UK STRIKE DAY 30TH NOVEMBER

[bozo]

for Adrian,
I too like debate, would I be here if I didn't?
I do not like anybody who snipes at every opportunity.
I will debate with you, but I will react when you attack me and I will call you whatever I think is justified.
You stated that I had accused you of being a racist, now that you realise I didn't, you resent my suspicion of you being racist. That suspicion stands.
I jhave always started out debate with you in a civil manner. It is you, I contend, who resorts to foul tactics like playing to the gallery and making " humorous " posts which are actually designed to denigrate me which really riles...and gets the reaction I believe is warranted.
You admit debate can get heated, but you want it on your terms.....you are free to insult but cry foul when you get a hostile response. Tough shit!

I will offer a way out of this......you stop your attacks, in the way I have described, and I will debate without resorting to name-calling.
I will even warn you if I feel you are out of order.
This is called negotiating a compromise.

[reverendjeremiah]

You can twist my words all you like. I get insulted by things you've actually said and meant, not things I've twisted or turned into something you never intended to say.

Like you are innocent..

That's bozo for you. He misplaced his sense of humour decades ago.

..and he had every right to get pissed at you for that.

You said, quite matter of factly, that I "advocate the death and destitution of many millions of families and children". I didn't twist your words; that is a direct quote. That is what I got offended by, and what I think went over the line. bozo did the same every time he addressed me as an "arsehole" rather than use my username or my actual name.

Because your history shows that you want the govt to do and not do exactly what you would do and not do. Here is your history:

The solution is to get rid of the public sector (as much as possible), and move all the jobs to the private sector, where companies actually know how to run themselves.

..in fact many pages has you saying "I would do this to the govt if I could, or I would do that"..
then bozo asked

"So, you don't think a retirement pension is a good idea? Do enlighten us as to how you are going to live your life and prepare for old age without one."

to which you replied:

Savings. Instead of putting money away into a pension which you cannot touch until you reach retirement age (whenever that will be, it changes as the government realises they can't afford to pay us our pensions), you put money into a savings account. The big difference is, you have complete control over your savings; if you suddenly need to dip into them for an emergency, you can.

You were clearly saying "you" and not "I"
This after all of those posts of you saying what you would and would not do with the govt along with this automatically gave me the impression, through your posting history, that you would remove all pensions. Then a few more pages of you bringing up a second option of investments, which again, following your posting history on this thread, it seemed very much like you were advocating the removal of pensions and replacing them with personal savings and investments. Bozo obviously caught a feel to this thread history of yours and started right on you. Then you insulted him.
then I come in with this post (http://atheistforums.org/thread-9655-pos...#pid209795 ) clearly with your posting history in mind about this thread. then I posted this one (http://atheistforums.org/thread-9655-pos...#pid209799) .
According to your POST HISTORY on this thread, you clearly made it look as though you were advocating the removal of pensions, wether that was your intention or not, and many other posters were posting along with that assumption of you as well.
For clarity - In America, the right wing want to removal all pension plans and replace them with savings and investment plans. They dont want to guarentee your money. They want to play roulette on the stock market with it, keep their profits, and privatise their losses. this will cause great amounts of poverty. Where there is poverty there is death for adults and children. If this is done on a mass scale then MILLIONS of people will die all so the ruch can play roulette with our money. - Clarity given.
It was then, and ONLY then, that you posted this after what I posted

Let me make myself clear; I in no way suggested that everyone should do this, or be forced to do it. I'm commenting on my personal choice, nothing more. So please retract your statement that I'm advocating the "death and destitution" of children. Not only is it wrong, it's downright insulting, and a savage reminder of a time not so long ago when you compared myself and theVOID to nazis. I thought that was all behind us now, or should I have been less forgiving?

Really? It sure looked like you were advocating it to me, seeing as you were going through so many lists of what you would force the govt to do and not do before you brought it up. Not to mention you were saying "you", and not "I" in the original post. Why is it that the entirety of this thread was about what you would make the govt do and not do, but then only after I point out the catastrophy of supporting such a decision of privatising funds such as those that suddenly it was "in no way suggested that everyone should do this, or be forced to do it. I'm commenting on my personal choice, nothing more" - which was a complete 180 degree turn from your theme of "I'd also reduce the excessive salaries of those working in government, put more power in the hands of local councils, make the House of Lords electable, and introduce a policy whereby for every law enacted, two archaic laws are repealed. "

As for the 100% thinking thing; our discussions came down to different types of work; those that involved physical skill, and those that involve mental skill. Now, one can argue that any job involving physical skill also requires mental skill, but it is meaningless if we are trying to compare jobs. You said my job required "no physical difficulty"; well, if you're going to imply that your job requires thinking about wires, then why can't I do the same and say that typing on my keyboard is a physical activity? Or maybe going down to the server room, and shifting machines around? Both jobs require both sets of skills, but both jobs use one skill more than the other. That was the only point I was making.

