Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

De-platforming fascists works

1…8910111214»

Comments

  • #652
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Strange one because I don't think he's hugely popular.

    RT did a piece on him, helped him with exposure and coverage.

    The small man has no hope tweeting the kind of tweet Avi tweeted. They would be banned, they would not get coverage from RT, and they would not be unbanned.


  • #653
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    RT did a piece on him, helped him with exposure and coverage.

    The small man has no hope tweeting the kind of tweet Avi tweeted. They would be banned, they would not get coverage from RT, and they would not be unbanned.



    Your right,they'd be airbrushed from the internet.
    I thought that's what would happen in this instance given his links to Tommy Robinson


  • #654
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Your right,they'd be airbrushed from the internet.
    I thought that's what would happen in this instance given his links to Tommy Robinson

    From what I've seen he's a far 'lighter' version of TR. I'd say this gives him a lot more silent support.


  • #655
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Who are you or anybody else to decide this? Twitter has decided this; what if they're wrong? What if Avi is right and Greta is being abused?

    Well, that is similar to saying “who are lawmakers to decide on what laws are made?”. The answer is that “someone has to do it, if it’s right for society”. Who is anyone to do anything?

    If Avi turns out to be right by some stroke of luck, it’s still luck and we can’t just go around listening to anyone who spouts anything because then we’ll not be able to function, as we’ll be spending all our time investigating boll0cks claims made randomly.

    Incidentally, just because he got back on twitter doesn’t mean twitter were wrong to ban him. He just got back because of popular support.
    Popular support gives people power - I mean even Hitler got to host the olympics because of popular support at the time, doesn’t mean he was right to be a nazi or that the olympics comittee endorsed his views.
    The relevant part is that she is being thrust into this debate by her parents, to take all the attention and criticism surrouding it, and they also wrote a book about their children's mental ilness'. There is good grounds to call this abuse. Why is this a low bar for calling this abuse? Surely this is opinion, and an opinion twitter know nothing about.
    No, this isn’t good grounds for calling it abuse. Judging all the facts available to me, I am absolutely certain Avi doesn’t give a sh!t if Greta was abused, and only wants to suggest it in an effort to mock her. Intentions do matter, when judging an act.
    Considering all the information available to you, do you believe Avi cares about Greta?
    In anything, you have to consider all the info available to you, not just what is explicitly said, otherwise no argument will ever go anywhere, and the answer to any question will always be “I don’t know”.
    Eg. If I asked you right now “Do you think I am actually a flying hippo monster alien?”, on one level you could answer “I don’t know”, and despite sounding clever, it’s actually a stupid answer because actually if you consider all the info available to you, you’d say “probably not, because when you consider the probability both the following things occurring at once, it’s very low - firstly, I see no evidence that flying hippo monsters even exist, and secondly even if they did exist, the chances of them getting on the internet and using their time to talk on an Internet forum doesn’t seem high”.
    (Only after you met me would you realize that I am in fact a flying hippo monster alien, but by then I’d have eaten your brains :) )

