Azes 2740: Can’t Work Out The Code...
Crosswords21 mins ago
Tommy Robinson Sentenced To 9 Weeks In Prison But Will Serve Up To One Half Of That Period.
306 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
vetuste - // I can understand specific circumstances (and institutions) in which rational people might engage fantasists and try to separate them from their illusions and reconnect them to the real world.
But AB is not such a case, and I can't understand why anybody would even try. //
That really depends on who you think that 'fantasists' and the rational people are, doesn't it.
But AB is not such a case, and I can't understand why anybody would even try. //
That really depends on who you think that 'fantasists' and the rational people are, doesn't it.
/Is it ethical to allow misinformation to remain unchallenged, and hence potentially negatively influential to readers whose naivety, or ignorance, equals that of the speaker? //
No. But a person who claims that the rapists were not mainly Muslim men is in the same territory has holocaust denial. And there's a more distant territory occupied by people who think they're Napoleon.
I rather think that you should debate the holocaust denier (or the "nothing to do with Islam" idiot). As in what are the facts and where does the truth lie? This won't necessarily convince your protagonist, but it may win over the audience. As in a recent reconstruction of the David Irving trial. Which I think is your point, Naomi.
Irving was a highly intelligent man who argued his case and didn't deny obvious facts, only put a false spin on them: gas chambers? No, no, the nice Nazis were delousing them.
I don't think you should be "debating" with Napoleon, although I think he should be treated kindly and with compassion.
No. But a person who claims that the rapists were not mainly Muslim men is in the same territory has holocaust denial. And there's a more distant territory occupied by people who think they're Napoleon.
I rather think that you should debate the holocaust denier (or the "nothing to do with Islam" idiot). As in what are the facts and where does the truth lie? This won't necessarily convince your protagonist, but it may win over the audience. As in a recent reconstruction of the David Irving trial. Which I think is your point, Naomi.
Irving was a highly intelligent man who argued his case and didn't deny obvious facts, only put a false spin on them: gas chambers? No, no, the nice Nazis were delousing them.
I don't think you should be "debating" with Napoleon, although I think he should be treated kindly and with compassion.
/// These men act they way they do because they are unbalanced mentally damaged horrible degenerates, not because they are Muslims. ///
Perhaps then the question should be asked why are these 'unbalanced mentally damaged horrible degenerates', mainly Muslim, could it be anything to do with interbreeding?
Perhaps then the question should be asked why are these 'unbalanced mentally damaged horrible degenerates', mainly Muslim, could it be anything to do with interbreeding?
naomi - // An awful lot of "unbalanced mentally damaged horrible degenerates" within that culture. //
An awful lot of said degenerates whose activities are sufficiently high-profile that they lend themselves to a distorted picture that allows the media to encourage a spurious link between Islam and abuse.
I do not for one moment deny that the majority of these men are nominally Muslim, but the inference that such behaviour is an inbuilt aspect of the faith system is, in my view, inaccurate.
An awful lot of said degenerates whose activities are sufficiently high-profile that they lend themselves to a distorted picture that allows the media to encourage a spurious link between Islam and abuse.
I do not for one moment deny that the majority of these men are nominally Muslim, but the inference that such behaviour is an inbuilt aspect of the faith system is, in my view, inaccurate.
naomi - // V_e, Your advice, whilst tempting to accept, engenders something of a moral dilemma. Is it ethical to allow misinformation to remain unchallenged, and hence potentially negatively influential to readers whose naivety, or ignorance, equals that of the speaker? //
Congratulations - I think!
In approaching twenty years of activity on this site, that is far and away the most stratospherically arrogant and pompous statement I have ever read - and there has been some competition!
Do you really think you are the sole arbiter of factual information, and it falls to you, and you alone, to wrestle with the 'moral dilemma' - seriously? - of allowing something which you regard as incorrect, to be left unchallenged, lest it be taken on board by the more stupid AB'er's as facts?
You have a history of being unable to read something someone has posted and differentiate between what is offered as opinion, and what is offered as fact - which is unsurprising, since your own posts often fail in such a separation, with opinions offered as unassailable facts, all built on the bedrock of your 'studies' for which we have only your word.
People are as entitled as you to offer their views, and opinions, and not to have them loftily dismissed, and insulted as not passing your own inflicted tests of suitability, and of course your hand-wringing 'ethical dilemma' about whether to allow people to be influenced by something which you judge not to be suitable for their delicate eyes and minds.
This is a debate site, you contribute along with everyone else.
No-one has appointed you moral arbiter of what is suitable or factual, you have taken the role upon yourself and exercise it with school-marm'ish superiority in your tone and responses - I for one will be ignoring your unfounded sense of worth in the future - and I suspect I will not be alone.
Congratulations - I think!
In approaching twenty years of activity on this site, that is far and away the most stratospherically arrogant and pompous statement I have ever read - and there has been some competition!
Do you really think you are the sole arbiter of factual information, and it falls to you, and you alone, to wrestle with the 'moral dilemma' - seriously? - of allowing something which you regard as incorrect, to be left unchallenged, lest it be taken on board by the more stupid AB'er's as facts?
You have a history of being unable to read something someone has posted and differentiate between what is offered as opinion, and what is offered as fact - which is unsurprising, since your own posts often fail in such a separation, with opinions offered as unassailable facts, all built on the bedrock of your 'studies' for which we have only your word.
People are as entitled as you to offer their views, and opinions, and not to have them loftily dismissed, and insulted as not passing your own inflicted tests of suitability, and of course your hand-wringing 'ethical dilemma' about whether to allow people to be influenced by something which you judge not to be suitable for their delicate eyes and minds.
This is a debate site, you contribute along with everyone else.
No-one has appointed you moral arbiter of what is suitable or factual, you have taken the role upon yourself and exercise it with school-marm'ish superiority in your tone and responses - I for one will be ignoring your unfounded sense of worth in the future - and I suspect I will not be alone.
Latest Posts
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Road rules54 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul54 mins ago
Shopping & Style70 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.