Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:36 pm

redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

I've just occupied several minutes of your life, not bad for a 'bleeding heart liberal drone' :laugh:

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:41 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

Not going to interfere here so long as all stays civil etc. but I'm curious what 'showing emotion' has to do with the issue? It would seem that honest, rational, sensible discussion of such a complex and multifaceted issue would benefit most from setting some of the emotional stuff to one side. IMHO, discussions such as these are fundamentally derailed rather than advanced when hearts are worn on proverbial sleeves.

Spot on

by **bigmick** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:54 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

Not going to interfere here so long as all stays civil etc. but I'm curious what 'showing emotion' has to do with the issue? It would seem that honest, rational, sensible discussion of such a complex and multifaceted issue would benefit most from setting some of the emotional stuff to one side. IMHO, discussions such as these are fundamentally derailed rather than advanced when hearts are worn on proverbial sleeves.

I'm not sure I agree with you Bob to be honest, and I think I know where Red's coming from. LFC makes plenty of sense in his lawyerish kind of way (because Ii have long since concluded that he must surely be involved in something like that), but Red is kind of trying to just tell it like it is.

Quite often, the lawyerish types can bamboozle all and sundry with more body swerves than Ronaldo on speed, but sometimes what you see is actually what you get and no amount of shimmying can disguise it. Just sometimes, the prosaic, ugly centre halfish debating style of your average Joe Soap can't be squashed, simply because he's right (even though he maybe doesn't explain it quite as well).

A couple of examples where the lawyerish tut-tutters are wrong, and eventually will have to push aside their Lobster Thermidors with Saffron foam and listen:

1. There is a problem on the streets of the Uk with people openly disrespecting "Britishness" and what it stands for. Yes celebrate Ramadan and Dawali and the year of the tadpole and all that stuff, but at least doff your caps in the direction of the customs of the country in which you live. Burning flags, going to train in foreign lands to either kill our soldiers or to return 'home" and blow up tube trains and the like really isn't on. The avarage working man feels that he is discriminated against in terms of council housing and social provision, in favour of what he considers to be "migrants".

2. People in England particularly feel there is nobody to turn to when their village is overrun by armies of travellers who appear to be above the law. The authorites seemingly don't have the stomach to address the issue.

3. On council estates throughout the country people are afraid to leave their homes after dark as gangs of young men rule the streets. despite heartfelt pleast from accross the lands, the ruling classes seemingly don't give a feck, otherwise they'd do something about it.

4. Convicted paedophiles should in the opinion of most working people stay "inside" until they stop breathing. You can lump racists in there as well as far as I'm concerned, but I'm particularly convinced about paedophiles. I think the test for any of these jumped up college degree phsycologists saying such and such is reformed, is he should put his kids in the cell with the said monster for two days and nights prior to release. If he isn't prepared to back his judgement in such a way, we should leave the c... where he is.

All of these issues bring tut-tuts (not necessarily from LFC but from people who are "more cleverer" than me), but on all of these issues I'm right. So there

.

by **GYBS** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:57 pm

100% agree

by **Sabre** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:21 pm

In this encounter between 2 posters I like, I have seen one ready to debate, and another one not ready to debate and making assumptions about the other guy's personality.

From this corner of the world I'm pretty sure LFC has feelings as RBG does, and RBG resorting to assumptions about LFC's personality is a consequence of him knowing he could not win that debate with simple reasoning.

So I guess we'll have to accept as debate on this issue the assumptions of LFC2007 being trapped in papers, his lawyerish personality not being able to understand the real world, etc, etc, etc.

In a debate you can use whatever you can, and in the moment you start insulting the most likely thing is that you have been outmatched.

I like people defending their nation. I think in fact, that you do well trying to keep your nation's values and traditions. What I don't like of this debate is the generalisations on muslims, and things like that.

by **bigmick** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:38 pm

Sabre wrote:So I guess we'll have to accept as debate on this issue the assumptions of LFC2007 being trapped in papers, his lawyerish personality not being able to understand the real world, etc, etc, etc.

Just to clarify I'm not in any way shape or form having a pop at LFC, I'm merely trying to help Red out a bit and provide a bit of balance. I learnt years ago that if you start to debate nuances, semantics, slants and the like with LFC you are in for a long night. It's akin to the second leg of a Champions League semi at Old Trafford where you go in holding a slender 1-0 lead, and Gerrard and Torres are injured, Kuyt up top and Lucas as your attacking midfielder, Dossena on the bench and you may need him at some point, that sort of thing. That is very much his home ground, so the best advice I could give to anyone is not to even go there

.

You are far better off cutting out the long words because he knows more of them than you do, and keepiong it nice and basic. Another good tip is not to actually listen to what he says either because he is quite convincing on occasions :laugh:

.