    Remember, I didn’t ask “can you be 100% sure that I’m not a FHMA?”, I asked “do you think that...”. Every decision we make is based on things we think, if the judge thinks a person did the crime they have to convict them, the judge can never be 100% sure the person did the crime.
    In my example they have evidence but are still dismissed as hate speakers. Their evidence is not even looked at because they have already been judged. My point is that evidence can be dismissed because you have judged the character of the person presenting it, this is what I see a lot in modern day.
    Obviously people are going to do this and I don’t blame them. Story of the boy who cried wolf, etc. You can’t keep crying wolf and expect people to stupidly ignore your past and re-investigate every time you cry “wolf!”. People don’t have all the time in the world.
    To go back to the example, imagine you had evidence of child abuse but weren't allowed to present it because you were called a"Racist" or a "catholicist". People completely dismissed your opinion out of hand BEFORE looking at the evidence is what I'm arguing. How can you present evidence if you are de-platformed?
    In that case, I’d try and understand why people were calling me racist. Perhaps get someone else to present the evidence. If they get called racist too, I’d investigate if my evidence was perhaps based on racism - I could find 10 black convicted rapists and present them as evidence that “black people committed rape”, if I was a retarded robot. A smarter robot would go back and look at the fact I found, and realize that white people also commit rape. A dumb robot would then quote “but black people do more crime per capita”. A smarter robot would go back and say “yeah, but black people are poorer in general due to historical factors, and actually it’s more likely that “poor people” do more crime in general rather than “black people”.
    Antifa UK successfully suspending the premiere of "Edge of the city" Which was a documentary meant to highlight struggles of social care workers in West Yorkshire, but ended up starting a nationwide revelation about grooming gangs. The police were afraid to investigate for fear of being called racist. The documentary was temporarily suspended from screening. Can you not see the harm that can be caused by restricting people's speech? If so, is this something you're just willing to accept?
    Probably more likely that the police did not have the means to break into these gangs easily. Those ethnicity-based gangs were made up entirely out of Asian ethnicity men who lived in a certain area, and the police probably didn’t have enough Asian ethnicity police officers from that same area to infiltrate them to gather evidence. They did get them in the end based on the girls coming forward, which isn’t a quick process and can take years.
    Truth and evidence will cease to exist if your world view comes to pass; the character of the person will be the judge. Look at how a previous poster here wouldn't even look at a 90second clip to formulate their own opinion. This is the future that you have outlined. Its already happening.
    No it won’t - it’s just the natural order of things, I mean if a dog is foaming at the lips and growling, I’ll assume it’s an unfriendly dog and keep away from it. I’ll miss the chance to pet what may be a lovely dog, but i’ll avoid being that stupid person who pets a growling dog and gets bitten.
    The person didn’t miss much by looking at the 90 second clip to be fair, I watched it in its entirety only because I was discussing it with you. I don’t have to read the Bible or the Koran in order to have an opinion on it.
    Demanding that the only people’s opinion which matters are people who have read the entire thing is not as clever as it sounds.


  • #656
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I am absolutely certain Avi doesn’t give a sh!t if Greta was abused, and only wants to suggest it in an effort to mock her. Intentions do matter, when judging an act.

    This is I believe the heart of the issue. Who judges the act? At present we tell judges they must look for proof of malice, or intent. To remove the need to prove intent, we leave it up for the judge to decide arbitrarily just like you have done with Avi.

    I'm saying if you believe that you need to prove it. How can you be so certain of something without proof? If I was absolutely certain about something; I would be able to prove that.
    People like twitter are saying they no longer need to prove these things, they know; they are certain.

    Avi has already had his ban lifted. Remember, people weren't willing to even listen to his video... If not for an RT piece he would still be banned. What hope does the small man have of expressing an opinion without the help of RT?
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why would i want to listen to a **** like that?
    They had prejudged him before looking at the evidence. That is what I'm warning against here.
    These people are relying on other people to inform them, they are not making up their own minds. Can you not see how dangerous this is?


  • #657
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    This is I believe the heart of the issue. Who judges the act? At present we tell judges they must look for proof of malice, or intent. To remove the need to prove intent, we leave it up for the judge to decide arbitrarily just like you have done with Avi.

    I'm saying if you believe that you need to prove it. How can you be so certain of something without proof? If I was absolutely certain about something; I would be able to prove that.
    People like twitter are saying they no longer need to prove these things, they know; they are certain.

    Avi has already had his ban lifted. Remember, people weren't willing to even listen to his video... If not for an RT piece he would still be banned. What hope does the small man have of expressing an opinion without the help of RT?


    They had prejudged him before looking at the evidence. That is what I'm warning against here.
    These people are relying on other people to inform them, they are not making up their own minds. Can you not see how dangerous this is?


    I have a rule about being told to watch a video. If their command of english is so poor that they cannot make an argument in written form then it is very unlikely that they are worth listening to.


  • #658
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Probably more likely that the police did not have the means to break into these gangs easily. Those ethnicity-based gangs were made up entirely out of Asian ethnicity men who lived in a certain area, and the police probably didn’t have enough Asian ethnicity police officers from that same area to infiltrate them to gather evidence. They did get them in the end based on the girls coming forward, which isn’t a quick process and can take years.