Look who's arguing semantics now.

If you think that's playing to the crowd, so be it. I clearly can't change your mind or get you to apologise.

I may apologize, depending on how you answer your thread history to me. So far I dont know what to think about your posts on this thread. And yes you can change my mind. You and Void helped to drive me from the Democrat party and more towards the libertarian side of politics...although it isnt YOUR type of Libertarian.

[Violet]

and making " humorous " posts which are actually designed to denigrate me which really riles.

Nobody reacts to my serious posts. Or rather... I get a response for them rarely, and usually only from someone I directly name. Hardly get to see kudos for them. I believe more than half of my posts outside of off topic are ignored in their entirety. And my non-serious posts fare scarcely better.

How I might have appeared to criticize you is as I 'rib' everybody. If you would like me to properly criticize your posts/you/your pet dog: I could do that. And you would be the only one to read it.

In a darker mood today, music I'm listening to reflects that. Not depressed or angry... more austere than anything. Do I care if anyone listens? No. I'll still provide something to listen to, or to laugh at, or to smile at, or to appreciate... because I'm like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWY12d_bpvk

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKY-smJ6aBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4YkSbr98yE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBy7R8QNQSY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjNgn4r6S...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9UmSqRZTrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8UeeIAJ0a0

---

No, it seems I am mildly distressed. Which is amusing.

[5thHorseman]

and making " humorous " posts which are actually designed to denigrate me which really riles.

Nobody reacts to my serious posts. Or rather... I get a response for them rarely, and usually only from someone I directly name. Hardly get to see kudos for them. I believe more than half of my posts outside of off topic are ignored in their entirety. And my non-serious posts fare scarcely better.

How I might have appeared to criticize you is as I 'rib' everybody. If you would like me to properly criticize your posts/you/your pet dog: I could do that. And you would be the only one to read it.

In a darker mood today, music I'm listening to reflects that. Not depressed or angry... more austere than anything. Do I care if anyone listens? No. I'll still provide something to listen to, or to laugh at, or to smile at, or to appreciate... because I'm like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWY12d_bpvk

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKY-smJ6aBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4YkSbr98yE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBy7R8QNQSY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjNgn4r6S...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9UmSqRZTrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8UeeIAJ0a0

---

No, it seems I am mildly distressed. Which is amusing.

Wait............. you do serious posts.

I love you xxx

[reverendjeremiah]

Wait............. you do serious posts.

I love you xxx

She does. you just need to brush up on your absurdism to filter out the points she tries to make...which are usually none

---

But that is the point isnt it...that it is pointless?

[Violet]

I never said you were "just a grunt". I said my job was less physically difficult, and more mentally difficult. I don't doubt that your job requires thinking; my point was that mine requires a great deal more. I'm in research; one of the few jobs out there which is almost 100% thinking.

And I argue that a game of chess with an equal involves more thinking than either research or strenuous physical activities.

This game of 'who does more' is irritating me. Know what involves more physical strain than construction and fishing and farming? Working out every muscle in your body until all of it has torn. And doing so while suspended 500 feet over miles of molten lava with a handhold that only works while you are dancing the cancan is more dangerous.

So. Fucking. What.

So stop: both of you.

You see, this is where you fall down, because you could have asked me a simple question: "Adrian, how much do you make an hour?". I would have gladly answered you; but instead, you make a massive assumption about me, and it turns out to be completely wrong. I just did the calculation; I make $21 an hour, without tax. This is what happens when you abandon all politeness in a debate; you paint your opponent in completely the wrong light, as you have done time and time again here.

You are also a student, are you not? In your mid 20s?

I agree that $300 an hour is unrealistic... but $50 an hour, even $70, is not.

If you've really been trained to do what they do, go out and get a job doing what they do. If you are implying that I got my job as some family favour, I can assure you I got my job like most people; by passing an interview and being the best candidate.