Broadly though I agree with you Sabre, two good posters and in fairness a good debate as well.

by **NANNY RED** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:44 pm

bigmick wrote:1. There is a problem on the streets of the Uk with people openly disrespecting "Britishness" and what it stands for. Yes celebrate Ramadan and Dawali and the year of the tadpole and all that stuff, but at least doff your caps in the direction of the customs of the country in which you live. Burning flags, going to train in foreign lands to either kill our soldiers or to return 'home" and blow up tube trains and the like really isn't on. The avarage working man feels that he is discriminated against in terms of council housing and social provision, in favour of what he considers to be "migrants".

2. People in England particularly feel there is nobody to turn to when their village is overrun by armies of travellers who appear to be above the law. The authorites seemingly don't have the stomach to address the issue.

3. On council estates throughout the country people are afraid to leave their homes after dark as gangs of young men rule the streets. despite heartfelt pleast from accross the lands, the ruling classes seemingly don't give a feck, otherwise they'd do something about it.

4. Convicted paedophiles should in the opinion of most working people stay "inside" until they stop breathing. You can lump racists in there as well as far as I'm concerned, but I'm particularly convinced about paedophiles. I think the test for any of these jumped up college degree phsycologists saying such and such is reformed, is he should put his kids in the cell with the said monster for two days and nights prior to release. If he isn't prepared to back his judgement in such a way, we should leave the c... where he is.

Words taken out of me mouth , but wrote better. :laugh:

Very well said Michael , agree with everything

by **Sabre** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:46 pm

Passion is good. But this debate was not for passion. Passion in fact is not for forums.

When you see people talking about you being condemned, and you having to die, and you being infidel, of course passion rises. We do have muslims like that here. And of course you think What the Fúck? my nation is ancient and this guy comes here to tell us how to live?

I understand that. What I can't stand, is the generalisations, which also happen here, and start talking about the whole muslims, or the whole foreigners.

Deal with the bástards I say, leave alone the decent people.

And yes, RBG is a poster I like. And his passion too, I voted him in the Awards thingy. But in this debate, if I may be honest with him, passion was not enough, because generalisations are dangerous.

The last time that in Spain we got tired of the muslims we decided to expell all of them. It was a bad idea 500 years ago, and it would be a bad idea now.

2. People in England particularly feel there is nobody to turn to when their village is overrun by armies of travellers who appear to be above the law. The authorites seemingly don't have the stomach to address the issue.

BTW we share some common troubles. Laws never go as fast as society changes require, unfortunately. And some politicians seek to find strange balances in their positions in order to be correct in the eyes of more people, instead of solving problems

by **bigmick** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:56 pm

Sabre wrote:The last time that in Spain we got tired of the muslims we decided to expell all of them. It was a bad idea 500 years ago, and it would be a bad idea now.

You can't "expell" anyone Sabes, most English muslim people were born in England. There's nowhere to "expell" anyone to. Feck me I'd like to "expell" some of the ferrell white trash we've got in the UK as well, but nobody in their right minds would take em. On a regualr basis I watch Jeremy Kyle over here in NZ (feck knows why but I find it grotesquely fascinating) and it certainly makes you think. Those people on there aren't Muslim or black or Bagladeshi, but they are c...s

Ultimately that's the common bond which riles me up.

by **Sabre** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:01 pm

Well most probably 500 years ago they had similar troubles as of where to expell to and they found the oceans a place as good as any other.

Bad jokes aside, I see what you mean.

I have something to ask, because I think we share the same problem all over Europe. If we took out of the equation all this muslim or not western values, what could we say about our own values? Were we missing them little by little?

I think Western countries were losing and forgetting their own values, and it would be a mistake to blame other cultures because they stick to theirs. Meaning, some self criticism has to be done as of how western societies have developed.

by **Emerald Red** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Sabre wrote:Passion is good. But this debate was not for passion. Passion in fact is not for forums.

Spoken like a true Spaniard there, Sabre. :;):

by **LFC2007** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:45 pm

bigmick wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

Not going to interfere here so long as all stays civil etc. but I'm curious what 'showing emotion' has to do with the issue? It would seem that honest, rational, sensible discussion of such a complex and multifaceted issue would benefit most from setting some of the emotional stuff to one side. IMHO, discussions such as these are fundamentally derailed rather than advanced when hearts are worn on proverbial sleeves.

I'm not sure I agree with you Bob to be honest, and I think I know where Red's coming from. LFC makes plenty of sense in his lawyerish kind of way (because Ii have long since concluded that he must surely be involved in something like that), but Red is kind of trying to just tell it like it is.