    The Sunday Mirror did an 18 month report into the Telford affair.
    • Social workers knew of abuse in the 1990s but police took a decade to launch a probe
    • Council staff viewed abused and trafficked children as “prostitutes” instead of victims, according to previously unseen files
    • Authorities failed to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of “racism”
    • Police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened
    • One victim said cops tried to stop her finding out why her abusers had not been prosecuted because they feared she would talk to us

    Timeline:
    • Early 1980s Vulnerable Telford girls are targeted by groups of mainly Asian men.
    • 1996 A concerned resident claims she tells police about the activities of a key abuser selling underage girls for sex.
    • Late 1990s Files reveal social workers learn of the problem but do little to help.
    • 2000 Lucy Lowe, 16, is killed alongside her mum and sister in an arson attack by abuser Azhar Ali Mehmood, who made her pregnant at 14.
    • 2002 Abuse victim Becky Watson, 13, is killed in a road accident described as a “prank”.
    • 2009 Becky’s friend Vicky Round dies in a drugs-related incident after enduring nine years of sex hell at the hands of a string of paedophiles.
    • 2010-2012 Police probe dubbed Operation Chalice identifies a potential 200 abusers but only nine are jailed. Two further probes collapse.
    • August 2016 The Sunday Mirror reports that the problem is continuing outside underage discos in the town but some complaints provided by volunteer street pastors are not properly logged.
    • September 2016 MP Lucy Allan calls for a public inquiry but police and council officials in Telford write to Home Secretary Amber Rudd saying this isn’t necessary.
    • March 2018 The Sunday Mirror reveals there could be up to 1,000 victims of the scandal and links five deaths to the abuse.

    Source

    The Telford scandal resembles those exposed in the British towns of Rotherham and Rochdale, but is longer running and likely claimed many more victims.


  • #659
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    The Sunday Mirror did an 18 month report into the Telford affair.

    Well if it was the Sunday Mirror that changes things!


  • #660
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    Well if it was the Sunday Mirror that changes things!

    Are you insinuating there was something wrong with that report?

    Its a report the police should have done themselves 20 years ago, but didn't because they were scared of being called racist.

    Or are you one of the ones looking for these investigations into rape gangs not to happen?


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Are you insinuating there was something wrong with that report?

    Uh, did it come from the Sunday Mirror?

    There's your answer.

    Nobody is going to take your islamophobic deflections and whataboutisms seriously I'm afraid. The police do police work, not islamophobic plonkers like basically any red-top.


  • #662
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    Uh, did it come from the Sunday Mirror?
    There's your answer.
    Nobody is going to take your islamophobic deflections and whataboutisms seriously I'm afraid. The police do police work, not islamophobic plonkers like basically any red-top.
    "Sunday Mirror Fake News! Gotcha! HA!" is the extent of your argument.

    Here is the biggest criticism I could find about the Mirror's report from the BBC, directly quoting the head of the investigation in Telford. What is in question is the scale of the problem, not that the problem exists
    • "I don't believe Telford is any worse than lots of places across England and Wales," he said.West Mercia Police Supt Tom Harding "significantly disputed" the figures.
    • Supt Harding said police and authorities in the town were working with "approximately 46 young people" who were victims of child sexual exploitation (CSE) or considered "at risk".
    • "Therefore, I significantly dispute the 1,000 plus figure and do feel it is sensationalised.
    • "Read the headlines, read the reports. What are they actually discussing? They're discussing cases from 20 or 30 years ago, offending back in the 1990s.

    Are these genuine criticisms of that report? Or does it look like they're acting like a shower of spineless turds? They're afraid to be called racist.. it's coming from the top. Remember the police were tipped off about this 20 god damn years ago. What was stopping them from composing their own report?

    Here is another story from the far-right Islamobhobic deflectors independent.co.uk; Insinuating the exact same thing.


  • #663
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    This is I believe the heart of the issue. Who judges the act? At present we tell judges they must look for proof of malice, or intent. To remove the need to prove intent, we leave it up for the judge to decide arbitrarily just like you have done with Avi.

    I'm saying if you believe that you need to prove it. How can you be so certain of something without proof? If I was absolutely certain about something; I would be able to prove that <...>

    I think you’re gaslighting here, where basically you’re just going to deny things that are apparent to most people, in an effort to legitimize your argument :)

    What is “proof” anyway? If you left a chocolate in a room with a kid, and came back later and the chocolate is gone and the kid has chocolate on his hands, is that proof that he ate them?

    The answer is that it depends on the kid, and the rest of the background info which is not contained in the written description - eg. Did the kid have his own chocolate, was there someone else in the room who left, etc). In this case, the kid (Avi) ate the chocolate (slagged Greta) because he’s a cvnt, and a well-known cvnt, and then got himself back on Twitter by arguing about it and showing how much support he had from gullible people.


    To clarify, I strongly think that there should be one law for everyone in a country, regardless of ethnic background or nationality or religion. I’m not sure why inefficiencies in the British police force are being highlighted here - I mean, catholic priests were occasionally accused of rape here too, and the police didn’t investigate them well enough at the time. The police system isn’t perfect, no system is - we knew that already.

    What do you suggest, that we don’t allow Asian background people to immigrate here because some of them formed a paedophile gang? Because it somehow reflects on all Asian background people?

    We should build a wall, and make the Mexicans pay for it.


  • #664
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    What is “proof” anyway? If you left a chocolate in a room with a kid, and came back later and the chocolate is gone and the kid has chocolate on his hands, is that proof that he ate them?

    In this case, the kid (Avi) ate the chocolate (slagged Greta) because he’s a cvnt, and a well-known cvnt, and then got himself back on Twitter by arguing about it and showing how much support he had from gullible people.

    If you are relying on intent to prove a crime (in this case proving Avi sought to attack Greta or her parents) indeed the onus is on you to prove that intent to a high standard.(You must prove he sought to harm Greta or her parents)
    Dear @GretaThunberg,
    I hate the @UN more than you could imagine, but they didn't steal your dreams or childhood — your parents did.
    They should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put you through.
    They've scared you into an extremist.

    If I can argue coherently how he was just expressing an opinion that had a lot of truth also held by many other people; then surely your argument of it being a personal attack crumbles.

    E.g. If I can prove that this child used the chocolate bar(his words) to write on the wall(tell the truth) instead of eat(attack greta/her parents). How can you still say he ate the chocolate(attacked greta)? Especially when all the kids were using their chocolate bars in the exact same way.

    Before you punish this child for eating the chocolate, isn't it best to make sure?


  • #665
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I’m not sure why inefficiencies in the British police force are being highlighted here - I mean, catholic priests were occasionally accused of rape here too, and the police didn’t investigate them well enough at the time.

    Go back to your post #655 where this argument spawned.

    I argued; Imagine being scared to present evidence for fear of being called a racist.

    You then retorted:
    • I'd try to understand why people are calling me racist.
    • I'd ask someone else to do present the evidence.
    • I’d investigate if my evidence was perhaps based on racism

    I then presented the case of the Telford rape gangs, and how the police had knowledge of them for over 20 years without investigating. They didn't investigate for fear of being called racists.
    • The police understanding why people are calling them racists for investigating a rape gang is useless.
    • The police asking someone else to investigate the rape gangs is impossible.
    • An investigation is not racist


  • #666
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    What do you suggest, that we don’t allow Asian background people to immigrate here because some of them formed a paedophile gang? Because it somehow reflects on all Asian background people?

    We should build a wall, and make the Mexicans pay for it.

    I suggest nothing of the sort. This is a clear case of whataboutism.

    I'm only suggesting that the police would have done their job with due diligence, had they not had the fear of the stigma of being called racist by woke individuals hanging over their heads.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    "Sunday Mirror Fake News! Gotcha! HA!" is the extent of your argument.

    Pretty good argument though.


  • #668
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    If you are relying on intent to prove a crime (in this case proving Avi sought to attack Greta or her parents) indeed the onus is on you to prove that intent to a high standard.(You must prove he sought to harm Greta or her parents)


    If I can argue coherently how he was just expressing an opinion that had a lot of truth also held by many other people; then surely your argument of it being a personal attack crumbles.

    E.g. If I can prove that this child used the chocolate bar(his words) to write on the wall(tell the truth) instead of eat(attack greta/her parents). How can you still say he ate the chocolate(attacked greta)? Especially when all the kids were using their chocolate bars in the exact same way.

    Before you punish this child for eating the chocolate, isn't it best to make sure?


    I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this one unfortunately. It's a case of me insisting that I am "sure enough to act", based on what I see, that "the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi is attacking/ridiculing Greta), whereas you are going to insist, based on what you see, that "one can't be sure enough that the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi may not be attacking/ridiculing Greta).




    Go back to your post #655 where this argument spawned.

    I argued; Imagine being scared to present evidence for fear of being called a racist.

