Solving the Immigration Problem

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Not my article I never wrote it. It was a blunt and extreme take from an outsider PoV.

do I agree with it? No, but the wider point of immigration and the complete lack of will and ability to do anything meaningful is highlighted here.

 

Why would you post something you don't agree with and then not comment on that post to say you don't agree with it? 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Why would you post something you don't agree with and then not comment on that post to say you don't agree with it? 

Why not? To spark debate, to read what others are saying. Maybe to see what the centrists think on here.

reading and consuming news you may not agree with is not haram, you know.

Edited 1 hour ago by AlexLaw76

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Is this out of bounds for you?

 

Yes, because I don't have X so it doesn't let me read the full post/article.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yes, because I don't have X so it doesn't let me read the full post/article.

Well, that is a you problem then.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Why not? To spark debate, to read what others are saying. Maybe to see what the centrists think on here.

ready and consuming news you may not agree with is not haram, you know.

But not commenting shows an implicit endorsement of the post - that's the issue. 

Got no idea what that second sentence says. "What do you do with the drunken sailor early in the morning" and all that jazz.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Well, that is a you problem then.

No, it's an X problem. Along with racism, fascism and homophobia, but then some X users support those causes, eh Alex?

[AlexLaw76]

10 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But not commenting shows an implicit endorsement of the post - that's the issue. 

 

That is your issue and how you want to take it. Fair enough. 

[egg]

15 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Why not? To spark debate, to read what others are saying. Maybe to see what the centrists think on here.

SoG used to get mullered for posting links to articles without comment, question,  or opinion...it's usually best to spark debate with comment, question or opinion imo, otherwise, as has happened here, people reasonably assume that what you're linking to is your opinion. 

Your posting approach invited the response you received. 

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

SoG used to get mullered for posting links to articles without comment, question,  or opinion...it's usually best to spark debate with comment, question or opinion imo, otherwise, as has happened here, people reasonably assume that what you're linking to is your opinion. 

Your posting approach invited the response you received. 

He got no end of shit due to the years or labelling people of the worst crimes for no real reason, which left his wiggle room non existent.

i don’t recall too many times calling people names, labelling then as racist, fascist et al. However, within a few posts of me not doing those things, I get it beaten with the centrist stick.

 

[egg]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He got no end of shit due to the years or labelling people of the worst crimes for no real reason, which left his wiggle room non existent.

i don’t recall too many times calling people names, labelling then as racist, fascist et al. However, within a few posts of me not doing those things, I get it beaten with the centrist stick.

 

That's a different issue. You did what he did, and got criticised for - lazily posting a link without comment/question/opinion.

If you don't want it being suggested that a shit article doesn't represent your opinion, don't lazily link to it without any comment etc. 

[egg]

45 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But not commenting shows an implicit endorsement of the post - that's the issue. 

Yep, and as I suspect we see sometimes, an opportunity to row backwards when flak is received. It makes discussion pointless. 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a different issue. You did what he did, and got criticised for - lazily posting a link without comment/question/opinion.

If you don't want it being suggested that a shit article doesn't represent your opinion, don't lazily link to it without any comment etc. 

why do I have to post a comment or opinion to save being "criticised"?

Who gave you (the royal you) the right to get personal straight away because you do not like the article posted (without a qualifying comment)?

The post that sparked this. You debated it directly (fine), another 'centrist' very quickly defaulted to slurs, suggest racism, ie the usual gig. 

 

 

[Osvaldorama]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

why do I have to post a comment or opinion to save being "criticised"?

Who gave you (the royal you) the right to get personal straight away because you do not like the article posted (without a qualifying comment)?

The post that sparked this. You debated it directly (fine), another 'centrist' very quickly defaulted to slurs, suggest racism, ie the usual gig. 

 

 

Low IQ people struggle to hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. 
 

One of the major reasons why the left can’t debate well. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

why do I have to post a comment or opinion to save being "criticised"?

Who gave you (the royal you) the right to get personal straight away because you do not like the article posted (without a qualifying comment)?

The post that sparked this. You debated it directly (fine), another 'centrist' very quickly defaulted to slurs, suggest racism, ie the usual gig. 

I didn't get personal. Show me where. 

As farmer said, people are entitled to assume that something you link to may represent your view unless you say what your view is. That shouldn't be a controversial or surprising opinion. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

I didn't get personal. Show me where. 

As farmer said, people are entitled to assume that something you link to may represent your view unless you say what your view is. That shouldn't be a controversial or surprising opinion. 

Farmer is entitled to believe that, but does that excuse the immediate stance of getting personal?

[egg]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Farmer is entitled to believe that, but does that excuse the immediate stance of getting personal?

I didn't get personal. I criticized the article, gullible people, and lazy posting.

If you put yourself in the gullible camp, then yep, you got flak, but I didn't put you there. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I didn't get personal. I criticized the article, gullible people, and lazy posting.

If you put yourself in the gullible camp, then yep, you got flak, but I didn't put you there. 

I never said you did, it was the “royal you” (poor choose of words)

debate people fine.

but why is it ok, without debated for your fellow centrists to get personal from the opening bat?

 

 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

.......but why is it ok, without debated for your fellow centrists to get personal from the opening bat?

That is hardly a trait unique to the "centrists". Plenty of our 'slightly right of centre' colleagues have extremely sensitive trigger fingers.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I never said you did, it was the “royal you” (poor choose of words)

debate people fine.

but why is it ok, without debated for your fellow centrists to get personal from the opening bat?

 

Probably best to direct your question to someone who you think has criticised you. I'll stick to the actual subject. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Probably best to direct your question to someone who you think has criticised you. I'll stick to the actual subject. 

Just trying to gauge your opinion, that is all.