Quite often, the lawyerish types can bamboozle all and sundry with more body swerves than Ronaldo on speed, but sometimes what you see is actually what you get and no amount of shimmying can disguise it. Just sometimes, the prosaic, ugly centre halfish debating style of your average Joe Soap can't be squashed, simply because he's right (even though he maybe doesn't explain it quite as well).

A couple of examples where the lawyerish tut-tutters are wrong, and eventually will have to push aside their Lobster Thermidors with Saffron foam and listen:

1. There is a problem on the streets of the Uk with people openly disrespecting "Britishness" and what it stands for. Yes celebrate Ramadan and Dawali and the year of the tadpole and all that stuff, but at least doff your caps in the direction of the customs of the country in which you live. Burning flags, going to train in foreign lands to either kill our soldiers or to return 'home" and blow up tube trains and the like really isn't on. The avarage working man feels that he is discriminated against in terms of council housing and social provision, in favour of what he considers to be "migrants".

2. People in England particularly feel there is nobody to turn to when their village is overrun by armies of travellers who appear to be above the law. The authorites seemingly don't have the stomach to address the issue.

3. On council estates throughout the country people are afraid to leave their homes after dark as gangs of young men rule the streets. despite heartfelt pleast from accross the lands, the ruling classes seemingly don't give a feck, otherwise they'd do something about it.

4. Convicted paedophiles should in the opinion of most working people stay "inside" until they stop breathing. You can lump racists in there as well as far as I'm concerned, but I'm particularly convinced about paedophiles. I think the test for any of these jumped up college degree phsycologists saying such and such is reformed, is he should put his kids in the cell with the said monster for two days and nights prior to release. If he isn't prepared to back his judgement in such a way, we should leave the c... where he is.

All of these issues bring tut-tuts (not necessarily from LFC but from people who are "more cleverer" than me), but on all of these issues I'm right. So there .

You starting on me?

I come from a point of inquiry that considers excessive emotion a hindrance in discussions of this nature; it distorts, it entrenches, it serves the self not the smoothest course to a resolution. Thinking rationally and separating fact from fiction allows for a smoother resolution, and so it is a more fruitful approach to take IMO. That's why I consider everything, even my own thought processes. To do so is essential in order to arrive at the most accurate conclusions possible.

It may be difficult sometimes to disengage from your emotions (and I speak of myself too) because to do so is to challenge yourself, but if you can try and free yourself from preconceptions, prejudices and pet theories, you might just be able to perceive the facts more clearly.

In this topic, I've been pigeonholed as a 'bleeding heart liberal', even though I've limited responses - in the main - to introducing the possibility of the obverse to the accepted position, imploring that these topics be considered in greater depth, or simply clarifying points of fact. The benefits of this approach have been demonstrated in this thread. Those who assumed the Mosque chose to open on 9/11 is the classic example. If I hadn't challenged that suggestion, many would still be under the illusion presented to them, and let me elaborate on that point:

In my experience, even if something merely seems more plausible, it is often enough for people to take it as fact. In different domains of discussion, generally that isn't going to present a problem (speculating on Alonso's future, for example), but on such a fundamental issue it's a step not worth taking, for obvious reasons. Simply because it aligns with your preconceptions is not nearly enough to justify following those sorts of assumptions through to a conclusion. As it becomes repeated, the preconception is reinforced and becomes a misconception, and this is likely to have a bearing on your ability to perceive the facts clearly in future. Indeed, it may lead to generalisations about people of different cultures or sub-cultures.

On the substantive part of your post, fair enough, you've summarised some of the issues that are of concern to many people in Britain (I agree with the thrust of most) - few would deny that, although the issue of immigration in particular is a thorny one, and you touch on that with the example of social provision (establishing the facts is often the greatest hurdle, which is why I'm more circumspect on that one).

by **redbeergoggles** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:58 pm

It seems this thread has deteriorated into a who is the cleverer poster competition ,but that wasn't my original intention I merely advocated that certain posters nail their respective colours to the mast ,its all well and good reeling off the spiel we constantly hear from the politicians ,but I find it worrying that posters can emotionally detach themselves from the subject ,thus keeping their own personal opinions sedated and hidden from view ,its hard enough to put a face to the people that post on here ,without a person giving not one iota of why he feels these beliefs to be true .

by **LFC2007** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:03 am

I don't intend to continue that argument, mate, all I would ask is this:

Which personal opinions would you like me to disclose?*

If you ask, I will tell - I genuinely don't know what you want to know.

*Within reason

by **redbeergoggles** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:15 am

I think your reply to Mick's post answered unreservedly the reservations I had about you ,in point of practice I don't usually make sweeping generalizations ,but its quite clearly evident to me you live in a well ordered world and will not tolerate such intrusions alluding or pertaining to your true character ,so in future I will not expect such formalities .

Liverpool FC Forum

Its all kicking off in my hood!

Who is online