    You then retorted:
    • I'd try to understand why people are calling me racist.
    • I'd ask someone else to do present the evidence.
    • I’d investigate if my evidence was perhaps based on racism

    I then presented the case of the Telford rape gangs, and how the police had knowledge of them for over 20 years without investigating. They didn't investigate for fear of being called racists.
    • The police understanding why people are calling them racists for investigating a rape gang is useless.
    • The police asking someone else to investigate the rape gangs is impossible.
    • An investigation is not racist




    I don't accept that the police didn't investigate the Telford rape gangs "for fear of being called racists" just because that's how it was reported in a newspaper.

    I don't recall any police officer or commissioner coming out and saying "This fell under my jurisdiction, and I didn't investigate it or assign resources to investigate it because I was afraid of being called racist".
    Neither of us can prove exactly why it wasn't investigated to conclusion early on, however to me it looks far more likely that there just wasn't enough evidence collected, and the police don't usually assign all their resources to investigate something before first establishing that a crime actually took place.
    It's not easy to collect evidence on a paedo gang which only targets minors known to them from the area. In a similar situation, it took ages for Gardai to investigate priests for sex abuse allegations here in Ireland. As another example in a different country, you have the investigation of Michael Jackson - whether you believe he abused kids or not, that investigation itself took many years to conclude (and I think there's still some uncertainty there on what actually happened).


    I think these investigations can take years to progress due to the difficulty of obtaining solid evidence against the perpetrators, and the police dont want to go ahead with a half-baked prosecution.


  • #669
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this one unfortunately. It's a case of me insisting that I am "sure enough to act", based on what I see, that "the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi is attacking/ridiculing Greta), whereas you are going to insist, based on what you see, that "one can't be sure enough that the child ate the chocolate" (ie. that Avi may not be attacking/ridiculing Greta).

    I believe its less about coming to agreement and more about accepting how the world works. Power corrupts, allowing other people to decide what you mean by what you say is extremely dangerous. If you can prove intent fine(which is provable), prosecute away, but if not your arbitrary conclusion of intent(that avi attacked greta) is at best always a guess. I'm saying make sure the child ate the chocolate before punishing him. If you can't, don't punish him.
    You will probably make that decision with your mood having a bias contribution. If you are in a good mood and happy with your child, you'll be more lenient and more generous in your interpretation.
    If however you are in a bad mood and unhappy with your child, you'll be more stern, quicker to anger, and less generous in your interpretation.
    I don't accept that the police didn't investigate the Telford rape gangs "for fear of being called racists" just because that's how it was reported in a newspaper.
    That's fair enough but I believe there is plenty of evidence out there apart from the Mirror's report.

    As a cop I always used to stop and search, but now police live in fear of being called racist


  • #670
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I believe its less about coming to agreement and more about accepting how the world works.


    You can hardly expect me to ignore my life experiences on "how the world works" just to blindly accept how you're claiming the world works, which from my point of view is a totally inaccurate view of the real world, and incorrect.

    Similarly, I don't expect you to accept my view of how the world works either, based on your life experiences so far, which is why I said "I don't think we are going to agree unfortunately".


    Power corrupts, allowing other people to decide what you mean by what you say is extremely dangerous.
    Allowing anything is extremely dangerous, you have to constantly watch it and try to ensure it's not abused. Allowing some small section of society to carry weapons and apprehend "suspected criminals" is extremely dangerous, and yet we do it out of necessity.


    If you can prove intent fine(which is provable), prosecute away, but if not your arbitrary conclusion of intent(that avi attacked greta) is at best always a guess.


    I'm saying make sure the child ate the chocolate before punishing him. If you can't, don't punish him.



    What appears to be a guess to you, is not a guess to me.



    If you asked me to confirm that there is not a live elephant stored inside my neighbours house, and I said "there isnt one, because I would smell the elephant and hear it", and you said "but you've never seen inside your neighbours house, you're just guessing, maybe it's a quiet elephant and kept very clean" - in this example, my threshold before I say "that's proof" is much lower than yours, because in the relatively long time that I've been alive (I'm in my late 30s), I've never come across an odourless, silent elephant.



    If you were holding a priceless vase, and I asked you to prove that if you dropped it on the floor, it would shatter, how would you prove it?

    There is no way to "prove" it without actually doing the action and letting me judge for myself (in that case, the priceless vase is destroyed), or else doing lots of similar actions with similar objects and convincing me via analogy that the results may be the same - but in this case, it's dependent on me accepting the analogy, and if I don't accept it, you can't "prove" it to me.