Did you know that that many of the (admittedly less technical) jobs on the North Slope are granted as family favors? Take it from a daughter of one of them, with family who has gotten jobs up there as favors. My father has worked up there with nary more than a highschool education, one of my uncles has done the same, several of the people family members have married have done so, hell: even my ex is doing so (though he is going to college to become an engineer, so he is somewhat different. I hope he gets in a gas fire.).

Do you understand just how much weight is carried in (many if not all) industries by personal accolades from people trusted or liked? It is the difference between going to college for 4 years and being of moderate success... and going to college for a year and having someone your interviewer knows/trusts tell them that you are pretty good.

That difference is the one between having a degree and no job... and having a job and no degree. If your skill is phenomenal: you will get your job whether or not your name is shouted from rooftops... but if you are like most of us, and your skill is mild-moderate-solid: you often must have connections to get into a job, and you certainly will be more likely to have a job if you do.

Bullshit you will be given a job based solely off of your interview. What do you think a resume and letters of recommendation are for?

You realise that "not physically difficult" is still less physically difficult than what you do right? C'mon now, you're just arguing semantics.

It is not a matter of semantics, but of presentation. It's the difference between 'less skilled' and 'not skilled at all'. If you don't see how these two are different... then come back when you're sober: you're better than that.

I'm willing to share my pie with anyone; I just oppose being forced into doing it. I give to charity, I buy things for my friends, etc, but I'll object if the government (or anyone else) demands that I do it. There is nothing moral about forcing people to be "kind". Moreover, people aren't going to suddenly stop being kind if the government grants them more freedom with their money.

I know in my preferred system you're not forced to do anything at all (it's all volunteer, everything). I won't speak for revvie's system, or for bozo's, or for anyone's. I happen to agree with you... only I give to most everyone and enjoy doing it

You are truly a one-off. I have never come across anybody so self-centred, self opinionated and objectionable as you.

Right back at you.

I'm more self-centered than both of you, more full of opinions about myself (most of them poor), and I am far more objectionable than either of you. And even if I wasn't: I wouldn't yet be accusing either of you of being so. So can it the lot of you.

No, I like to debate people. You are the one who goes around calling me an "arsehole" and a "suspected closet racist" because I have the nerve to challenge your beliefs. I don't care if you don't think suspecting someone of being a racist isn't a direct accusation; I find it insulting to even be "suspected", especially given my history on these forums of defending social equality.

Yes, bozo started it. But you aren't innocent of responding likewise.

"You can act like a social progressive all you like, but you've shown your true colours time and time again; as a authoritarian jerk who thinks it's ok for governments to dictate how people think."

"and you're not doing socialism any favours by turning it into an (even more) oppressive ideology, bordering on fascist."

And don't think I disagree with all of these. I find bozo's over-concern for Political-Correctness to be quite irritating and ridiculous. That doesn't mean I would call him on it out of context. I don't routinely bring up <zort> to call you a privacy-encroaching pervert... because I have no call to do so. So give the man some slack.

"I've said I want people to be in control of their own futures."

I don't feel in control at all, Adrian. I can at best try... but I don't pretend I have a chance to do everything I wish to do. Hell, I can't even do most of it. It's hard enough for me just to accomplish the important bits, and it will take time. Time I will and do feel is wasted. I've wasted the last 5 years of my life, or rather someone else wasted it for me... and now capitalism stands in between me and not wasting the next five. And I have it better than most people... is it such a wonder I despise it?

You think you are very clever and you love to batter opponents into submission in exchanges on this forum. I've witnessed your style over the 3 years I've been here.

Says the guy who has opened most of his responses to me with the words "To the arsehole". Debating is agressive; people from two opposing viewpoints clashing is bound to get both sides riled up. I've not once demanded you shut up, or done anything to "batter you into submission". I've done what any good debater does; attack their opponent's argument. Mostly, I've done it without the need to resort to foul language (although I admit, calling you a borderline-fascist was probably a step over the line, and I retract it).

Thank you

And I, for the most part, agree.

Don't accept it then; I think it's a piss poor way to debate. I've received support from numerous people on these forums who agree with that statement. I founded these forums on the principle that people of differing beliefs can debate without insulting each other, and for the most part, it has worked. That kind of sentiment never did stick with you though.

And I agree that we can. I don't mind the few slip ups on the way, and I can appreciate them fairly often... though it won't be far to the point where I'll start telling bozo to back down outside of humor.

