Oh dear...
... This is about the third time now, that driven by your irrational desire to 'hoist me on my own petard', you have crashed into my post through the window of erroneous impetuosity, instead of through the door of logical reason, and each time when I have pinpointed your misconceptions you have disappeared without comment.
Here's the two statements of mine which you underlined to identify them as exhibits in your case against me alleging that I have "contradicted" myself:
Quote A):
"There is no need at all for your inclusion of the statement; "And no, that is not because we are being taken over by Islam" because I never stated or intimated or inferred that such was the case."
Quote B):
"But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are - or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post."
Unfortunately, the two statements are being quoted by you out of context and each pertains to two different matters entirely.
Statement A) was made in my response to Toy Soldier's response to my original post. In that original post I did not mention - anywhere at all - by statement, inference, or intimation, anything about "being taken over by Islam". This being so, when T.S. included such a phrase in his response to my original post, I responded by pointing out to him that there was no need to include such a statement in his response because I had not made such a statement.
Now since when, does pointing out that I did not make a certain statement in a specific post, translate to saying that I hold the views in that statement? (I don't actually hold that
specific view anyway, as I detail below.)
Now Quote B) does not even say specifically either that I believe "we are being taken over by Islam" because if you read the and digest the sentence in its entirety, you will clearly see that I added: "or rather, creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so." As can be seen emboldened below:
“But that does not mean that we are not being taken over by Islam because we are
- or rather creeping 'Islamification' of the UK is occurring, and increasingly so, but that's another post ".
Now, "We are being taken over by Islam" is not the same as "creeping Islamification" is it?
In any event, the two statements most certainly do not contradict each other by virtue of their meaning and use, so you are patently wrong - once again - to leap in as you have.
You really must stop crashing into my posts like this and misinterpreting what I am stating. Or at least start entering through the door of ‘logical reason’, because I am tired of the time-consuming task of sweeping up the broken glass from the windows of 'erroneous impetuosity'.
As for:
"Well thank you for the sociological perspective of the new right..."
This sarcasm is so ironic coming from someone who injects her own patently extremist Left Wing politics into just about every response to certain other member's posts – my own included - on serious topics.
You really need to temper your irrationality Kizzie, because you appear to be consumed by some deep anger at any view which you perceive to be outside the parameters of your own severely blinkered view.
You perceive posts to be 'Right Wing' when they are not, and infer that I am ‘Right Wing’ when I am not. I am neither 'Right Wing', nor Left Wing, nor Centre in my politics, because I see some good points in all the main party manifestos, along with a lot of deeply flawed policies also, and I vote for whichever party I regard as being the 'lesser of all evils' when election day arrives.
I am not that blinkered, or naive or prejudiced, to think that any one political party has all the answers, or is always right, or can do no wrong – which is why I do not lose rationality in my posts.
You by comparison do:
For example; based upon my own direct knowledge and what I have read and seen and listened to, I posted about how a certain percentage of people are claiming ESA who shouldn’t be, because they are fit and able, or even working on the side. You immediately, angrily, and irrationally, misinterpreted what I said and translated it into an attack on the poorest people in society and as some sort of attack on the very Benefits System which is their only life line, in addition to virtually denying that any benefits cheats even exist.
Yet, I was not attacking the Benefits System, only those who abuse it. I was not attacking the genuine claimants, only those who claim fraudulently.
My logic is, that the more cheats we deprive of benefits, then the more money there will be to alleviate the suffering of those genuinely ill people who genuinely need help.
It is the same if anyone mentions immigration, rogue tenants etc etc. You flare up and misinterpret what is being said and in some kind of inane state of denial, translate totally valid points as ‘racist’ or ‘attacks on the poor’.
As for:
"The 'Charles Murray' patriarchal laissez faire approach deserves to stay in the 80s tbh, as the ideology cannot be applied to modern Britain."
I am familiar with Charles Murray and the term 'laissez faire' but I don't know what relevance it has in regard to my post.
I sincerely believe that where you are concerned, no ideology can be applied to modern Britain, and no ideaology, opinion or view can be valid except your own.
21-01-2015, 10:38 PM
Reply With Quote
Linear Mode
