Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Harry Stottle, May 13, 2019.
You little liar
Nothing suspicious about it - As I previously stated, it is self evident for those who wish to see it.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
Member since 2010, 7 posts that year, 1 in 2012 and then loads just by the EU elections and cut and pastes from brexit central pretending to be your own words.
That sounds like a bot
37 posts in nine years and you call that a 'bot'.
You've racked up nearly twice that in the past 24 hours alone.
Is that all you have, chip's?
You can't refute anything that others say on here so you resort to shaming and smear tactics as some kind of valid argument.
I said he sounded like a bot, like you sound like a despicable human
If you're only kidding, thats okay then.
You are forgiven.
To be brutally frank I don't give a funkey's muck.
Now then, chippe244, where's my milkshake?
If you ever had the displeasure of meeting the man in person thats exactly what his point would be.
"FASCIST", throw milkshake.
They don't have a single clue about what their illiberal actions promote to the world.
Indeed, the last resort of one who has run out of political argument.
Believing that because you are a “good” person you have permission to do a bad thing is what psychologists call moral licence. It is epidemic in modern parenting: “That I am a noble nurturer of tiny infants entitles me to drive this 4x4.” When my elderly folks once parked in a supermarket parent-and-child space because all the disabled bays were full, they returned to find — despite the blue badge displayed in their car — a monstrous letter from an outraged mother.
Moral licence gives cyclists the right to scream in pedestrians’ faces if we complain about them riding on pavements: “Move aside for we eco-gods who risk our lives in combat with cars.” Recent Oxfam exposés highlighted a “saviour complex” among charity workers: “As a heroic rescuer of disaster victims I’m allowed to trade aid for sex with vulnerable women.”
One psychology experiment showed that men given the opportunity to disagree with blatantly sexist statements were later more likely to select a man for a stereotypically male job. Another at Stanford in 2010 revealed that white people who were given a chance to express support for President Obama felt granted “moral credentials” and were thus more likely to make racist choices.
I am a Good Person and therefore everything I do, even a self-evidently bad deed, is rendered good. Herein lies the thinking behind someone seeing an 81-year-old man wearing a Brexit Party rosette, going off to a shop to buy a strawberry milkshake and returning to ruin his suit. Normally, drenching an old person sitting harmlessly outside an Aldershot polling station would be grotesque. But not under moral licence.
Increasingly activists of all hues believe they have moral licence. A man who threw an egg at Jeremy Corbyn declared “his civil rights were violated” because parliament had failed to deliver Brexit. No one suggested that egging the leader of the opposition was just playful fun, that his attacker’s 28-day prison sentence was too harsh or disagreed with the judge that — especially after Jo Cox’s murder — “this is an attack on our democratic process”.
Who is seen as a legitimate target for milkshakes has shifted within weeks from Tommy Robinson to an elderly Brexiteer. So why not every Tory MP for austerity, Lib Dems for collaboration, any old “gammons” who voted Leave . . . What are the rules and who is allowed to set them?
Moral licence creates a moral vacuum. How complacent we are about our peaceful country, stable democracy and largely safe streets. But if we reject the universal values that underpin them during this period of flux and uncertainty they are far from secure.
Hey Bollerks I enjoy your posts mate and you’ve certainly got the measure of Mr Chips, just one thing, nearly every time I read one of your posts I end up reaching for the dictionary it reminds me of this, guess I must be Prince George
Cut and paste is not an argument.
Interesting to note that you do not seem to disagree with the premise.
There was no premise just some disjointed jottings.
Stop being so evasive.
So, do you support a pensioner being treated in this fashion? Or do you think he deserved it?
Did you agree with Jo Cox's murder by a leaver? I can't remember you breaking your silence to condemn that.
Bollerks, be careful quoting 'facts' and 'information which has been published in any form of media (unchallenged in Law) in the forums...as you will be banned.
Also, unless you enjoy dealing with mindless morons...there is always the IGNORE button that I have had the pleasure of using in several cases.
Excellent post by the way.
Unlike yourself, I am perfectly happy to answer your question when put on the spot.
No, I do not agree with Cox's nor anyone elses murder.
Now, perhaps you will answer mine................
Separate names with a comma.