Tory Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- Add Them Here

[lichtgilphead]

13 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

I most certainly did not refuse to discuss any other displays of racism Clerkin may or may not have taken part in.

I don't recall the questions you speak of.  If you want to show me a specific anti-immigration, anti-Muslim or anti-Eastern European view of Clerkin and ask me questions about it then go ahead.

I'll answer.

OK, here's a summary of the relevant posts. 

I linked to a Scotsman article where Clerkin was racist towards Muslims, Eastern Europeans and immigrants. I asked whether you agreed with his views.

You ignored the point, and concentrated on his anti-Englishness

I pointed out that you failed to condemn his other racism

You responded "Why would I condemn Clerkin for anything"

 

[red23]

Not a major supporter of any party but how Tory voters can dare say the SNP and Sturgeon are corrupt and liars as i so often see on social media is just unbelievable. The nerve of it. 

[speckled tangerine]

He's great fun, isn't he lichtgilphead?

You could be alone in a lift with Steiner, notice a farty smell that wasn't you and wasn't there when you got in and he'd be in denial, obfuscating and asking you for proof it was him.

 

[BFTD]

24 minutes ago, speckled tangerine said:

He's great fun, isn't he lichtgilphead?

You could be alone in a lift with Steiner, notice a farty smell that wasn't you and wasn't there when you got in and he'd be in denial, obfuscating and asking you for proof it was him.

If you like him, you'll love Ben Shapiro.

[Scott Steiner]

1 hour ago, speckled tangerine said:

That's easy enough. 

Check out page 14 of the "seven years on" thread for a detailed and comprehensive example of not answering, bluster and not providing evidence to back up your assertions.

Page 17 of the same thread sees you say:

"Glad I'm not the only one that's noticed Speckled Orange's tendency to play the man."

HTH.

Enjoy your night.

 

 

I see you're still digging.

I've just checked out page 14.  Are you referring to the following exchange?

Steiner: "Dare to suggest that Britishness can be a force for good and many will look like they are about to spontaneously combust."

Mr Speckled: Give me two tangible examples of something that Britain has done in the last five years, in isolation, that can legimately be described as a force for good and made the world a better place.

So basically what happened was that I was telling The Kincmeister how ludicrous many are with regards to Britishness, and instead of countering my point you tried to reframe it, and add your own parameters/conditions by asking me a heavily loaded question.

Instead of saying 'Britishness is bad because (ENTER REASON HERE), you went down a bizarre, desperate route.. not even talking about British but the actions of Britain.. and adding a time limit, with it having to be in isolation and having made the world a better place!

You've just scored an own goal.

And in terms of page 17, yes, you do indeed play the man.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[Scott Steiner]

57 minutes ago, speckled tangerine said:

He's great fun, isn't he lichtgilphead?

You could be alone in a lift with Steiner, notice a farty smell that wasn't you and wasn't there when you got in and he'd be in denial, obfuscating and asking you for proof it was him.

 

You'd probably smell your own B.O. then reframe the smell to claim it was my fart.

[Scott Steiner]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

OK, here's a summary of the relevant posts. 

I linked to a Scotsman article where Clerkin was racist towards Muslims, Eastern Europeans and immigrants. I asked whether you agreed with his views.

You ignored the point, and concentrated on his anti-Englishness

I pointed out that you failed to condemn his other racism

You responded "Why would I condemn Clerkin for anything"

 

You've still not provided a specific view of Clerkin's that you want me to comment on.  All you did previously was characterise his views in a particular way and try to play the disavow game by asking 'if I agree'.  If I was to answer yes or no, then not only would I be agreeing or disagreeing with a whole bunch of wildly different views, but accepting your loaded characterisation of them.

If you're up for a sensible discussion (no sniggering at the back) then you'll have no problem highlighting a specific view of Clerkin's, giving your take on it, saying why you believe it to be bad, then asking me to comment.

**Tosses Lichty the mic**

Edited December 14, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[Scott Steiner]

1 hour ago, jakedee said:

 

 

Nope, she was referring to all immigrants without documentation.
How do you define refugee?

 

I'm really not sure.  You'll find a definition in the dictionary though.

[jakedee]

I'm really not sure.  You'll find a definition in the dictionary though.

Not asking for the dictionary definition, I'm asking for yours.
If you're unsure, then how can you define a difference between refugees and " illegals"

[AsimButtHitsASix]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Have got about halfway through the proposal. Highlight so far was the bit about Marx. He didn't support free speech apparently. 

“Freedom of the press, too, is a kind of beauty which one must have loved to be able to defend. It is something which I love truly, whose existence I feel to be essential, to be necessary to me so that without it I cannot live at peace, or live a full life”

"The government hears nothing but its own voice. It knows that it hears nothing but its own voice and yet persists in the illusion that it is hearing the voice of the people and demands that the people should submit to the same illusion ... Without a free press people fall either into political superstition, or political scepticism, or else they take no further part in the life of the State and become a disorderly mass of individuals."

Marx was very strongly for freedom of the press but this included not just freedom from the state but from all ruling classes which, in a capitalist state, includes the bourgeoisie. Is such a type of press available that survives without editorial content or control from one or the other? I would say, but it is rare, and can only find one example:


 

[lichtgilphead]

16 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

You've still not provided a specific view of Clerkin's that you want me to comment on. 

