|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 4, 2024 18:11:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 18:22:41 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 4, 2024 18:46:55 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. You haven't answered the question. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 18:55:47 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. You haven't answered the question. I have precisely answered the question in that there is a moral case for the burning of the asylum hotel, I do not support that action but I see the moral aspect in that people are protecting their own albeit in an extreme way. I see no moral aspect to the killing of young girls. So they are not comparable on a moral scale. Let us suppose they wanted to put a bail hostel for paedophiles next door to your daughters school and ignored the concerns of parents and placed it there anyway. One has to consider what action one would take. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 4, 2024 19:05:27 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. Indeed. The differences of course are: The difference between a set of people who are in this country illegally and the indigenous population who have every right to be here. The Southport issue is about a group of people reacting to an incident vs the person who deliberately instigated that incident. To claim a moral equivalence is akin to saying that a person defending themselves is as bad as their assailant. It's an absolute nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:07:16 GMT
If Starmer doesn’t crack down just as sharply on future rioting Muslims, very dark Roma, black peoples rioting about an ethically similar drug dealers shot by police etc etc then much will be revealed about Labour identity politics . If the child murderer is eventually found to be a Muslim then God help us . If he eventually is proven not to be a Muslim then everyone will blame the EDL and things will settle down anyway. So "very light Roma" can get away with it? Is "very dark Roma" a new ethnicity you have invented to create more racial divisions? I am sure you think you are not racist, but your posts certainly say otherwise. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:09:41 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. Is there any proof at all that anyone in that Rotherham hotel has been involved in harming anyone's daughters? If you think that is a "moral aspect" I suggest you know less about morality than my dog. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:11:04 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. Indeed. The differences of course are: The difference between a set of people who are in this country illegally and the indigenous population who have every right to be here. The Southport issue is about a group of people reacting to an incident vs the person who deliberately instigated that incident. To claim a moral equivalence is akin to saying that a person defending themselves is as bad as their assailant. It's an absolute nonsense.
Who, specifically, were the people trying to burn down a hotel FULL of people trying to defend themselves from? What had this specific person done to suggest anyone needed to be defended from them? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 19:25:05 GMT
We can discuss morality in depth if you like. What moral aspect is there to the actions of the young man in Southport, I see none. What moral aspect is there to Rotherham hotel burning. People taking action to protect their families especially their daughters. That does not mean I agree with the action it does mean that there is a moral aspect to it no matter how much I disagree. Is there any proof at all that anyone in that Rotherham hotel has been involved in harming anyone's daughters? If you think that is a "moral aspect" I suggest you know less about morality than my dog. All The Best As I keep pointing out people perceive a very sudden elevated risk of danger for very good evidential reasons. What you are saying is they just have to suck it up, what they are saying is no they do not. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 4, 2024 19:28:23 GMT
Indeed. The differences of course are: The difference between a set of people who are in this country illegally and the indigenous population who have every right to be here. The Southport issue is about a group of people reacting to an incident vs the person who deliberately instigated that incident. To claim a moral equivalence is akin to saying that a person defending themselves is as bad as their assailant. It's an absolute nonsense.
Who, specifically, were the people trying to burn down a hotel FULL of people trying to defend themselves from? What had this specific person done to suggest anyone needed to be defended from them? All The Best The problem is no one knows who or what they are in the hotel. There are no criminal records that cover them and there is no information on them at all other than what they give to the authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:31:58 GMT
Is there any proof at all that anyone in that Rotherham hotel has been involved in harming anyone's daughters? If you think that is a "moral aspect" I suggest you know less about morality than my dog. All The Best As I keep pointing out people perceive a very sudden elevated risk of danger for very good evidential reasons. But keep failing to ever provide any of those "very good evidential reasons" - strongly suggesting they don't actually exist. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:34:12 GMT
Who, specifically, were the people trying to burn down a hotel FULL of people trying to defend themselves from? What had this specific person done to suggest anyone needed to be defended from them? All The Best There are no criminal records that cover them and there is no information on them at all other than what they give to the authorities. And that's reason enough to attack it? I assume most people don't know who or what is in your house, by your logic that makes your house a valid target for violence. You really have not thought any of this "reasoning" through have you? It takes mere seconds to poke huge holes in it because it is just so utterly poorly thought out. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 4, 2024 19:34:56 GMT
Who, specifically, were the people trying to burn down a hotel FULL of people trying to defend themselves from? What had this specific person done to suggest anyone needed to be defended from them? All The Best The problem is no one knows who or what they are in the hotel. There are no criminal records that cover them and there is no information on them at all other than what they give to the authorities. So if they don't know who's in the hotel how so they know torching it will make their daughters safer? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet3 on Aug 4, 2024 19:36:42 GMT
The problem is no one knows who or what they are in the hotel. There are no criminal records that cover them and there is no information on them at all other than what they give to the authorities. And that's reason enough to attack it. I assume most people don't know who or what is in your house, by your logic that makes your house a valid target for violence. You really have not though any of this "reasoning" through have you? It takes mere seconds to poke huge holes it because there's just nothing to it. All The Best Precisely, by Sandy's logic a mob of black or asian people are justified in torching a building he is in because for all they know he is a dangerous white supremacist so they're just protecting their kids. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 4, 2024 19:40:26 GMT
The problem is no one knows who or what they are in the hotel. There are no criminal records that cover them and there is no information on them at all other than what they give to the authorities. So if they don't know who's in the hotel how so they know torching it will make their daughters safer? Shhh now, he hadn't seen that fucking massive flaw in his ridiculous argument. LOL All The Best |
|