    You will probably make that decision with your mood having a bias contribution. If you are in a good mood and happy with your child, you'll be more lenient and more generous in your interpretation.
    If however you are in a bad mood and unhappy with your child, you'll be more stern, quicker to anger, and less generous in your interpretation.
    Doing nothing is also an action, and it has an effect. If you do nothing, the child grows bolder as it knows you are hamstrung by your inability to see patterns in behaviour over time and judge people on it, so it will keep eating the chocolate every time you're out of the room, and expect you to ignore the statistical improbability that every time the child is alone in the room with the chocolate, the chocolate inexplicably goes missing.



    That's fair enough but I believe there is plenty of evidence out there apart from the Mirror's report.

    As a cop I always used to stop and search, but now police live in fear of being called racist


    That's fair enough, but what does that have to do with investigating the Telford grooming gangs in the 80s, which was the time period claimed by the Sunday Mirror to be when police found out about it, and incidentally 1980-2011 is listed on http://www.drugexpertwitness.co.uk/team/ as the years when Andrew O'Hagan was active in the police force, when officers supposedly used stop-and-search without fear.


    I'd rather have a police force who were more careful themselves rather than have repeat instances of the likes of the Birmingham 6, where innocent people were jailed for long periods due to coercion/heavy handedness by the police, and the real perpetrators were never even found.



    Once again, it's a balance - if police feel they cannot do their jobs due to fears of reprimand, they should be given clearer guidance and in some cases the law should be slightly changed (as is being done already regarding the stop-and-search laws). That doesn't mean it was perfect in the past and that the past is something we should go back to - quite often things were much worse in the past, across the board.


  • #671
    thechewyone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 42 ✭thechewyone


    Y'all getting dumped on harder than Veritas did to Planned Parenthood lol.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 529 ✭✭✭yoke


    thechewyone wrote: »
    Y'all getting dumped on harder than Veritas did to Planned Parenthood lol.


    a clever argument, i'm going to need some time to respond to this one


  • #673
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    If you asked me to confirm that there is not a live elephant stored inside my neighbours house, and I said "there isnt one, because I would smell the elephant and hear it", and you said "but you've never seen inside your neighbours house, you're just guessing, maybe it's a quiet elephant and kept very clean" - in this example, my threshold before I say "that's proof" is much lower than yours, because in the relatively long time that I've been alive (I'm in my late 30s), I've never come across an odourless, silent elephant.

    In this case you have evidence of absence. (not hearing an elephant, not smelling an elephant). I believe your analogy fails because you still don't understand the point I'm trying to raise, I have tried repeatedly. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, but it seems you just haven't got this specific point I'm trying to make over and over again.

    The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. So if you, or twitter, or anyone else know Avi did that on purpose to attack Greta, then you need to prove that.

    The burden of proof is so high, because there is such a fear of convicting innocent people; surely you see this?!

    I have seen many , many reputable people express the opinion that the treatment of Greta is tantamount to child abuse.
    Here is Sky News Australia's Andrew Bolton:


    Would you say the same things about Bolton that you have said about Avi?


  • #674
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    First she's the devil, next minute she's a victim, which is it Veritas?

    Anyone calling this child's life experiences 'child abuse' needs to catch themselves on. Especially all that's gone on in this country, tokenizing real child abuse for one's agenda is really disgusting.


  • #675
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    PostWoke wrote:
    Anyone calling this child's life experiences 'child abuse' needs to catch themselves on. Especially all that's gone on in this country, tokenizing real child abuse for one's agenda is really disgusting.

    Foisting a child who has depression and anxiety issues onto a world stage is child abuse.


  • #676
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    In this case you have evidence of absence. (not hearing an elephant, not smelling an elephant). I believe your analogy fails because you still don't understand the point I'm trying to raise, I have tried repeatedly. I'm happy for you to disagree with me, but it seems you just haven't got this specific point I'm trying to make over and over again.

    The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. So if you, or twitter, or anyone else know Avi did that on purpose to attack Greta, then you need to prove that.

    The burden of proof is so high, because there is such a fear of convicting innocent people; surely you see this?!

