Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Labour MP Jo Cox killed in shooting incident in West Yorkshire watch

Announcements
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/res...071a4/toplinesOnly 20% of people polled say this murder has anything to do with the political climate/brexit.Those 20% are hardline remain voters trying to salvage their dying campaign by using a woman's body.Recent poll conducted by Qriously also showed support for remain fall and undecided rise whilst leave stayed the same at around 55% in the wake of Cox's death.I know you're never supposed to interrupt the enemy when they're making a mistake - but stop pushing her as part of your agenda. It is immoral, repulsive and is collapsing your voter base.
    I am surprised that they polled this, although I understand the reasons why given the importance of the referendum.
    (Original post by TheAdviser)
    Does anyone know the killer motives??
    Police are still investigating and have not confirmed anything yet, although some people are making their own conclusions, I personally am waiting for the police to finish their investigation,
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Yeh, except, you don't answer point A or B. You just move onto point C.
    That is simply not true, I directly address your points, then you switch to point D
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Alright then, fair enough, although I don't do being quoted out of context, so here's the post that was from:

    My main point was directed towards FoS's lazy argument.

    It is FoS, most just assume the argument is lazy, no need to state it .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    That is simply not true, I directly address your points, then you switch to point D
    Not really. That is why you couldn't even answer the last contradiction I pointed out and tried to change subject again
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Britain First's leader Paul Golding is a violent convicted criminal and a former member of the National Front (which has a long history of violence and criminality).

    Britain First went to the meeting of a left-wing group to quote "give these traitors their comeuppance", which predictably led to violence. They've repeatedly referred to themselves as the "British resistance".

    Their intentions are very clear. Frankly it's pretty shocking to see people on TSR defending them
    As above, I'm not defending anyone. I am -- or was -- asking certain people to pause their general flow of hysteria once in a while to actually demonstrate the links they're claiming exist.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Not really. That is why you couldn't even answer the last contradiction I pointed out and tried to change subject again
    You pointed out no contradiction, you re-stated a point of yours from earlier that I had already answered.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    lol... I just read back the more recent parts.

    I don't think you're right here, sorry.

    I don't really understand how policies work, but I've just tried to deduce some of how they work from what you have both argued.

    You originally argued that refugees would be going to Germany, so that they can enter the UK and abuse the welfare system. Except that (according to the other dude -- an undisputed point) that they cannot move here without Citizenship to Germany or a passport.

    Then you said that they are going to Germany to get their passports, or at least implied it. However it was argued that Germany aren't actually giving them passports (undisputed), thus they would not be able to come here and abuse the welfare system. Then something about Poland came up, suggesting they could en route from Poland, except that it was said that Poland is not accepting refugees (undisputed) and thus can't give passports to send them on to other countries (e.g. the UK).

    If they were being sent on to the UK, it could be considered a security risk (undisputed) and borders could be closed within the confines of the policies/regulations. Ergo the idea that they are being sent over here just to abuse the welfare system (I think that's what it started about) is unlikely to be valid, as they cannot move from where they have settled. Not yet.

    so.... I don't think you're right here, as you weren't arguing (originally) for that, nor did you explicitly (or even implicitly) change your argument, really.

    TL;DR
    no
    Annnnnnd.... Thank you
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    You pointed out no contradiction, you re-stated a point of yours from earlier that I had already answered.
    Yeh Ok then
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    Then you said that they are going to Germany to get their passports, or at least implied it. However it was argued that Germany aren't actually giving them passports (undisputed), thus they would not be able to come here and abuse the welfare system.
    Not that I'm even partially voting on this issue, but I'm fairly sure I saw that Germany grants citizenship after 8 years of residence? German citizenship of course implies European citizenship, which gives the citizen access to all free movement rights.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Not that I'm even partially voting on this issue, but I'm fairly sure I saw that Germany grants citizenship after 8 years of residence? German citizenship of course implies European citizenship, which gives the citizen access to all free movement rights.
    Well, my point was that a refugee isn't going to stay in Germany for 8 years and get a job, with the eventual plan of coming to the UK to be poorer by exploiting the Welfare state.

    It doesn't make any sense.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, my point was that a refugee isn't going to stay in Germany for 8 years and get a job, with the eventual plan of coming to the UK to be poorer in the Welfare state.

    It doesn't make any sense.
    I'm sure that's true as concerns economic motivations, but if what you're worried about is people being granted European citizenship who have ill will towards the West it seems a valid concern to me.

    In that context, I think it more comes back to the question of the inability of the British state to be able to do anything about any such threat, rather than that this threat in particular is of any real magnitude.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The Times have now published a photo of Thomas Mair holding up a 'Britain First' flag.
    He was a Britain first activist, yet some Stil claim this wasn't an attack by the far right.


