|
U-Know! Forum » Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited May 15, 2011, 21:40
May 15, 2011, 21:22
|
||
|
PMM wrote: What I do see time after time... is people misinterpreting questions as aggression. keith a wrote: Well, sorry, I'm not going to be bullied by Merrick, you or anyone else. Edit: Actually, this discussion (well this bit of it anyway, quite apart from the specific issue of the rozzers) is a tiny mirror reflecting something bigger. We ask questions to try to establish truths. To find out what fits. MachineryElf posted something on facebook about it. A link to a guardian article by a guy called Ben Goldacre. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/14/bad-science-ben-goldacre-randomised-trials Essentially he's saying, bollocks to ideologies and set in stone positions. Run trials. Ask questions. Find out what actually happens in the real world rather than trying to shoehorn in your assumptions and prejudices.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 21:41
|
||
|
PMM wrote: PMM wrote: What I do see time after time... is people misinterpreting questions as aggression. keith a wrote: Well, sorry, I'm not going to be bullied by Merrick, you or anyone else. Does that make you feel clever or something? You honestly don't think it doesn't go on here? That there are people who will disagree with something here but won't get involved because of the way they are likely to be be-littled by certain individuals? That there are people here who gladly dish it out and then say they're not talking anymore if someone stands up to them?
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
May 15, 2011, 22:04
|
||
|
Does it make me feel clever? Good grief, there it is again! The personalisation. The assumption that I'm attacking you. It makes me feel I have a point. That my observation has some merit. I don't really give a shit about looking clever. I'm trying to understand how people change their minds, and what prevents them from doing so far more than I'm trying to "win" an argument. keith a wrote: You honestly don't think it doesn't go on here? That there are people who will disagree with something here but won't get involved because of the way they are likely to be be-littled by certain individuals? That there are people here who gladly dish it out and then say they're not talking anymore if someone stands up to them? It certainly does Keith. I see it all the time. Rather than question your own beliefs, you choose to belittle others as "sanctimonious" or "Bullying". And then you behave like you're some kind of victim, just because you've been asked to justify your beliefs. I won't attempt to humiliate you by providing links, but I reckon two things. Firstly, that if you were to take the time to look, you would be hard pushed to find any personal attacks from the people you don't get on with here. Those that I assume you're accusing in the quote above. Secondly, you won't make the effort to look. You'll just say you can't be bothered or some other form of saying you won't talk anymore because someone has stood up to you.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 15, 2011, 23:00
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Does it make me feel clever? Good grief, there it is again! The personalisation. The assumption that I'm attacking you. You trying to say that your post wasn't personal? That you weren't attacking me? Try reading it again. Oh right, I notice its been edited now to include a whole lot more so it doesn't read quite so smartarse now. PMM wrote: keith a wrote: You honestly don't think it doesn't go on here? That there are people who will disagree with something here but won't get involved because of the way they are likely to be be-littled by certain individuals? That there are people here who gladly dish it out and then say they're not talking anymore if someone stands up to them? It certainly does Keith. I see it all the time. Rather than question your own beliefs, you choose to belittle others as "sanctimonious" or "Bullying". And then you behave like you're some kind of victim, just because you've been asked to justify your beliefs. I won't attempt to humiliate you by providing links, but I reckon two things. Firstly, that if you were to take the time to look, you would be hard pushed to find any personal attacks from the people you don't get on with here. Those that I assume you're accusing in the quote above. Secondly, you won't make the effort to look. You'll just say you can't be bothered or some other form of saying you won't talk anymore because someone has stood up to you. Blimey! So that's not personal then? Cos I'm a real bully, aren't I? The type who will take on the whole gang all by himself presumably? Rather than the safety-in-numbers people like yourself who waits till Merrick posts a few things and then belatedly joins in, impersonating the great man himself. No, PMM, I will stand up to the likes of you and Merrick even if it makes me unpopular with certain people. I won't bow down to people here if I don't agree with them. And if I think they're being sanctimonious or whatever I'll say so. So I didn't think your analogy was much cop? Get over it. As for being a victim - no, not at all. If I tell someone their post is crass I'm gonna expect a certain amount of flack back. Or in your words, standing up to me. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise and I can live with it. I was referring to the people who decline to disagree with the chosen few here. But then you know what I mean, don't you? But well done, star pupil. I'm sure teacher will give you a gold star tonight. Blimey. Did I say all that in response to someone who stood up to me? How out of character.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited May 16, 2011, 05:31
May 16, 2011, 05:07
|
||
|
The edit happened prior to your response, but that doesn't change anything anyway. So much time here seems to be spent not discussing X or Y, but defining what discussing actually is. Stating your position then refusing to justify or question it is not discussing. It's just a rant. The point Goldacre made is precisely that. We're not alone in our little online niche. It happens everywhere, from the highest to the lowest. Here questions get asked. It's not just "David Cameron is a twat", although that happens too. (too often in my opinion (if we're used to perpetual growth as a norm, and posters defend the norm, shouldn't we be trying to amend our arguments?) The second part was inflammatory. I get fed up with trying to nail the same old jelly to the same old wall. I stand by it though. All it takes to provoke abuse is to ask someone to justify their beliefs. And now you've resorted to calling me Merrick's lapdog. Thanks, but to an extent true in this case. The oringinal analogy about scammers etc, I chose not to respond to at the time. Merrick's posts outlining what was going on struck a chord, and I responded "Because...?" partly to make a point, and partly to emphasise Merrick's point.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
May 16, 2011, 07:05
|
||
|
What is all this 'standing up to other people' thing, it sounds so aggressive? I really don't understand why any of this discussion has to be seen as personal attack - surely you have an opinion and other people have a different opinion. That's the basis of a discussion. It's not bullying to ask someone who disagrees with you to explain where they're coming from, it's just part of debating a subject surely. If you didn't want to discuss your opinion why make it on a "discussion board"? Also I'm bemused by your statement that "If I tell someone their post is crass I'm gonna expect a certain amount of flack back." It's not flak though is it, it's just refutations and requests that you justify your opinion, like what happens in a discussion, like you demand from the person whose post you called crass. Flak implies headless-chickeny violent retaliation, aggression again. It's just a bleeding discussion between people with different opinions. That's supposed to be the fun bit, the disagreement. It's not supposed to be personal to the point where you start thinking you're being bullied. That's just a bit weird. Like your 'Godwin's Law' by the way PMM.
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
May 16, 2011, 08:33
|
||
|
Hi Merrick Thanks for the reply. Happily corrected that your "all" were only those committing acts of assault - still think it's a little dodgy. I mean thousands of assaults so 99.999% get 'lucky'? Winning the lottery is "lucky" - not winning I'm not sure I'd describe that way? It's all about likelihood? Maybe 0.01% was unlucky -surely if every one of those thousands of blows was a potentially fatal one we'd be looking at Syrian-esque levels of casualties? But still all wrong so I don't feel inclined to prolong the discussion on the connotations of "luck" unless you feel the need? Your point about the implications of PC Harwoods colleagues inaction - well I thought you yourself earlier described as "shonky" the logic that this means they had all committed similar acts? You can infer a number of things from their lack of action acquiesence, tolerance etc but not that they'd all (that word again) done the same. Indeed a number of them reported his actions didn't they which would imply (that word agin!) at least some thought his actions excessive? As I believe we discussed on a thread some time back - knowing a couple - I won't buy your black and white "all coppers are bastards" line (although I'll happily acknowledge a good number are) and believe this myopia sometimes detracts from otherwise well founded viewpoints. But hey you probably think I'm some kind of apologist and - as you correctly say it's a board for discussion! All the best
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 16, 2011, 09:34
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Merrick's posts outlining what was going on struck a chord, and I responded "Because...?" partly to make a point, and partly to emphasise Merrick's point. Of course you did. As I said you jumped on the bandwagon. Well done.
|
|||
|
keith a 9574 posts |
May 16, 2011, 09:47
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: What is all this 'standing up to other people' thing, it sounds so aggressive? I really don't understand why any of this discussion has to be seen as personal attack - surely you have an opinion and other people have a different opinion. That's the basis of a discussion. It's not bullying to ask someone who disagrees with you to explain where they're coming from, it's just part of debating a subject surely. If you didn't want to discuss your opinion why make it on a "discussion board"? Also I'm bemused by your statement that "If I tell someone their post is crass I'm gonna expect a certain amount of flack back." It's not flak though is it, it's just refutations and requests that you justify your opinion, like what happens in a discussion, like you demand from the person whose post you called crass. Flak implies headless-chickeny violent retaliation, aggression again. It's just a bleeding discussion between people with different opinions. That's supposed to be the fun bit, the disagreement. It's not supposed to be personal to the point where you start thinking you're being bullied. That's just a bit weird. Like your 'Godwin's Law' by the way PMM. I think you're wrong, Rhiannon. It is flak. Flak has a far wider meaning that 'headless-chickeny violent retaliation, aggression' in my eyes. So be it. And if you don't think there's a subtle form of bullying on these pages then we'll have to disagree. We're going round in circles here.
|
|||
|
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited May 16, 2011, 13:36
May 16, 2011, 13:20
|
||
So noticing that your response to my analogy perfectly summed up what Merrick was saying was jumping on the bandwagon. How convenient. Much easier than actually trying to explain why you think what you do.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