    I have seen many , many reputable people express the opinion that the treatment of Greta is tantamount to child abuse.
    Here is Sky News Australia's Andrew Bolton:


    Would you say the same things about Bolton that you have said about Avi?

    Sad right wing propaganda.
    There's a photo of her wearing an anti fascism tshirt doing the rounds. She'll be a leftist anti white supremacist Nazi thug in no time. Desperation on a large scale. Attack anything that makes you (the right) feel threatened.
    Trump on yesterday about being harassed, 'Presidential harassment' forgot about Obama I suppose the hypocrite.


  • #677
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,392 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Desperation on a large scale. Attack anything that makes you (the right) feel threatened.

    Is this not what "Left-whingers" do when they feel they are being attacked in their safe space, when a person either has an opposing opinion to theirs or when they get offended by facts presented to them. Iv noticed that when this happens they proceed to use emotionally lead pejoratives that are uneducated and childish accusations.

    That video was of an independent YouTuber making a video who is on the "right" side of the political spectrum. If that is what you call propaganda, then everything being pumped out by the news, journalists, and thats being spread via social media is just a malignant form of propagated cancer.


  • #678
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    Is this not what "Left-whingers" do when they feel they are being attacked in their safe space, when a person either has an opposing opinion to theirs or when they get offended by facts presented to them. Iv noticed that when this happens they proceed to use emotionally lead pejoratives that are uneducated and childish accusations.

    That video was of an independent YouTuber making a video who is on the "right" side of the political spectrum. If that is what you call propaganda, then everything being pumped out by the news, journalists, and thats being spread via social media is just a malignant form of propagated cancer.

    No, that's mostly all hype by the frightened right IMO.
    There's more whinging about the PC outrage than actual PC outrage. The right are far more vocal on such things.

    You forget the media is liberal run and something something...


  • #679
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    PostWoke wrote: »
    First she's the devil, next minute she's a victim, which is it Veritas?


    Anyone calling this child's life experiences 'child abuse' needs to catch themselves on. Especially all that's gone on in this country, tokenizing real child abuse for one's agenda is really disgusting.

    I'm only highlighting that it is a fair position to hold and people that get banned for saying things that others don't want to hear (or de-platformed as fascists) is absolutely wrong.

    So please in future don't put words into my mouth; As I have never implied Greta to be bad or the 'devil'. I believe she could well be a 'victim' in this matter, a normal girl her age with her challenges usually isn't thrust into the spotlight like this. There will also be a polarized stigma attached to her for the rest of her life. Look up Soph; you'll see people on your side of this argument, arguing how Soph is being 'manipulated' is abuse. An argument I also believe holds merit.

    Just look at how Ryan Tubridy tried to handle this topic; and look at the backlash he received. These people are maniacs. Was Tubridy clearly driven by an agenda? Is tubridy some alt-right boy spewing nazi nonsense?

    Described here by Mick Heaney of the Irish Times:
    When he talks about Thunberg’s dramatic speech to the UN. He says he “felt a little uncomfortable” at the sight of a teenage girl addressing a global audience with “her face contorted in pain, agony and anxiety”, and wonders how he’d feel if it was his own daughter. Noting that Thunberg has Asperger syndrome, he adds, “I don’t think she should be put on that stage, it’s not good for her mental health or well-being.”

    In fairness, Tubridy sounds concerned rather than dismissive, worrying that someone Thunberg’s age is “up for grabs”. He also agrees on the necessity of climate action, praising the “chutzpah and spirit” of young people recently marching on the issue. He’s being a good guy, Tubs assures us: “It’s not to knock her and it’s not to mock her.” So why do his comments cause him to be “shredded online”, as he puts it the following day?

    Yet twitter and youtube have been abusing their system, they've changed the rules of having to prove the malice by showing the intent of the 'attacker' to proving malice was committed based on the offence taken by the 'victim'.
    Fair play to boards for not also taking this ludicrous position.


  • #680
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    That video was of an independent YouTuber making a video who is on the "right" side of the political spectrum. If that is what you call propaganda, then everything being pumped out by the news, journalists, and thats being spread via social media is just a malignant form of propagated cancer.

    I agree with how you've described their use of pejoratives. It just all seems so childish.

    Wasn't the video from Sky News Australia? It's their official youtube channel(verified). Bolt also writes Australia's most-read political blog.

    Certainly from what I've seen from Sky news Australia they can be called right leaning these days.


Advertisement