|
U-Know! Forum » Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 13:23
|
||
|
This is all a bit rich coming from you, Merrick. Your line of discussion appears to be writing something and when challenged saying that's not what you meant. I'm not the only one pointing this out so it can't just be me. The 'vague slurs' refer to you exaggerating how many times I was asked something, that I was asked to explain something I wasn't, but I'm aware that on a long thread like this things can be mixed up. As for the medical conditions - no you didn't mention that in as many words. Rhiannon certainly picked up on that to justify what you had written. But thanks for the patronising reply.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
May 15, 2011, 14:09
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Sorry PMM, but that analogy doesn't work for me at all. Because...?
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited May 15, 2011, 18:08
May 15, 2011, 14:10
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Your line of discussion appears to be writing something and when challenged saying that's not what you meant. I think 'Hundreds of officers, thousands of crimes, no charges brought' makes it pretty clear who I was referring to, I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious to you. keith a wrote: The 'vague slurs' refer to you exaggerating how many times I was asked something, that I was asked to explain something I wasn't Thankyou for being specific. I said you were asked four or five times. Merrick wrote: What happened to him could have happened to any of hundreds of officers who behaved identically. In what way is that crass or sick? Rhiannon wrote: I don't see what your issue with Merrick's sentence is? Rhiannon wrote: "all but one of them was lucky enough not to kill someone". How can you not agree with that? Rhiannon wrote: Are you not going to respond to what I said then, I argued it logically? Isn't this a discussion board, it's not personal you know! Additionally, ratcni01 wrote: I think that may be all Merrick was trying to say. The Sea Cat wrote: I think it's very rational actually. Can also be seen as inviting response. keith a wrote: As for the medical conditions - no you didn't mention that in as many words. Which means it's not something you can criticise me for. I think it can be pertinent but is a side issue that should not affect policy of behaviour (not that police are necessarily averse to attacking people with obvious medical conditions as Jody McIntyre can tell you). But since you bring it up keith a wrote: Are protesters who pushed someone else in the crowd, who threw something, damaged something, hit or kicked a police officer 'lucky' they didn't kill someone? If they were using the kinds of weapons and likelihoods of actual contact with targets who are as unarmoured as the protesters who were attacked then yes, they are. For example, someone dropping a fire extinguisher off a roof that lands only a couple of metres from officers is lucky not have killed one of them.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
Edited May 15, 2011, 14:25
May 15, 2011, 14:25
|
||
|
PMM wrote: keith a wrote: Sorry PMM, but that analogy doesn't work for me at all. Because...? Cos I thought it was a crap one! Comparing nuisance phone calls to policing at protests doesn't work for me.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 14:34
|
||
|
"Which means it's not something you can criticise me for. I think it can be pertinent but is a side issue that should not affect policy of behaviour" I didn't criticise you for it. I said... "Rhiannon gave her explanation about it but just because she argued it logically doesn't mean I have to agree with her / you or conversely that I had to get into some big argument with her. But once we get into the theoretical medical conditions of every person attending then surely you have do that from a protester point of view, too. Are protesters who pushed someone else in the crowd, who threw something, damaged something, hit or kicked a police officer 'lucky' they didn't kill someone? If someone suggested that you'd rightly have something to say about it."
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
May 15, 2011, 15:18
|
||
|
OK. All you've done is restate your original statement. Saying it's crap is the same thing as saying it doesn't work for you, only in slightly stronger words. Adding that it doesn't work for you to the end of that doesn't add anything either. The points of the analogy were that first of all, sometimes people have more than one role. I'm sure you have no problem agreeing with this bit. The second part is that some roles are by nature, unsavoury. Like the scammer on the phone, or like the man with the big stick employed to keep the starving wretches away from the grainstore. This doesn't necessarily mean the scammer or stickman are bad people, but in carrying out this role, they act in a bad way. Do you understand this, and if so, can you accept that the role of the police is sometimes to protect the interests of a tiny minority, against the greater good?
