ChatterBank3 mins ago
T R O P Have Been A Bit Quiet Of Late.......
84 Answers
https:/
A reminder of the zealots in our midst.
A reminder of the zealots in our midst.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
TTT - // one of the reasons these loonies flourish is because of people like AH and TCL, they, by default, deny their murderous outrages based on their own desires to love the terrorist. So logicians like me must first demonstrate we are correct even though 99.9% of the time these attrocities are carried out by Islamic nutters. //
I am intrigued that you refer to yourself as a 'logician' when clearly you are anything but, based on your past history in general, and your specific posts on this thread.
But given what a 'logician' actually is, you may think you have had a lucky escape when you think that using what your mistakenly think of as logic, makes you a logician - have a look at this and see if you still want the self-appointed label -
https:/
Now to return to your recent posts.
The media is advising that this situation has now been handed over to the terrorist arm of the police force, which certainly increases the chances that the man in question may have been a terrorist, but it still doesn't prove him to be so.
Unfortunately, because you don;t understand the difference between conversion and radicalisation, you were willing, with no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim, to assume that the individual was a terrorist on the basis that he was a Muslim convert.
Using your 'logic', the proverbial dog born in the proverbial stable is indeed a proverbial horse.
But the simple fact is, logic is not the concept you have applied here, it is the law of bigoted suspicion which you gleefully launched, and because your shot in the dark may well come to be found to be true, you claim some sort of victory for your approach, when all you have enjoyed is a simple coincidence, which could equally have turned out to be the opposite of your assumption.
When I, and Corby challenged your planet-sized assumption that you are wrong to jump to conclusions with no evidence, your reaction is to call use 'terrorist defenders', and 'lovers of Jihad', but since you are keen on sweeping statements with no evidence, your position is at least constant - wrong, but constant.
I could take offence at your gross rudeness in referring to me as a 'terrorist defender' - if you can find any post on any thread anywhere on this site from the last nineteen years that I have been contributing on it, that shows be defending terrorism, I will pay £1,000 to the charity of your choice for every one you can find.
But I won't, because to be insulted by someone whose fundamental position is one of ignorance and bigotry, combined with an unearned arrogance in taking coincidence as your own supreme analysis of a news clip, means that the importance of your opinion of me is actually considerably lower than the importance of my opinion of your.
The fundamental difference between us is, every point I have made about you is backed up with your posts on this thread, the couple of nasty insults your have conjured speak to your inability to recognise that pointing out your errors does not equate to terrorism sympathy.
Use your 'logician' temperament to understand that difference, and you will be a better person for it.
I am intrigued that you refer to yourself as a 'logician' when clearly you are anything but, based on your past history in general, and your specific posts on this thread.
But given what a 'logician' actually is, you may think you have had a lucky escape when you think that using what your mistakenly think of as logic, makes you a logician - have a look at this and see if you still want the self-appointed label -
https:/
Now to return to your recent posts.
The media is advising that this situation has now been handed over to the terrorist arm of the police force, which certainly increases the chances that the man in question may have been a terrorist, but it still doesn't prove him to be so.
Unfortunately, because you don;t understand the difference between conversion and radicalisation, you were willing, with no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim, to assume that the individual was a terrorist on the basis that he was a Muslim convert.
Using your 'logic', the proverbial dog born in the proverbial stable is indeed a proverbial horse.
But the simple fact is, logic is not the concept you have applied here, it is the law of bigoted suspicion which you gleefully launched, and because your shot in the dark may well come to be found to be true, you claim some sort of victory for your approach, when all you have enjoyed is a simple coincidence, which could equally have turned out to be the opposite of your assumption.
When I, and Corby challenged your planet-sized assumption that you are wrong to jump to conclusions with no evidence, your reaction is to call use 'terrorist defenders', and 'lovers of Jihad', but since you are keen on sweeping statements with no evidence, your position is at least constant - wrong, but constant.
I could take offence at your gross rudeness in referring to me as a 'terrorist defender' - if you can find any post on any thread anywhere on this site from the last nineteen years that I have been contributing on it, that shows be defending terrorism, I will pay £1,000 to the charity of your choice for every one you can find.