    Incredible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    I don't know how to make quotes like that, sorry. (New-ish)

    I also disagree. If you're saying that an idiot would simply expect him to behave rationally, then you proceed to be open to him actually behaving rationally, you're contradicting yourself. It's not a direct contradiction (i.e. the words are opposites), instead the meanings or implications are the opposite.
    I'm not contradicting myself because expectations don't always conform to reality. Let's consider the context - a mentally ill person attacked someone. Their illness may or may not have been the cause of the attack, but to expect rational behaviour from the mentally person is silly. That does not mean or imply that we must exclude the possibility for them to behave rationally, only that to expect otherwise is idiotic, given past events and what we understand about mental illness.

    (Original post by ubiquitousking)
    It would harm your argument because there wouldn't be an argument. Just an airy point. You'd be saying, with your more recent "I don't confirm nor deny" that your fairly fervent statement earlier was just you being presumptuous or, now, you're not taking an actual position (by which to argue).... I very much imagine you did think it was unlikely that he was rational at the start, which is what he was arguing about, I think. (Expectation...)

    Although I suppose, given that this isn't debating, the "on-the-fence" position is fine.
    The major part of my argument has little if anything to do with this. This point is simply a minutia that has been argued by someone else due to them conceding the larger part of my argument. I never took a position other than we don't know why it happened - which is factually true. I never said what the cause was, or what I thought the cause was, only that we don't know.

    If you want to know my personal opinion, I didn't think he was rational when I made the comment and I still do not. Whether or not this is due to his mental illness, I can't say because I don't know because I can't know. As far as we know, nobody knows.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    Who supports the nationalisation of things such as railways?

    Who supports the welfare state?

    Who supports increasing the size of government?

    Who is against "unearned profit"?

    Would it be the right who support limited government, with a limited welfare system and support private companies? Nope, that would be the left. You need to learn what left and right actually is.

    Killing groups of people is neither left or right, you are just ignorant of this whole topic area.
    I'm simply teling you that Nazism is a far-right ideology. I don't know how it is that you're denying this.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    I'm simply teling you that Nazism is a far-right ideology. I don't know how it is that you're denying this.
    And i am telling you that it is something else, as far too many of the principles behind it don't follow right side thoughts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    And i am telling you that it is something else, as far too many of the principles behind it don't follow right side thoughts.
    Ah the 'Hitler was left wing' brigade is back

    What you're doing is conflating social and economic policy. Socially hitler was very right wing.

    Even economically he was right wing, he actually presided over the greatest era of privatisation in Europe at the time.


    It's actually staggering that people try and claim hitter wasn't right wing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i just think it's ridiculous how people seem to think terrorism is a term referred for muslims only. this guy too was a terrorist! killed an innocent activist, mother, and inspiration which was politically motivated [aka terrorism]. i'm just surprised no news stories regarding his mental health haven't came out yet
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    I feel uncomfortable linking to a fascist website, but here goes...

    http://www.britainfirst.org/northern...-and-bradford/

    From the neo-Nazi fascists themselves.
    Looks slightly similar but I couldn't say with any certainty, which is probably why this hasn't appeared in the MSM yet.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    As above, I'm not defending anyone. I am -- or was -- asking certain people to pause their general flow of hysteria once in a while to actually demonstrate the links they're claiming exist.
    A photo in the Times shows him campaigning for Britain First. In his house they found Nazi regalia and far right literature. He bought a gun manual from a neo Nazi group.

    And on top of that he shouted 'Britain First' before he carried out the the killing, as reported by numerous witnesses.


    Yet some still refuse to admit and acknowledge this guy was far right. It's like debating with religious fanatics. You can show them logical evidence to prove all of their claims are wrong yet the just go 'screw logic and evidence, I'm right'


    It could scarcely be clearer he was a far right activist yet some people refuse to accept that he was.


    Now that he's been shown to be a Britain first activist I expect the same idiots to claim that Britain first is left wing...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, my point was that a refugee isn't going to stay in Germany for 8 years and get a job, with the eventual plan of coming to the UK to be poorer by exploiting the Welfare state.

    It doesn't make any sense.
    Looks like you don't live in the real world. Well let me tell you there are people who were given EU passports in countries such as Sweden and have used it to come to the UK. The UK is like a magnet everyone wants to come here
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    A photo in the Times shows him campaigning for Britain First. In his house they found Nazi regalia and far right literature. He bought a gun manual from a neo Nazi group.

    And on top of that he shouted 'Britain First' before he carried out the the killing, as reported by numerous witnesses.


    Yet some still refuse to admit and acknowledge this guy was far right. It's like debating with religious fanatics. You can show them logical evidence to prove all of their claims are wrong yet the just go 'screw logic and evidence, I'm right'


    It could scarcely be clearer he was a far right activist yet some people refuse to accept that he was.


    Now that he's been shown to be a Britain first activist I expect the same idiots to claim that Britain first is left wing...
    You're concentrating on the wrong link. What I asked for evidence of was that Britain First as a group had encouraged violence, not that he was a Britain First supporter (as to that, as I've repeated many, many times now, I entirely do not care).

    I wasn't even claiming that they hadn't encouraged violence, just arguing that putting up a big picture of a scary looking white working class man doesn't in itself establish that link, as FoS appeared to think it did.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.