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 15:28
|
||
|
PMM wrote: OK. All you've done is restate your original statement. Saying it's crap is the same thing as saying it doesn't work for you, only in slightly stronger words. Adding that it doesn't work for you to the end of that doesn't add anything either. The points of the analogy were that first of all, sometimes people have more than one role. I'm sure you have no problem agreeing with this bit. The second part is that some roles are by nature, unsavoury. Like the scammer on the phone, or like the man with the big stick employed to keep the starving wretches away from the grainstore. This doesn't necessarily mean the scammer or stickman are bad people, but in carrying out this role, they act in a bad way. Do you understand this, and if so, can you accept that the role of the police is sometimes to protect the interests of a tiny minority, against the greater good? Of course I understood what you meant. Why do people on this thread need everything breaking down into tiny pieces? I didn't ask you to write that analogy so why should I have to waste my time writing a detailed response to something I considered nonsense? As for the greater good - that's a delicate one. What the greater good is, depends on who you ask. I take it you're automatically assuming that what you believe is for the greater good? On the other hand, Hitler probably thought what he did was the greater good, too! ; )
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
May 15, 2011, 20:32
|
||
|
keith a wrote: Of course I understood what you meant. Why do people on this thread need everything breaking down into tiny pieces? I can't speak for "People on this thread", but I do it because I want to get my own understanding across. So when people make no attempt to engage with what I've said, I try to break down my thoughts into simple logical units. keith a wrote: I didn't ask you to write that analogy so why should I have to waste my time writing a detailed response to something I considered nonsense? My attempts to debate the points are met with either hostility or at best no attempt to challenge your own ideas, I wonder myself why I do it. So for example, you restate once again that you don't agree. Once again, you do so derisively (you consider it nonsense) but you will not actually attempt to qualify why you think it's nonsense. keith a wrote: As for the greater good - that's a delicate one. What the greater good is, depends on who you ask. I take it you're automatically assuming that what you believe is for the greater good? On the other hand, Hitler probably thought what he did was the greater good, too! ; ) Huzzah! You just proved Godwin's law! :) Seriously though, if I didn't think my beliefs were right I wouldn't hold them. It's right that they should be challenged though, although it can sometimes be bloody uncomfortable, fielding leading quesions from well informed questioners. As far as Hitler goes, I suppose in a sense, yes he did, as long as you confine what you think of as worthy of inclusion to a tiny proportion of the world's population. I'm sure according to his own lights, he was on the side of the angels or he wouldn't have done what he did. Please don't misunderstand me, Keith. It's not easy to have your ideas challenged. What I do see time after time (far more so on other discussion boards but sometimes here too) is people misinterpreting questions as aggression. If they can't justify their opinions, they tend to go on the defensive, by whatever means. If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 21:09
|
||
|
[quote="PMM"] Once again, you do so derisively (you consider it nonsense) but you will not actually attempt to qualify why you think it's nonsense. [quote] Paul, I wasn't remotely derisory in my first reply. I just said sorry but your analogy didn't work for me and I left it that as I've got no beef with you at all. I thought that was a polite reply. However, the further belated prodding has made me feel like you were jumping on some Keith-must-explain-himself to the nth degree bandwagon, a situation which reached its peak with Merrick writing that someone saying "I think it's very rational actually" can "also be seen as inviting response" whereas if I'd written the sentence "I think it's very rational actually" I would be getting requests to justify it. One rule for one...? Well, sorry, I'm not going to be bullied by Merrick, you or anyone else. I will write as much or as little as I want to and if I think something is crass I reserve the right to say without writing War & Peace about it or not explaining what I consider to be the bleeding obvious. Despite the persona I might have got myself here I'm an amenable fella who will weigh up both sides of any disagreement but I reserve the right not to change my mind about something if that is the case.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 21:11
|
||
|
PMM wrote: OK, Cameron then!
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