It won't get moved to the pit. There is absolutely no need for people to start using insulting language in this kind of debate. If you don't think you can discuss our differing opinions without resorting to attacking me personally, or accusing me of sick and twisted things, then don't respond to my posts. I'm not going to hold it against you if you don't want to debate anymore; I understand it's a logical fallacy to act victorious if your opponent steps out of a debate. Either you can act with the degree of civility that these forums demand, or we can leave it here. I'd refuse to debate you if we moved this to R'yleh, since I'd know the only reason it was there is so you can call me names and accuse me of wanting children dead.

I'm not "the great leader". Look around; we have a large staff team, most of whom do not share my views, and who are happy to reprimand me if they think I've broken the rules. I have moderator powers, yet I have not used them. Why not? Because I believe in freedom of speech, and I'm not going to sink to the level of abusing my authority just because someone insults me. I'll leave that decision up to the staff who aren't involved.

+1.

It's stuff like this that finally got me over a/the 'major forum meltdown'. You remain a highly respected figure... that anyone should take issue with that fact is beyond me.

You aren't taking a risk if you abide by the rules. I disagree with most people on this site about various issues, but we manage to hold a certain respect for each other. If you break the rules, you risk being punished, but then, there is no reason to break the rules in the first place. If you can't write a post without resorting to an insult, or some baseless accusation, then you shouldn't be posting in the first place.

And if you break the rules a few times after being here a while: the staff usually look the other way. That's part of the same certain respect spoken of in the quote above. And it is nothing but earned.

If there was some way you could guarentee that no action would be taken against me and bozo, and anyone else involved in this conversation... then I would gladly take this discussion to the level it deserves.

Revvie dear... your points are fairly strong: you do not need to insult adrian to support them. Doing so detracts from their strength, infact. Please cool down a little.

---

Wait............. you do serious posts.

I love you xxx

She does. you just need to brush up on your absurdism to filter out the points she tries to make...which are usually none



But that is the point isnt it...that it is pointless?

Usually, yes.

Anyway, my last was serious. Isn't every day I can be arsed to be serious.

---

You can twist my words all you like. I get insulted by things you've actually said and meant, not things I've twisted or turned into something you never intended to say.

You said, quite matter of factly, that I "advocate the death and destitution of many millions of families and children". I didn't twist your words; that is a direct quote. That is what I got offended by, and what I think went over the line. bozo did the same every time he addressed me as an "arsehole" rather than use my username or my actual name.

Agree ^

v Disagree, mostly with the intent (because technically typing on one's keyboard is a physical activity... but I don't pretend that typing out an essay is anywhere near so physical as the 800 apm of a professional starcraft player... which is also done with a keyboard and mouse)

As for the 100% thinking thing; our discussions came down to different types of work; those that involved physical skill, and those that involve mental skill. Now, one can argue that any job involving physical skill also requires mental skill, but it is meaningless if we are trying to compare jobs. You said my job required "no physical difficulty"; well, if you're going to imply that your job requires thinking about wires, then why can't I do the same and say that typing on my keyboard is a physical activity? Or maybe going down to the server room, and shifting machines around? Both jobs require both sets of skills, but both jobs use one skill more than the other. That was the only point I was making.

If you think that's playing to the crowd, so be it. I clearly can't change your mind or get you to apologise.

It might be more likely to get an apology from revvie out of the top half of this post than the bottom half. It's like reading a paper where the top half compliments and the bottom half criticizes (it is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you understand the intent, because that's all I'm trying to convey).

The bold was the only portion of that which I feel should have made it out... because it is a very good point. I still find the comparative 'my work is harder' bits to all be absurd (both revvie's and yours. You both work hard, get over yourselves).

---

Wait............. you do serious posts.

I love you xxx

Only on Tuesday, and I'm bored to hell from doing it already.

[reverendjeremiah]

Sorry Adrian. I can no longer have this conversation with you. You do not have to reply to my last post if you do not want to, and please accept my apologies for whatever I posted that may have offended you.

It was obviously a mistake on my behalf of misinterpretting your posts.

[Tiberius]

I do not like anybody who snipes at every opportunity.

I don't snipe at every opportunity; only when someone has said something I think is truly uncalled for in a debate.

I will debate with you, but I will react when you attack me and I will call you whatever I think is justified.

That's up to you; I try not to attack people, but rather attack their argument. Sometimes I let my temper get the better of me, as happens to everyone. I always apologise for it later though.

You stated that I had accused you of being a racist, now that you realise I didn't, you resent my suspicion of you being racist. That suspicion stands.

I still maintain you accused me of being a racist. I don't accept your excuse of just "suspecting" as valid. Suspecting someone of being a racist is just as bad as accusing someone of it, especially when you suspicion is made public, and to my face.