Here's the link again. It sets out Clerkin's views

As can be seen above, I specifically asked you whether you agree with Clerkin's points in the article.

I consider him to be anti-immigration,  anti-Muslim and anti-Eastern European., as well as anti-English

You only appear to consider him anti-English.

Accordingly, I suspect that you agree with his views on Muslims, immigrants & Eastern Europeans.

Do you?

[Scott Steiner]

12 minutes ago, jakedee said:

 

 

Not asking for the dictionary definition, I'm asking for yours.
If you're unsure, then how can you define a difference between refugees and " illegals"

 

 

Because there is such a thing as an illegal immigrant who isn't a refugee.  This is clear as day.

Me not giving a definition of refugee doesn't change that.

Do you think illegal immigrants exist?  If so, are they all refugees?

[Scott Steiner]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

Here's the link again. It sets out Clerkin's views

As can be seen above, I specifically asked you whether you agree with Clerkin's points in the article.

I consider him to be anti-immigration,  anti-Muslim and anti-Eastern European., as well as anti-English

You only appear to consider him anti-English.

Accordingly, I suspect that you agree with his views on Muslims, immigrants & Eastern Europeans.

Do you?

Did you not read my last post?  I asked you to specify a view of his, give your take on it and explain why you think that way, then I'll give mine.

Why do you think I only appear to consider him anti-English?

[lichtgilphead]

I read your last post.

I directed you to specific views that Clerkin holds.

I stated that, in my  opinion, the views expressed appeared to be anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-Eastern European. 

It's quite obvious that you don't want to state whether you agree with these views or not. I don't have to justify why I asked you the question.

Accordingly, as you appear to be unwilling to debate the matter further, I'll continue to hold the view that you share Clerkin's views.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

19 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

Because there is such a thing as an illegal immigrant who isn't a refugee.  This is clear as day.

Me not giving a definition of refugee doesn't change that.

Do you think illegal immigrants exist?  If so, are they all refugees?

[Scott Steiner]

6 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I read your last post.

I directed you to specific views that Clerkin holds.

I stated that, in my  opinion, the views expressed appeared to be anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-Eastern European. 

It's quite obvious that you don't want to state whether you agree with these views or not. I don't have to justify why I asked you the question.

Accordingly, as you appear to be unwilling to debate the matter further, I'll continue to hold the view that you share Clerkin's views.

You directed me to an article which describes several of his views.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel like I have to lead you by the hand!

Again, if you specify an actual view he has, say your thoughts on it and why, then I will give my view.

If you want to know my view on something, then it's best to be particular and not ask me to accept your loaded characterisations of lots of different views in an article.

If you want to take that as me sharing Clerkin's views then I can't stop you.  It just makes no sense.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[speckled tangerine]

45 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

I see you're still digging.

I've just checked out page 14.  Are you referring to the following exchange?

Steiner: "Dare to suggest that Britishness can be a force for good and many will look like they are about to spontaneously combust."

Mr Speckled: Give me two tangible examples of something that Britain has done in the last five years, in isolation, that can legimately be described as a force for good and made the world a better place.

So basically what happened was that I was telling The Kincmeister how ludicrous many are with regards to Britishness, and instead of countering my point you tried to reframe it, and add your own parameters/conditions by asking me a heavily loaded question.

Instead of saying 'Britishness is bad because (ENTER REASON HERE), you went down a bizarre, desperate route.. not even talking about British but the actions of Britain.. and adding a time limit, with it having to be in isolation and having made the world a better place!

You've just scored an own goal.

And in terms of page 17, yes, you do indeed play the man.

Attaboy! 

At last some research. Sadly, still no examples of how "Britishness" can be a force for good of course, despite all your flannel about how it was a "loaded" question or "reframed". It's progress nonetheless. You also said you had examples. Guess not, eh?

If playing the man was calling out Kincardine's "pure blood" pish on Saturday gin night, then firstly I'm guilty as charged and secondly, truth hurts eh?

 

[lichtgilphead]

7 minutes ago, Scott Steiner said:

If you want to take that as me sharing Clerkin's views then I can't stop you. 

OK, if that's what you want, I'll just continue to think the worst of you. 

I'm sure that I won't be the only one.

[Scott Steiner]

Just now, speckled tangerine said:

Attaboy! 

At last some research. Sadly, still no examples of how "Britishness" can be a force for good of course, despite all your flannel about how it was a "loaded" question or "reframed". It's progress nonetheless. You also said you had examples. Guess not, eh?

If playing the man was calling out Kincardine's "pure blood" pish on Saturday gin night, then firstly I'm guilty as charged and secondly, truth hurts eh?

 

I do indeed have examples, but have not been asked for them.

I'm unsure as to the ins and outs of you and The Kincmeister's disagreement, so can't comment on that specifically.  You do play the man though.

[Scott Steiner]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

OK, if that's what you want, I'll just continue to think the worst of you. 

I'm sure that I won't be the only one.

Well if you want to claw back some credibility and do as I asked, then the door is always open.

Instead of thinking the worst of you (hate is a wasted emotion), I think your pride has probably gotten in the way of you thinking rationally.  You're probably a half-decent guy under all the bluff and bluster.