Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: I'm know as quite the prolific Awimb poster on here

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Vegas View Post
    But how did Jorge end up with 40000+ posts? top of the board.


    Here is the top 10

    Classic Jorge
    Senior Member 40,730

    Berni
    Senior Member 27,589

    Pat Vegas
    Senior Member 24,933

    Sir Charlie of Nicholas
    Senior Member 23,232

    redgunamo
    Senior Member 22,023

    Luis Anaconda
    Senior Member 21,715

    barrybueno
    Senior Member 18,158

    Nicosia Gooner
    Senior Member 17,399

    Billy Goat Sverige
    Senior Member 16,543

    Ashberto
    Senior Member 15,965
    ooh check me out at number 7

    I think I've posted once on my Palace forum
    'Seems that I was busy doing something close to nothing
    But different than the day before'

    'Met a dwarf that was no good, dressed like Little Red Riding Hood'

    'Now you're unemployed, all non-void
    Walkin' round like you're Pretty Boy Floyd'

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    That's as maybe, but the fact that someone may or may not have jumped in two-footed and got away with it is not an excuse for doing it yourself.
    But nor does that mean it is ok that only one side gets punished.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    But nor does that mean it is ok that only one side gets punished.
    Right. If everyone's doing it, only punishing one side is bound to lead to a measure of bitterness and resentment.
    "Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.

    "But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by redgunamo View Post
    Right. If everyone's doing it, only punishing one side is bound to lead to a measure of bitterness and resentment.
    Sorry, but that sort of thinking is what leads to people thinking the British have no right to criticise the Germans for murdering 6 million people in camps because we invented the concentration camp. It's patent bullsh1t.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Sorry, but that sort of thinking is what leads to people thinking the British have no right to criticise the Germans for murdering 6 million people in camps because we invented the concentration camp. It's patent bullsh1t.
    The Germans don't think it's bull****. Diversity, innit.
    "Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.

    "But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    Sorry, but that sort of thinking is what leads to people thinking the British have no right to criticise the Germans for murdering 6 million people in camps because we invented the concentration camp. It's patent bullsh1t.
    We got to the Nazis in about four posts. Top Godwinisation there. A straw man too, as concentration camps per se do not imply genocide, just detainment.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    concentration camps per se do not imply genocide, just detainment.
    They do if the Germans are in charge of them though, that's the point. Their view is, if a job is to be done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly*. None of this namby-pamby, half-hearted, Let George do it! stuff.

    Just different strokes, isn't it.


    *As the man sort of said.
    "Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.

    "But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash View Post
    We got to the Nazis in about four posts. Top Godwinisation there. A straw man too, as concentration camps per se do not imply genocide, just detainment.
    The crapness of the comparison is the point, though. It's how 'whataboutery' works - a deliberate attempt to mitigate, deflect from and avoid taking responsibility for one's own wrongs by trying to undermine your accuser's moral position. The classic was always the Russians attempting to deflect criticism of their oppressive regime by pointing out the plight of black people in the US. In other words, a reasonable point on the face of it, but utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. It's a rhetorical tactic that is entirely morally bankrupt.

    If I were a thief, a murderer might denounce me as a thief, but the mere fact of him being a murderer would not in any way make me less of a thief or make my theft less heinous.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    The crapness of the comparison is the point, though. It's how 'whataboutery' works - a deliberate attempt to mitigate, deflect from and avoid taking responsibility for one's own wrongs by trying to undermine your accuser's moral position. The classic was always the Russians attempting to deflect criticism of their oppressive regime by pointing out the plight of black people in the US. In other words, a reasonable point on the face of it, but utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. It's a rhetorical tactic that is entirely morally bankrupt.

    If I were a thief, a murderer might denounce me as a thief, but the mere fact of him being a murderer would not in any way make me less of a thief or make my theft less heinous.
    Yes, it would, *if* you, as a thief, were being judged by a jury of murderers.

    Everyone's a sinner, baby. That's the truth.
    "Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.

    "But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    The crapness of the comparison is the point, though. It's how 'whataboutery' works - a deliberate attempt to mitigate, deflect from and avoid taking responsibility for one's own wrongs by trying to undermine your accuser's moral position. The classic was always the Russians attempting to deflect criticism of their oppressive regime by pointing out the plight of black people in the US. In other words, a reasonable point on the face of it, but utterly irrelevant to the case in hand. It's a rhetorical tactic that is entirely morally bankrupt.

    If I were a thief, a murderer might denounce me as a thief, but the mere fact of him being a murderer would not in any way make me less of a thief or make my theft less heinous.
    Who decides which case is the case in hand? You? Or whoever gets their accusation in first?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •