Dilemna

[Nuff Said 5,092]

4 hours ago, lharman7 said:

Wtf are you on about?

You can't give a straight answer and you sound like a sympathizer!

Ok, I’ll spell it out.

I put the question ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ because if you answer yes, it implies you were beating her previously, and if you answer no, you appear to say you are still beating her. In other words, it’s a question which assumes something for which there is no justification, and there’s no good answer.

 

Your post to me was:

 

 

“What you propose costs a lot of money.

As a tax payer, are you ok with footing the bill to help terrorists, paedophiles and child murderers gain rehabilitation?”

 

I’m trying to say that it’s not a reasonable question. I think I’ve already explained what are the most important reasons why, but briefly, to take the most extreme example of the possible consequences of an action in order to evaluate it is unfair and illogical. It’s like saying the British police have killed innocent people. If you support the police, you support the murder of innocents. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Nuff Said

[Nuff Said 5,092]

1 hour ago, Flying Dutchman said:

Just who do you think you are GPB? 

Coming on here, talking about football, like some lunatic.

Marina Hyde has this nailed, as usual:

 

“Tactics, technique, deep analysis – these are niche interests and obsessions, in which most people largely feign vaguely respectful interest because they’re regarded as being a traditional but clearly tangential part of the much larger experience. A bit like the gherkin in a Big Mac. Indeed, many discard them entirely. A very small section of people really do care about those things, of course, which is why there is a very small amount of content among the vast tumult of football content to cater to them. But in the main, people would do anything to avoid this stuff.

By contrast, they – indeed, we – are unable stop talking about what might be termed football-adjacent matters. A huge part of being a football fan in keeping with the times is having well-aired views about things that are not football: people, money, all manner of social media dramas, the antics of a vast firmament of soap opera characters to hate, envy, occasionally even love … you know the sort of matters.“

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/05/premier-league-winter-break-prime-content?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[lharman7 39]

5 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Ok, I’ll spell it out.

I put the question ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ because if you answer yes, it implies you were beating her previously, and if you answer no, you appear to say you are still beating her. In other words, it’s a question which assumes something for which there is no justification, and there’s no good answer.

 

Your post to me was:

 

 

“What you propose costs a lot of money.

As a tax payer, are you ok with footing the bill to help terrorists, paedophiles and child murderers gain rehabilitation?”

 

I’m trying to say that it’s not a reasonable question. I think I’ve already explained what are the most important reasons why, but briefly, to take the most extreme example of the possible consequences of an action in order to evaluate it is unfair and illogical. It’s like saying the British police have killed innocent people. If you support the police, you support the murder of innocents. 

Can you stop gibbering absolute rubbish?

Its a perfectly fine yes or no question. You don't have to dissect it like its a Fugu.

Do you support the idea of your taxes funding rehabilitation for terrorists, paedophiles and child murderers?