UKIP go from strength to strength
- Thread starter Quackers
- Start date
- Status
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
And I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. Which you seem to be aware of, since you couldn't address it.
Which is also one of those telling UKIP characteristics. Only thing missing is some over the top, blatant, appeal to emotion, strawman comment.
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen!
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
Hypocrisy, appeal to emotion and strawmanning; solely the preserve of UKIP.
Duly noted
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Hi word,
I'm Ziggy. I though we'd have a formal introduction since it's the first time we meet in this exchange.
Take care!
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
Hey, you said they were the telling UKIP characteristics, as if nobody else had ever even conceived of them until 1993.
Personally, I associated blatant appeals to emotion with the soft left as much as anything. Strawmanning pretty much stretches over the political spectrum like a fine tarpaulin
Personally, I associated blatant appeals to emotion with the soft left as much as anything. Strawmanning pretty much stretches over the political spectrum like a fine tarpaulin
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Lying is a telling characteristic of politicians.
I'm not a politician.
I don't lie, because of the opening premise which is the same as: lying is a telling characteristic, solely the preserve of politicians.
Hey, I am quite aware of what I said
I'm not a politician.
I don't lie, because of the opening premise which is the same as: lying is a telling characteristic, solely the preserve of politicians.
Hey, I am quite aware of what I said
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
If hypocrisy, appeal to emotion and strawmanning are standard for the world of politics and not the sole, or even the dominant preserve of UKIP, it's not a telling characteristic.
If it's the word "solely" you object to I can retract it, if you like. My wider point remains.
If it's the word "solely" you object to I can retract it, if you like. My wider point remains.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Is that better or worse than denying the existence of 6 million victims?
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-11-15/...ans-to-join-international-far-right-alliance/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/feb/27/uk.race
http://swns.com/news/ukip-candidate...locaust-masterplan-create-state-israel-34642/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...olish-far-right-ukip-deal-robert-iwaszkiewicz
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
It's not a binary state you know. It's not, you either do or don't, on or off. All politics are guilty of this, of course. But some parties rely on those characteristics more than others to the point it becomes their most prominent narrative. And at that point they become telling characteristics.
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
Replace it with: telling characteristics if you will.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
Pedantry at its finest.
Peck of Arabia
Sociable Recluse
Says who? That's kind of the point of contention- you're saying UKIP uses dishonest debating techniques more extensively than others, to such an extent they're famous for it and to me this doesn't seem to me to be the case. It may be part of a narrative, one that is inherently hostile to UKIP and it's message, but UKIP seems no better or worse than any other party.
I'm not saying it's binary (I don't know where you got that from) and I'm not saying UKIP are faultless. What I am saying is no more rife with hypocrisy, appeal to emotion and strawmanning than anyone else. It's not really a telling characteristic of UKIP, so much as politics as a whole.
If anything, the presence of 3 mainstream parties and a press that all love to pounce on it's major slip ups, forces UKIP to a higher standard while the constraints that the mainstream parties have placed on themselves in a desperate attempted to fit themselves into some so-called political middle ground, important to the media and political elite alone makes them more guilty of hypocrisy and half-truths as they try to square the Westminster centre ground (as well as being rubber stamping bodies for European directives) with what their voters in the rest of the country want.
Eh. Wouldn't be the first time I've been called a pedant. I've been called worse, too; last Christmas a disgruntled friend of mine told me "You are starting to sound like a Tory, I think you're a Tory" He said it with such solemnity I couldn't help but laugh- which only made him more disgruntled
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Says me, and that wasn't the point you contended.
No, I didn't say they were famous for it, I said it was a telling characteristic. I have no idea in what way this obvious observation has been noticed by others. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised they'd be famous for it. I like how you need to add to my rather simple statement to be able to continue to argue.
The narrative is of course: look a bad thing, must be them immigrants.
Oh yes you were. By use of the word "solely". You were paraphrasing me in such a ridiculous way you were indeed saying that. While it's odd to have to paraphrase when you just quoted me. Well, when I say odd, I mean an obvious way to be able to formulate a counterargument.
That is your opinion, you're welcome to it. I objected to the way you presented my argument and claimed that's what I said.
Next time use the actual words I'm posting instead of adding to it, thanks a bunch
I'm not going to react on your rant, but thanks for the "higher standard" joke, that made me chuckle.
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 670
Firstly, the family seem positive about this, and that outweighs everything else I'm going to say.If I intended to make a memorial for a dead soldier I would include his name. It's common sense.
The family were probably patronised and broken down by politically correct council workers into accepting a neutral, Muslim-friendly memorial.
I reckon if you put his name down, in a few weeks you would have graffiti over it "dirty kafir deserves it" stuff like that. In the interests of a vibrant and diverse multicultural society, it is better to hide that and pretend we all love one another. I can smell the rot.
Secondly, Fusilier Rigby's name will be on a memorial. There will be an indoor memorial with his name and an outdoor memorial that commemorates many fallen soldiers.
Thirdly, it's very likely that a named outdoor memorial would indeed attract unpleasant attention. I suspect that this has little to do with political correctness and everything to do with the Council wanting to avoid bills for security, cleaning and repair. I'm not sure I agree with the decision, but that George Osborne's age of austerity for you.
Fourthly, the real memorial will not be a stone or a scroll anywhere. It will be the fact that today British planes will fly over Iraq in an attempt to protect Iraqi civilians (however unsuccessful or foolhardy we might consider that approach), that agnostic, atheists, Christians and Muslims will be in Sainsbury's tomorrow queuing side by side, and that next May anyone who wants to change any of this will be free to stand and state their case before the electors. The UK has not been significantly changed by terrorism, which is the counterproductive tactic of the desperate and the deluded.
Apart from reiterating that we don't actually know what the family thought of this - it's entirely possible that they didn't want his name on the outdoor one - that's an excellent post - although unfortunately I have to disagree with the assertion that the UK has not been significantly changed by terrorism.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
A memorial is built to the man, but you can't use his name? BTW, how is that politicising it?
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 670
The cameras aren't there because of terrorism, there to prevent muggings and so-called petty crime. I didn't notice any great campaign to dismantle cameras in 1998-2001 when the perceived terrorist threat was low in the UK.
And the British government has been intercepting communications ever since WW2 - just read Spycatcher . Although I agree that the terrorism threat means they think they can get away with too much and protects GCHQ from austerity.
It's not can't so much as didn't. Quackers is assuming a whole line of reasoning and anger for which we simply have no evidence. All that we know is that they chose not to write his name on one memorial, while writing it on another one a few feet away.
I think that the problem is not that Farage is more openly a sort of cynic/troll in politics, but that the previous main figures in English politics tended to be just more covered-up sociopaths or clowns (eg Blair). Sometimes not even covered up at all (my favorite example still being Baron ex-deputy Labor head John 2-brain cells Prescott ).
I doubt it will get better, either.
Politicians have become even more vermin-like and puppets/fronts than they used to be.
).I doubt it will get better, either.
Politicians have become even more vermin-like and puppets/fronts than they used to be.
- Status
