Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Nice try but lets get back to you ignoring disabled children. Lets. Although, of course, you would need to find where I said that is what I would do. Kings' Knight to E6, as it were. Why would anyone in all seriousness, stop being friends/talking with someone because they voted the opposite from yourself? Seriously?! Personally I think it would depend on the relationship in the first place, but as I said earlier if you had a friend who became an ardent Creationist you would certainly question their intelligence. A No voter falls into that category for me. In short I wouldn't lose friends, but if I had any friends that are going to vote No (I don't, although rather disappointingly I have a family member who will be) they would be "relegated" in my affections - if we are to use the footballing parlance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Lets. Although, of course, you would need to find where I said that is what I would do. Kings' Knight to E6, as it were. Oh soupy, we're going down this route are we ? I know you're extremely thick skinned but you've disappointed me with this. Are you saying that at least it couldn't be interpreted as a snub to disabled kids ? If I've got it wrong I apologise but it reads that way to me. You sort of look upon them with pity, in the same way you would a child with a mental disability. You would humour them but not spend long in their company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Why would anyone in all seriousness, stop being friends/talking with someone because they voted the opposite from yourself? Seriously?! I doubt anyone actually would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Lets. Although, of course, you would need to find where I said that is what I would do. Kings' Knight to E6, as it were. Personally I think it would depend on the relationship in the first place, but as I said earlier if you had a friend who became an ardent Creationist you would certainly question their intelligence. A No voter falls into that category for me. In short I wouldn't lose friends, but if I had any friends that are going to vote No (I don't, although rather disappointingly I have a family member who will be) they would be "relegated" in my affections - if we are to use the footballing parlance. Fortunately you wont have to worry, once the most sensible vote appears of no, the saltires will be put away with the toys and stupid 'yes' signs and normality will resume away from possibly one of the most rediculous votes any of us will have to face in our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Oh soupy, we're going down this route are we ? I know you're extremely thick skinned but you've disappointed me with this. Are you saying that at least it couldn't be interpreted as a snub to disabled kids ? If I've got it wrong I apologise but it reads that way to me. Are you wishing to derail me into some sort of social or ethical quicksand? Ok, well let's go down this route, and forgive my over candour. My cousin is actually brain damaged, fell in water when she was young and it starved her brain of oxygen, so in that sense I don't feel "uncomfortable" in the presence of those who have suffered such a disability. Lovely child as she is, there is a limit to the company that she keeps. Clearly that is not of her own volition, but it's a fact, and I don't think it is either unfair or unreasonable to state that. Do I snub her? Of course not. Do I actively seek out her company? Equally not. Was that an acceptable response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Fortunately you wont have to worry, once the most sensible vote appears of no, the saltires will be put away with the toys and stupid 'yes' signs and normality will resume away from possibly one of the most rediculous votes any of us will have to face in our lifetimes. Ah, the arrogance of a No voter. Smug and belittling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I doubt anyone actually would. You'd like to think so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Are you wishing to derail me into some sort of social or ethical quicksand? Ok, well let's go down this route, and forgive my over candour. My cousin is actually brain damaged, fell in water when she was young and it starved her brain of oxygen, so in that sense I don't feel "uncomfortable" in the presence of those who have suffered such a disability. Lovely child as she is, there is a limit to the company that she keeps. Clearly that is not of her own volition, but it's a fact, and I don't think it is either unfair or unreasonable to state that. Do I snub her? Of course not. Do I actively seek out her company? Equally not. Was that an acceptable response? Your earlier post was very flippant then I'm sure you'd agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Ah, the arrogance of a No voter. Smug and belittling. no arrogance, this wild assumption of nothing, you might as well start following the catholic church and sky faries. It makes more sense than the myths a yes vote will deliver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Your earlier post was very flippant then I'm sure you'd agree. Not at all, although I will concede the comment was written in a somewhat 'free flowing' style I think I nailed it pretty well. I don't actively seek the company of those with mental disabilities in the same way I wouldn't actively seek the company of those who intend to vote No. There isn't a correlation of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Not at all, although I will concede the comment was written in a somewhat 'free flowing' style I think I nailed it pretty well. I don't actively seek the company of those with mental disabilities in the same way I wouldn't actively seek the company of those who intend to vote No. There isn't a correlation of course. Well I suppose that's the closest we'll get to an apology so I'm willing to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 no arrogance, this wild assumption of nothing, you might as well start following the catholic church and sky faries. It makes more sense than the myths a yes vote will deliver. Any reason for singling out Catholicism? Not that I am of any religious persuasion, although I did dabble with Buddhism many years ago, just wondering why you singled them out of the monotheistic religions. Anyway. The chances of an omnipotent ethereal entity making "itself" known to the world's population is akin to the chances of anything coming from Mars, as Jeff Wayne would have us believe. The case for Scottish independence has a considerably greater chance of coming true. What is disappointing is that I have seen this happen before, in 1979, when all the same tired arguments, scaremongering and hollow promises came from Westminster only for the Scots to vote No and we ended up getting a very shitty end of the stick. Yet here we are again and again people like you seem keen to belittle the desire for independence. Well I suppose that's the closest we'll get to an apology so I'm willing to move on. I don't see where an apology is in order to be fair. If you were offended by anything I wrote then either I am too calous to consider your delicate sensibilities or your delicate sensibilities are overly delicate. Interestingly you have moved from the singular to the plural. Does the "we" in "the closest we'll get" suggest you are acting as the sole arbiter of common decency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Any reason for singling out Catholicism? Not that I am of any religious persuasion, although I did dabble with Buddhism many years ago, just wondering why you singled them out of the monotheistic religions. Anyway. The chances of an omnipotent ethereal entity making "itself" known to the world's population is akin to the chances