But I won't, because to be insulted by someone whose fundamental position is one of ignorance and bigotry, combined with an unearned arrogance in taking coincidence as your own supreme analysis of a news clip, means that the importance of your opinion of me is actually considerably lower than the importance of my opinion of your.
The fundamental difference between us is, every point I have made about you is backed up with your posts on this thread, the couple of nasty insults your have conjured speak to your inability to recognise that pointing out your errors does not equate to terrorism sympathy.
Use your 'logician' temperament to understand that difference, and you will be a better person for it.
well when I said logician I didn't realise that there is an actual personality type, I just use the word in it's dictionary sense so thanks for digging that out andy. I was a bit harsh with my "terrorist friend" comments for that I apologise to you and TCL. However I do find the recent tendency in news reports to avoid all mention of Islamic terrorism, even when it's obvious who is responsible, a little frustrating.
When overwhelmingly the vast majority of such attacks in Europe have been, and are, carried out by Islamists, it follows that in seeking a solution, Islam should be the first port of call. I’ve never been a great advocate of the automatic imposition of Occam’s Razor, but in this instance it’s the only common sense approach. Why some are so determined to deny that – or why they appear so very eager to avert the finger of suspicion from the most likely explanation is quite beyond me. It’s almost as though the victims are an irrelevant secondary consideration.
TTT - // well when I said logician I didn't realise that there is an actual personality type, I just use the word in it's dictionary sense so thanks for digging that out andy. //
There was actually no 'digging' involved - I simply Googled the term and that was the first or second link I found.
// I was a bit harsh with my "terrorist friend" comments for that I apologise to you and TCL. //
A 'bit harsh'??? It was grossly offensive, and utterly unfounded, but I am never one to refuse a sincere apology, we all get carried away, I have done, and am always pleased when people accept that I did overstep, but that I am sorry for it - so although I can't speak for Corby, I am happy to accept your apology with thanks.
// However I do find the recent tendency in news reports to avoid all mention of Islamic terrorism, even when it's obvious who is responsible, a little frustrating. //
That was the point I raised in my first point - and raise again now - a decent news source will report on the evidence and facts available at the time and steer clear of making apparently obvious assumptions.
They avoid assumptions on on the basis that they are just that - assumptions, which can be proved right, but if proved wrong, leave the news source looking like a conclusion-jumping faith-hating bigot, instead of what any news source wishes to be known as - a detached medium for the conveyance of facts as they are known at the time, not knee-jerk prejudice.
There was actually no 'digging' involved - I simply Googled the term and that was the first or second link I found.
// I was a bit harsh with my "terrorist friend" comments for that I apologise to you and TCL. //
A 'bit harsh'??? It was grossly offensive, and utterly unfounded, but I am never one to refuse a sincere apology, we all get carried away, I have done, and am always pleased when people accept that I did overstep, but that I am sorry for it - so although I can't speak for Corby, I am happy to accept your apology with thanks.
// However I do find the recent tendency in news reports to avoid all mention of Islamic terrorism, even when it's obvious who is responsible, a little frustrating. //
That was the point I raised in my first point - and raise again now - a decent news source will report on the evidence and facts available at the time and steer clear of making apparently obvious assumptions.
They avoid assumptions on on the basis that they are just that - assumptions, which can be proved right, but if proved wrong, leave the news source looking like a conclusion-jumping faith-hating bigot, instead of what any news source wishes to be known as - a detached medium for the conveyance of facts as they are known at the time, not knee-jerk prejudice.
Naomi - // When overwhelmingly the vast majority of such attacks in Europe have been, and are, carried out by Islamists, it follows that in seeking a solution, Islam should be the first port of call. I’ve never been a great advocate of the automatic imposition of Occam’s Razor, but in this instance it’s the only common sense approach. //
It's actually the opposite of 'common sense'!
Common sense is to accept the reported facts as being the information known at the time, and not take two and two and make twenty-two, but wait for information to be forthcoming, and then make a judgement based on additional facts, not first-instance reporting which carried so little actual information.
