and give sources then you asked for more explanation and sources for what is already the most simplified explanation. Though on that note, why do we need explanation and sources for a reasonable discussion? Are you claiming those are needed for a reasonable discussion? You got a source for that? <quote> I'm glad you agree neither of us are shitposting.</quote> lol. You're still wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:46:34 PM #195:	GiftedACIII posted... Yeah, for toddlers. You don't need to explain it to mentally developed adults, which on retrospect I guess you clearly aren't. Ah yes the old "instead of arguing the person's point I'll insult them" and you call me unreasonable. No it doesn't. Yes it does. You're the one who brought up illogical. Bad short term memory another symptom of your issue? Yes I did bring up illogical, I'm aware of that so no short term memory are not a problem. You haven't explain how your post is related to mine so you might have issue explain your points. Spamming how so and source isn't reasonable. Asking people to elaborate, and source there claims is perfectly reasonable. That's not the thing that I was referring to. Then what were you referring to? And discussion has been over since you started shitposting after you realized you were wrong I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What are we doing right now if not discussing? Also what was I wrong about? and now you just want to get the last word in. Nah I'm talking to you while killing time. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902198595] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>Yeah, for toddlers. You don't need to explain it to mentally developed adults, which on retrospect I guess you clearly aren't.</quote> Ah yes the old "instead of arguing the person's point I'll insult them" and you call me unreasonable. <quote>No it doesn't.</quote> Yes it does. <quote>You're the one who brought up illogical. Bad short term memory another symptom of your issue?</quote> Yes I did bring up illogical, I'm aware of that so no short term memory are not a problem. You haven't explain how your post is related to mine so you might have issue explain your points. <quote>Spamming how so and source isn't reasonable.</quote> Asking people to elaborate, and source there claims is perfectly reasonable. <quote>That's not the thing that I was referring to.</quote> Then what were you referring to? <quote>And discussion has been over since you started shitposting after you realized you were wrong</quote> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What are we doing right now if not discussing? Also what was I wrong about? <quote>and now you just want to get the last word in. </quote> Nah I'm talking to you while killing time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 5:49:27 PM #196:	GiftedACIII posted... So you agree with American law that those are valid things and something not be criticized? Of course those things are valid. I'm not sure why you think they can't be criticised so I'm going to disagree with you there. I did explain and give sources then you asked for more explanation and sources for what is already the most simplified explanation. You didn't give a simplified explanation at all. lol. You're still wrong. How so? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902198787] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>So you agree with American law that those are valid things and something not be criticized?</quote> Of course those things are valid. I'm not sure why you think they can't be criticised so I'm going to disagree with you there. <quote>I did explain and give sources then you asked for more explanation and sources for what is already the most simplified explanation.</quote> You didn't give a simplified explanation at all. <quote>lol. You're still wrong.</quote> How so?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nick_Saban 05/29/18 5:49:47 PM #197:	All of those people arguing that hate speech shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. Just remember when you go down that road, this is where it comes out --- Fat people in small amounts of clothing always makes me giggle.-SvenGeorgeson Then you must have loads of fun looking in a mirror.-LegendaryElite <cite>Nick_Saban posted [p:902198803] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote>All of those people arguing that hate speech shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. Just remember when you go down that road, this is where it comes out</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AcFan87 05/29/18 5:50:45 PM #198:	Nick_Saban posted... All of those people arguing that hate speech shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. Just remember when you go down that road, this is where it comes out I second this <cite>AcFan87 posted [p:902198862] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nick_Saban posted...</cite> <quote>All of those people arguing that hate speech shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. Just remember when you go down that road, this is where it comes out</quote> I second this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BrapEnthusiast 05/29/18 6:03:59 PM #199:	Nick_Saban posted... All of those people arguing that hate speech shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. Just remember when you go down that road, this is where it comes out 1st amendment protects unpopular speech. that's exactly the point. you wouldn't need to recognize the right to popular speech, since it's already accepted. popular status-quo speech doesn't need protecting. hate speech is not a thing under US law. discrimination is but that's a separate issue --- it's party time excellent <cite>BrapEnthusiast posted [p:902199668] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nick_Saban posted...</cite> <quote>All of those people arguing that hate speech shouldnt be protected by the first amendment. Just remember when you go down that road, this is where it comes out</quote> 1st amendment protects unpopular speech. that's exactly the point. you wouldn't need to recognize the right to popular speech, since it's already accepted. popular status-quo speech doesn't need protecting. hate speech is not a thing under US law. discrimination is but that's a separate issue</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 6:11:17 PM #200:	JE19426 posted... Ah yes the old "instead of arguing the person's point I'll insult them" and you call me unreasonable. lmao says the guy who thinks the old "but how" and "nuh uh" spamming that children do isn't shitposting or unreasonable. But my post is even true. What mentally developed adult (which you clearly aren't) needs 1+1 explained to them? btw where's your source that it's unreasonable? JE19426 posted... Yes it does Wrong, try again. JE19426 posted... Yes I did bring up illogical, I'm aware of that so no short term memory are not a problem. You haven't explain how your post is related to mine so you might have issue explain your points. Literally the same way you used it. So yes, you still have a short term memory problem. Spamming people to elaborate, and source there claims even after they've already done so is perfectly reasonable. How so? Then what were you referring to? It's quoted right above. Another example of your short term memory problem right here. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What are we doing right now if not discussing? Also what was I wrong about? You're shitposting because you couldn't handle that you're wrong. And you're wrong about everything in this discussion. Nah I'm talking to you while killing time. While conveniently ignoring everyone else calling out the authoritarianism of these laws. JE19426 posted... Of course those things are valid. I'm not sure why you think they can't be criticised so I'm going to disagree with you there. What can they be criticized for? JE19426 posted... You didn't give a simplified explanation at all. Criminalizing jokes and song lyrics are a common component of police states like Nazi, Germany, China and the soviets. Name any other free countries that do this. The U.K. ranks among the worst in freedom of press so relative to other developed countries they're not very free at all. It doesn't get more simplified than that. How so? How aren't you? --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902200075] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Ah yes the old "instead of arguing the person's point I'll insult them" and you call me unreasonable. </quote> lmao says the guy who thinks the old "but how" and "nuh uh" spamming that children do isn't shitposting or unreasonable. But my post is even true. What mentally developed adult (which you clearly aren't) needs 1+1 explained to them? btw where's your source that it's unreasonable? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes it does</quote> Wrong, try again. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> Yes I did bring up illogical, I'm aware of that so no short term memory are not a problem. You haven't explain how your post is related to mine so you might have issue explain your points. </quote> Literally the same way you used it. So yes, you still have a short term memory problem. <quote> Spamming people to elaborate, and source there claims even after they've already done so is perfectly reasonable. </quote> How so? <quote>Then what were you referring to?</quote> It's quoted right above. Another example of your short term memory problem right here. <quote>I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What are we doing right now if not discussing? Also what was I wrong about?</quote> You're shitposting because you couldn't handle that you're wrong. And you're wrong about everything in this discussion. <quote>Nah I'm talking to you while killing time.</quote> While conveniently ignoring everyone else calling out the authoritarianism of these laws. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> Of course those things are valid. I'm not sure why you think they can't be criticised so I'm going to disagree with you there. What can they be criticized for? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> You didn't give a simplified explanation at all. Criminalizing jokes and song lyrics are a common component of police states like Nazi, Germany, China and the soviets. Name any other free countries that do this. The U.K. ranks among the worst in freedom of press so relative to other developed countries they're not very free at all. It doesn't get more simplified than that. How so? How aren't you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 6:36:14 PM #201:	GiftedACIII posted... lmao says the guy who thinks the old "but how" and "nuh uh" spamming that children do isn't shitposting or unreasonable. Asking people to explain what they are saying and source their statements isn't spamming, shitposting or unreasonable. But my post is even true. What mentally developed adult (which you clearly aren't) needs 1+1 explained to them? A mentally developed adult that hasn't received any education would need it explained to them. Wrong, try again. How so? Literally the same way you used it. So yes, you still have a short term memory problem. You are drilling failing to explain what you are talking about. How so? In what way is it unreasonable. It's quoted right above. Quote it here, please. You're shitposting because you couldn't handle that you're wrong. And you're wrong about everything in this discussion. You aren't even making any sense here. First you say we aren't having a discussion, then you say we are having a discussion. Make up your mind, please. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902201548] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>lmao says the guy who thinks the old "but how" and "nuh uh" spamming that children do isn't shitposting or unreasonable. </quote> Asking people to explain what they are saying and source their statements isn't spamming, shitposting or unreasonable. <quote>But my post is even true. What mentally developed adult (which you clearly aren't) needs 1+1 explained to them?</quote> A mentally developed adult that hasn't received any education would need it explained to them. <quote>Wrong, try again.</quote> How so? <quote>Literally the same way you used it. So yes, you still have a short term memory problem.</quote> You are drilling failing to explain what you are talking about. <quote>How so?</quote> In what way is it unreasonable. <quote>It's quoted right above.</quote> Quote it here, please. <quote>You're shitposting because you couldn't handle that you're wrong. And you're wrong about everything in this discussion.</quote> You aren't even making any sense here. First you say we aren't having a discussion, then you say we are having a discussion. Make up your mind, please.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 6:42:01 PM #202:	GiftedACIII posted... While conveniently ignoring everyone else calling out the authoritarianism of these laws. I'm not ignoring them. I've read them and they have nothing to do with my posts. What can they be criticized for? Whatever people want to criticise them for. Criminalizing jokes and song lyrics are a common component of police states like Nazi Germany, China and the soviets. Do you have a source to back this up. The U.K. ranks among the worst in freedom of press so relative to other developed countries they're not very free at all. It doesn't get more simplified than that. Maybe so but that's the first time you've mentioned that in this topic so don't your previous posts were simplified because of it. How aren't you? You are claiming I'm wrong, so the burden of proof is on you. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902201877] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>While conveniently ignoring everyone else calling out the authoritarianism of these laws.</quote> I'm not ignoring them. I've read them and they have nothing to do with my posts. <quote>What can they be criticized for?</quote> Whatever people want to criticise them for. <quote>Criminalizing jokes and song lyrics are a common component of police states like Nazi Germany, China and the soviets.</quote> Do you have a source to back this up. <quote>The U.K. ranks among the worst in freedom of press so relative to other developed countries they're not very free at all. It doesn't get more simplified than that. </quote> Maybe so but that's the first time you've mentioned that in this topic so don't your previous posts were simplified because of it. <quote>How aren't you?</quote> You are claiming I'm wrong, so the burden of proof is on you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 6:47:35 PM #203:	JE19426 posted... Asking people to explain what they are saying and source their statements isn't spamming, s**posting or unreasonable. You got a source for that? And describing someone accurately isn't an insult. JE19426 posted... A mentally developed adult that hasn't received any education would need it explained to them. Ah, you've received no education either. This is all starting to make a lot more sense. JE19426 posted... How so? How isn't it? JE19426 posted... You are drilling failing to explain what you are talking about. Drilling failing? Yeah, the problem isn't on me here. The problem is with your deranged and incoherent mind. You're going to have problems with understanding what anyone is talking about. JE19426 posted... In what way is it unreasonable You're the one that claims it's reasonable. How is it reasonable? JE19426 posted... Quote it here, please. I've already quoted it before. You aren't even making any sense here. First you say we aren't having a discussion, then you say we are having a discussion. Make up your mind, please. Probably because I never said we aren't having a discussion lol. It's not making any sense to you due to a problem* with you. --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902202210] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Asking people to explain what they are saying and source their statements isn't spamming, s***posting or unreasonable. </quote> You got a source for that? And describing someone accurately isn't an insult. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>A mentally developed adult that hasn't received any education would need it explained to them.</quote> Ah, you've received no education either. This is all starting to make a lot more sense. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>How so?</quote> How isn't it? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>You are drilling failing to explain what you are talking about. </quote> Drilling failing? Yeah, the problem isn't on me here. The problem is with your deranged and incoherent mind. You're going to have problems with understanding what anyone is talking about. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>In what way is it unreasonable</quote> You're the one that claims it's reasonable. How is it reasonable? <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>Quote it here, please.</quote> I've already quoted it before. <quote> You aren't even making any sense here. First you say we aren't having a discussion, then you say we are having a discussion. Make up your mind, please.</quote> Probably because I never said we aren't having a discussion lol. It's not making any sense to you due to a problem with you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GiftedACIII 05/29/18 6:55:50 PM #204:	JE19426 posted... I'm not ignoring them. I've read them and they have nothing to do with my posts. If you were "just passing the time" there's no reason not to engage them too lmao, what a lame excuse. JE19426 posted... Whatever people want to criticise them for. So you have no criticism for it yourself I'm taking. If you do, what are they? Do you have a source to back this up. http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/banned.htm http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2141744/chinas-communist-rulers-ban-online-jokes-app-comedy https://www.spin.com/2014/06/list-western-bands-music-russia-banned-soviet-union/ Maybe so but that's the first time you've mentioned that in this topic so don't your previous posts were simplified because of it. This has been pretty well known, especially for a heavy political poster like yourself. Guess you were just living under a rock. you are claiming I'm wrong, so the burden of proof is on you. How so? --- </topic> <cite>GiftedACIII posted [p:902202700] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote>I'm not ignoring them. I've read them and they have nothing to do with my posts. </quote> If you were "just passing the time" there's no reason not to engage them too lmao, what a lame excuse. <cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote> Whatever people want to criticise them for.</quote>So you have no criticism for it yourself I'm taking. If you do, what are they? <quote>Do you have a source to back this up. </quote> http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/banned.htm http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2141744/chinas-communist-rulers-ban-online-jokes-app-comedy https://www.spin.com/2014/06/list-western-bands-music-russia-banned-soviet-union/ <quote>Maybe so but that's the first time you've mentioned that in this topic so don't your previous posts were simplified because of it.</quote> This has been pretty well known, especially for a heavy political poster like yourself. Guess you were just living under a rock. <quote> you are claiming I'm wrong, so the burden of proof is on you.</quote> How so?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/29/18 6:59:26 PM #205:	GiftedACIII posted... You got a source for that? I'm not the making the claim. You are, the burden of proof is on you. And describing someone accurately isn't an insult If that's all you did you might have a point but it's not. Ah, you've received no education either. Ah, more insults. How isn't it? How was I wrong? The problem is with your deranged and incoherent mind. You're going to have problems with understanding what anyone is talking about. Ah, even more insults. You're the one that claims it's reasonable. How is it reasonable? And you are the one claiming it is unreasonable, so how is it? I've already quoted it before. Then it should be easy to quote again. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:902202911] in Liverpool ... [t:76533689]...</cite> <quote><cite>GiftedACIII posted...</cite> <quote>You got a source for that? </quote> I'm not the making the claim. You are, the burden of proof is on you. <quote>And describing someone accurately isn't an insult</quote> If that's all you did you might have a point but it's not. <quote>Ah, you've received no education either.</quote> Ah, more insults. <quote>How isn't it?</quote> How was I wrong? <quote>The problem is with your deranged and incoherent mind. You're going to have problems with understanding what anyone is talking about.</quote> Ah, even more insults. <quote>You're the one that claims it's reasonable. How is it reasonable?</quote> And you are the one claiming it is unreasonable, so how is it? <quote>I've already quoted it before.</quote> Then it should be easy to quote again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > Liverpool Girl Found Guilty of Hate Crime For Posting Rap Lyrics (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Liverpool Girl Found Guilty of Hate Crime For Posting Rap Lyrics