UK STRIKE DAY 30TH NOVEMBER

[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.