I jhave always started out debate with you in a civil manner. It is you, I contend, who resorts to foul tactics like playing to the gallery and making " humorous " posts which are actually designed to denigrate me which really riles...and gets the reaction I believe is warranted.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a jibe at your lack of a sense of humour on these matters is a "foul tactic". It wasn't my intention to denigrate you; it was my intention to make you realise how serious you were taking a post that was clearly satire from the start.

You admit debate can get heated, but you want it on your terms.....you are free to insult but cry foul when you get a hostile response. Tough shit!

No, we're both free to insult. The difference is that I will apologise for my insult if someone asks for one. You on the other hand...

I will offer a way out of this......you stop your attacks, in the way I have described, and I will debate without resorting to name-calling.
I will even warn you if I feel you are out of order.
This is called negotiating a compromise.

I've already offered a way out of this; I've apologised for my attacks; now you apologise for yours. Then we can part ways, since I don't think this topic really needs further discussion.

---

Now since reverendjeremiah has been gracious enough to accept that the blame for our "spat" doesn't wholly lie with myself, I'm not going to respond to everything he said in his last post, but I thought these specific parts required some clarification.

then bozo asked

"So, you don't think a retirement pension is a good idea? Do enlighten us as to how you are going to live your life and prepare for old age without one."

to which you replied:

Savings. Instead of putting money away into a pension which you cannot touch until you reach retirement age (whenever that will be, it changes as the government realises they can't afford to pay us our pensions), you put money into a savings account. The big difference is, you have complete control over your savings; if you suddenly need to dip into them for an emergency, you can.

You were clearly saying "you" and not "I"

Yes, I was saying "you" and not "I", but I was also responding to a question about how "I" was going to live my life and prepare for old age. The question was personal; my response was personal. Why didn't I use the word "I" in it? Mainly because I was describing a method, that is applicable to other people as well as myself. In tutorials, you'll not often see the instructor use the words "and now I place x on y", but rather "and now you place x on y". It's a more formal form of speech to use "you".

That said, if I gave the impression that I would like the government to remove pensions, it was not intentional. I'm fine with the government giving pensions.

For clarity - In America, the right wing want to removal all pension plans and replace them with savings and investment plans.

Understood. The problem with these types of discussion almost always boils down to geography. I don't live in America; I don't know what it is like. Here, the right-wing support pensions, and even the National Health Service.

Why is it that the entirety of this thread was about what you would make the govt do and not do, but then only after I point out the catastrophy of supporting such a decision of privatising funds such as those that suddenly it was "in no way suggested that everyone should do this, or be forced to do it. I'm commenting on my personal choice, nothing more" - which was a complete 180 degree turn from your theme of "I'd also reduce the excessive salaries of those working in government, put more power in the hands of local councils, make the House of Lords electable, and introduce a policy whereby for every law enacted, two archaic laws are repealed. "

True, I commented on what I would do to government if I had the chance, but in all cases I made sure I put it in that context. The first time was here:

"The solution is to get rid of the public sector (as much as possible), and move all the jobs to the private sector, where companies actually know how to run themselves."

The second here:

"If I were in charge, I'd end the wars, slash the military budget, and have the current military as a defensive measure rather than an attacking force. Then I'd use the money saved to stabilise what needs stabilising."

The third (and final) was here:

"I'd also reduce the excessive salaries of those working in government, put more power in the hands of local councils, make the House of Lords electable, and introduce a policy whereby for every law enacted, two archaic laws are repealed."

Then, the conversation turned back to pensions / savings investments, and bozo asked me a personal question (not a political one). My response, therefore, was to this personal question, and not in addition to the lists I'd provided.

I hope that clears up any confusion that was remaining.

[reverendjeremiah]

Frankly I hope this strike shuts down the UK's economy completely.

Sadly that will not happen for a one day strike.

[bozo]

Frankly I hope this strike shuts down the UK's economy completely.

Sadly that will not happen for a one day strike.

I wish it were more than for one day, but worker confidence has not returned since the days of the Thatcher Governments that destroyed the power of trades unions.
However, the fact that over 2 million workers, including some who will be striking for the first time, will be out on the streets tomorrow and probably again if the government doesn't negotiate in a meaningful way, is cause for optimism.
I am struck also that I sense a feeling that very many ordinary people who will be affected by tomorrow's action, are showing sympathy and support for the stand being taken.

---

for Adrian,
I see you reject my offer for compromise.
So be it.