of anything coming from Mars, as Jeff Wayne would have us believe. The case for Scottish independence has a considerably greater chance of coming true. What is disappointing is that I have seen this happen before, in 1979, when all the same tired arguments, scaremongering and hollow promises came from Westminster only for the Scots to vote No and we ended up getting a very shitty end of the stick. Yet here we are again and again people like you seem keen to belittle the desire for independence. I don't see where an apology is in order to be fair. If you were offended by anything I wrote then either I am too calous to consider your delicate sensibilities or your delicate sensibilities are overly delicate. Interestingly you have moved from the singular to the plural. Does the "we" in "the closest we'll get" suggest you are acting as the sole arbiter of common decency? The whole 'we' arguement. Scotland has done very well out of the Union and we do well from our tourism that creates good jobs for more out the way areas. This whole 'us' against 'them' builds a nasty precident. and i very much feel as one of 'them' with my family history regardless of living here all my days. Scotland does have great minds and great aspects, but the key infrastructure of the links with the 'City' can not be overlooked. To think of this eutopia by becoming independant is just pie in the sky stuff. Which professionals would the key investors look too... RBS ... hmm they have a greta track record, HBOS yeah nearly as great. If we were independant 10 years ago we would be up the shitter without a paddle. As a union we have taken the hit of missplaced banking together, and to try and shun these debts is but a mind f**k of stupidity based on fracking and oil reserves already depleted without huge invesrment. the whole idea makes me sick to my stomach in its own stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 The whole 'we' arguement. Scotland has done very well out of the Union and we do well from our tourism that creates good jobs for more out the way areas. This whole 'us' against 'them' builds a nasty precident. and i very much feel as one of 'them' with my family history regardless of living here all my days. Scotland does have great minds and great aspects, but the key infrastructure of the links with the 'City' can not be overlooked. To think of this eutopia by becoming independant is just pie in the sky stuff. Which professionals would the key investors look too... RBS ... hmm they have a greta track record, HBOS yeah nearly as great. If we were independant 10 years ago we would be up the shitter without a paddle. As a union we have taken the hit of missplaced banking together, and to try and shun these debts is but a mind f**k of stupidity based on fracking and oil reserves already depleted without huge invesrment. the whole idea makes me sick to my stomach in its own stupidity. So bank on London? Yeah, their track record's pure gold, stable as f**k like. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon-macintyrekemp/scottish-independence-bank-bailout_b_4895234.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squidger Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 So bank on London? Yeah, their track record's pure gold, stable as f**k like. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gordon-macintyrekemp/scottish-independence-bank-bailout_b_4895234.html yeah a post from the 'huffingtonpost' yeah that proves it im sold.... really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Scotland has done very well out of the Union .. Have we? Are you claiming that a non Union Scotland would not have faired equally well? If anything the Union has done very well out of Scotland. As Winston Churchill, the epitome of the British Empire, stated that "Of all the small nations of this earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind." and we do well from our tourism that creates good jobs for more out the way areas. Tourism doesn't rely on Scotland being part of the Union. In fact being out of the Union and away from the pervasive border controls of the UK would actually improve tourism. This whole 'us' against 'them' builds a nasty precident. And here we are at the nub of the problem. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's an incredibly blinkered person who considered this an us/them debate. This is an opportunity for Scotland to control it's own destiny not some petty argument with our geographical neighbours whoever they may be. The argument of us/them is akin to the OF complaining that one is favoured over the other, oblivious of the bigger picture. Which professionals would the key investors look too... RBS ... hmm they have a greta track record, HBOS yeah nearly as great. If we were independant 10 years ago we would be up the shitter without a paddle. As a union we have taken the hit of missplaced banking together, and to try and shun these debts is but a mind f**k of stupidity based on fracking and oil reserves already depleted without huge invesrment. the whole idea makes me sick to my stomach in its own stupidity. I am not entirely too sure where you are coming with this as that actually reads like an argument for independence rather than against. The loose controls over finance and the lack of proper public funding being generated from the oil reserves is due to the decisions made at Westminster. In an alternate timeline, it is certainly not difficult to argue a case where like Norway an Oil Fund is created and that greater fiscal controls were put into place. Would we have missed the financial crash and would we have an approximate £500b public fund? No, but you could certainly argue the case that we would be in a significantly better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 yeah a post from the 'huffingtonpost' yeah that proves it im sold.... really? You can't be convinced. UK's economy's fragile. Another hit, we're fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Let's just remind ourselves that this is the man heading the Better Together campaign... He was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the shit hit the fan... Is this a man to be trusted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 no arrogance, this wild assumption of nothing, you might as well start following the catholic church and sky faries. It makes more sense than the myths a yes vote will deliver. I can only assume you live the most boring of lives, aspiring to nothing, never wanting to better yourself and staying with the mundane. And for the record you ARE arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 The whole 'we' arguement. Scotland has done very well out of the Union and we do well from our tourism that creates good jobs for more out the way areas. This whole 'us' against 'them' builds a nasty precident. and i very much feel as one of 'them' with my family history regardless of living here all my days. Scotland does have great minds and great aspects, but the key infrastructure of the links with the 'City' can not be overlooked. To think of this eutopia by becoming independant is just pie in the sky stuff. Which professionals would the key investors look too... RBS ... hmm they have a greta track record, HBOS yeah nearly as great. If we were independant 10 years ago we would be up the shitter without a paddle. As a union we have taken the hit of missplaced banking together, and to try and shun these debts is but a mind f**k of stupidity based on fracking and oil reserves already depleted without huge invesrment. the whole idea makes me sick to my stomach in its own stupidity. That is one of the single most idiotic posts I have ever read on P&B. Sterling work. I'm not sure what mindset allows someone to be so spectacularly wrong, but it takes some doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.