// Why some are so determined to deny that – or why they appear so very eager to avert the finger of suspicion from the most likely explanation is quite beyond me. It’s almost as though the victims are an irrelevant secondary consideration. //
I refer you to my post to TTT at 18:18 - being willing to wait until facts are available, and criticising someone for rampant conclusion jumping based on prejudice, does not equate with 'averting' anything, nor does it denigrate any sympathy for the victims, and it is unfair and offensive to suggest that it does.
It's actually the opposite of 'common sense'!
Common sense is to accept the reported facts as being the information known at the time, and not take two and two and make twenty-two, but wait for information to be forthcoming, and then make a judgement based on additional facts, not first-instance reporting which carried so little actual information.
// Why some are so determined to deny that – or why they appear so very eager to avert the finger of suspicion from the most likely explanation is quite beyond me. It’s almost as though the victims are an irrelevant secondary consideration. //
I refer you to my post to TTT at 18:18 - being willing to wait until facts are available, and criticising someone for rampant conclusion jumping based on prejudice, does not equate with 'averting' anything, nor does it denigrate any sympathy for the victims, and it is unfair and offensive to suggest that it does.
TTT, you have your opinions and you are entitled to hold them as are others.
You are known for expressing those opinions in a strong manner but even by your own standards, to say that ANDY and I have "desires to love the terrorist" is "a bit harsh" is way off the mark.
I have never expressed support for any terrorist and to make the claim that I did was outrageous and offensive.
We can say things that are, upon reflection, more than was intended and the effect it had was more than intended. You have apologised and although I disagree with your saying it was only a "bit harsh" I accept your apology and hope we can move on.
You are known for expressing those opinions in a strong manner but even by your own standards, to say that ANDY and I have "desires to love the terrorist" is "a bit harsh" is way off the mark.
I have never expressed support for any terrorist and to make the claim that I did was outrageous and offensive.
We can say things that are, upon reflection, more than was intended and the effect it had was more than intended. You have apologised and although I disagree with your saying it was only a "bit harsh" I accept your apology and hope we can move on.
Naomi - // AH, you can refer me to wherever you like but
.... what is it? If it walks like a duck ...
You know the rest. //
Alarmingly trite considering that we are discussing the way some AB'ers want a man tried and convicted on not even flimsy evidence, just no evidence at all.
I am delighted that they, and you, remain a considerable distance from anywhere you could put such lofty assumptions with such potentially devastating consequences, into any form of action, beyond making unfounded assumptions to our little community on here.
If Carl Beech looks like an abuse victim, and talks like an abuse victim …
You also know the rest.
.... what is it? If it walks like a duck ...
You know the rest. //
Alarmingly trite considering that we are discussing the way some AB'ers want a man tried and convicted on not even flimsy evidence, just no evidence at all.
I am delighted that they, and you, remain a considerable distance from anywhere you could put such lofty assumptions with such potentially devastating consequences, into any form of action, beyond making unfounded assumptions to our little community on here.
If Carl Beech looks like an abuse victim, and talks like an abuse victim …
You also know the rest.
Spicerack - // There's some new terrorists for you to defend today, andy. Can't believe you missed them. //
I am delighted to make the same offer to you as I made to TTT earlier on the thread -
If you can find evidence of me defending any terrorist on any thread during any of the nineteen years and counting I have been on this site, I will donate £1,000 to the charity of your choice for each one.
TTT has not come back to me on that, somehow I suspect you won't either, but don't let your need to be nasty stop you from being offensive.
I am delighted to make the same offer to you as I made to TTT earlier on the thread -
If you can find evidence of me defending any terrorist on any thread during any of the nineteen years and counting I have been on this site, I will donate £1,000 to the charity of your choice for each one.
TTT has not come back to me on that, somehow I suspect you won't either, but don't let your need to be nasty stop you from being offensive.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Crosswords38 mins ago
Great British Insults Dying Out!
News61 mins ago
Crosswords101 mins ago
