Perhaps They Would Prefer To Have Lived Under The Jackbook

[webbo3]

Typical lefties, hate Nazis and the far right but the man that helped stop them is scum, a warmonger(I dont think he started it).

\\The cafe boasted a striking street art mural of Churchill’s two-fingers pose alongside the slogan “double shot”, claiming that he was ordering a double espresso. It had to be scrapped after vandals repeatedly defaced the design by spraying abuse including “scum”, “warmonger” and “imperialist”.//

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/winston-churchillthemed-cafe-in-north-london-vandalised-amid-protests-a3747136.html

Dave.

[Togo]

Not you 3T. ^^

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // "why not comment on what he has said" - I'm commenting on what he hasn't said. //

He hasn't said "The moon is made of green cheese ..." either - are you going to comment on that?

You cannot assume someone's viewpoint because it is what you think, rather than what he has said, that makes a nonsense of debate.

[ToraToraTora]

"If I said I know you as a right-leaning fascist who hates everyone who doesn't think that the Right way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees should be deported ... how would that be? " - I don't make the correlation with this case AH, sounds a bit hysterical to me.

[andy-hughes]

Togo - // Not you 3T. ^^ //

Why not - he's the one with the unfounded assumptions!

[Togo]

Nuuurse.

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // "If I said I know you as a right-leaning fascist who hates everyone who doesn't think that the Right way is the only way, and anyone who disagrees should be deported ... how would that be? " - I don't make the correlation with this case AH, sounds a bit hysterical to me. //

It is a bit hysterical - that was the point.

[Jackdaw33]

TTT, you ought to know by now that there are some on here who will instantly leap to the defence of those who choose to denigrate those who act or have acted for the greater good of Britain.

[Togo]

Webbo..... He has killed your thread.

[ToraToraTora]

the article was not about the composition of the moon, you do seem to be stretching the original premise somewhat hysterically Andy. I was merely commenting on the tacit approval of the sentiments in the absence of condemnation. Myself and others on here are regularly berated for not condemning a prescribed view or action. Is that not open to me too when something I have strong feelings about is concerned? It's not a one way street is it?

[andy-hughes]

jackdaw - // TTT, you ought to know by now that there are some on here who will instantly leap to the defence of those who choose to denigrate those who act or have acted for the greater good of Britain. //

Any names you'd like to suggest - or is that just a general accusation without foundation or evidence?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, in an effort to get this thread back on track may I ask if you have an opinion on this or are you here simply to lecture those who do?

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // the article was not about the composition of the moon, you do seem to be stretching the original premise somewhat hysterically Andy. //

My analogy was deliberately pointless, in order to point out the unreasoning attitude that I feel you are taking by assuming something that has not been stated.

// I was merely commenting on the tacit approval of the sentiments in the absence of condemnation. //

And I was commenting on the fact that tacit approval is not in evidence. To be tacit approval, it has to be inferred or hinted at, without being referred to directly, and clearly it was not in that post.

// Myself and others on here are regularly berated for not condemning a prescribed view or action. //

Really? Who and when would that be, and by whom? Or is this another groundless accusation?

//Is that not open to me too when something I have strong feelings about is concerned? It's not a one way street is it? //

Now there we have no argument whatsoever.

I am absolutely in favour of you, or anyone, stating their views - what I take issue with is that you are assuming a view from someone else, and then arguing about it.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes, in an effort to get this thread back on track may I ask if you have an opinion on this or are you here simply to lecture those who do? //

I do have an opinion, and I am not 'lecturing' anyone, simply pointing out that inferring an unstated view is not in the interests of good debate.

My view is that any vandalism is to be deplored - and to agree with your point that the very freedoms that Churchill's generation fought for, and won for descendants like us, are those freedoms which allow such dreadful behaviour to take place.

[ToraToraTora]

"To be tacit approval, it has to be inferred or hinted at" - You mean by going out of your way to condemn the

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, thank you for your opinion. Hopefully the thread will now remain on track. It would be a pity if bickering and nit-picking caused it to go awry deterring others from joining in.

[Mamyalynne]

Berating their ridiculous and criminal actions isn't enough then - we must state whether we think as they do or approve of them being allowed to think that way?

If I have broken any rules of reply protocol, I apologise.

I'll fetch the Meds trolley meanwhile.

[ToraToraTora]

"To be tacit approval, it has to be inferred or hinted at" - by going out of your way to condemn the vandalism by ignoring the the main purpose of the article, it is being inferred or hinted at. You know as well as me it's tacit approval. Here's a clue they do not routinely report vandalism in the papers. SP knew that so by commenting on that alone he was approving of the sentiments. Perhaps SP will come back and clarify for you, not me, I'm clear. What if Jeremy Corbyn had someone bust a cricket bat over his head and I said, "what utter vandalism, to the bat", you'd rightly assume I was tacitly approving the assault.

[ToraToraTora]

everything above also applies to mamyalynne.

[ToraToraTora]

ok off to bed, back in morning

[andy-hughes]

TTT - // "To be tacit approval, it has to be inferred or hinted at" - by going out of your way to condemn the vandalism by ignoring the the main purpose of the article, it is being inferred or hinted at. You know as well as me it's tacit approval. //

I don't know at all.

You can't infer something by ignoring it - that simply does not make sense.

// Here's a clue they do not routinely report vandalism in the papers. SP knew that so by commenting on that alone he was approving of the sentiments. .. //

Once again, you are assuming SP's viewpoint on the vandalism, even though he has not commented on it at all.

// Perhaps SP will come back and clarify for you, not me, I'm clear. //

I think SP's clarification will make clear what he thinks for both of us. Unlike you, I don't like to second-guess someone's views on something based on my negative perception of them asn an individual.

// What if Jeremy Corbyn had someone bust a cricket bat over his head and I said, "what utter vandalism, to the bat", you'd rightly assume I was tacitly approving the assault. //

No I wouldn't - because I try hard not to get involved in assumptions - presuming I know what someone thinks, even though they have not stated a viewpoint is not the way I debate.

I do think though that our exchange on this aspect of the debate has run its course now - we must wait for SP to advise us of his view - as indeed only he can.