nice day for a walk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
An indicator is not definitive proof.
Of course it's not. I fully agree.
In the normal context one can safely assume that it is.
Of course you could present examples out of context and different conclusions would be reached, as in ihavenojob's examples. In which case the context determines the assumption.
Someone with a crash helmet at a Motor racing event can safely be assumed to be a driver. Someone on a stage with a dog collar can safely be assumed to be an actor. All very simple and reasonable.
Someone at a political rally wearing a white hood can safely be assumed to be representing the KKK.
A majority of participants in these discussions, assumed that someone wearing a dog collar, on TV, was a vicar of some sort.

your claim which you failed to back up with evidence.
The evidence was there for all to see.
But you corrected me and I accepted your correction. The person on the march was wearing a replica of a helmet as worn in the middle ages or by the crusaders. Both fundamentally racist. Therefore one can safely assume that they sympathise with the ideology of the crusaders or medieval soldiers.

I could say you're a terrorist sympathiser because you wear shoes.
You could if you want, but it would be extremely ridiculous. I didn't make any claim because the person was wearing a hat! It was the type of hat that suggest where their sympathies lie.
If you suggested that my type of footwear suggested some characteristic you might be more realistic, e.g. blue suede shoes, waders, riding boots, long leather boots, etc.

In other words, you're full of shi.t and you try really hard to deflect from the fact everyone can see it.
If you can't debate without recourse to insults, it says more about you and your flimsy argument than it does about me.
 
Last edited:
Insufficient numbers of Remain voted.
Sufficient numbers of Remain voted.

Both of the above make sense.
The polls of the day and more recent polls indicate clearly that there is more support to Remain than to Leave.
But insufficient numbers of Remain voters didn't vote, failed to vote, couldn't vote.
Is that so hard to understand. Perhaps they were lazy, perhaps they couldn't, perhaps they thought they didn't need to because Remain were tipped to win. The reason why they didn't vote is not so important as the fact that the mood of the nation is clearly to Remain.
So the Leavers are intent on Brexit despite the obvious mood of the people.
The Brexiteers know it, the PM knows it. Yet they insist on denying a confirming vote, because they know that the young voters would turn out this time around. Additionally there are many more who have changed their mind now that the Brexiteer fantasy and lies have been proven to be false gospel.
The PM, the Brexiteers and their supporters insist on pursuing a course of action, directly against the mood of the nation, that is damaging for the UK and its citizens and for millions of others around the world.

By the way, if you can't discuss an issue without recourse to insult then I will simply not respond to your comments.
 
It a St George’s cross, it’s as related to the KKK as:
64613DB9-93B7-400E-9D1E-09C79EDDF82D.png




I bet half of the 700,000 were quitters.
 
Sponsored Links
The evidence was there for all to see.

Of course it's not. I fully agree.

First you put your foot in your mouth and contradict your own argument.

If you can't debate without recourse to insults, it says more about you and your flimsy argument than it does about me.

Then you call my argument flimsy. My flagrant description of the rubbish you come out with isn't an insult as much as it's an observation. It's not recourse, my argument was clear which again you've been able to address without debunking your own initial point which was the KKK had infiltrated that march.

Before you say it, your argument about racist fundamentals doesn't hold water with me, again because you have no evidence beyond a presumption which you yourself have accepted is a ridiculous position.

You could if you want, but it would be extremely ridiculous. I didn't make any claim because the person was wearing a hat!

I'm not sure if you're a willful liar or just extrememely forgetful.


The mental gymnastics you put yourself through only to come out looking worse than you started is astounding.
 
Before you say it, your argument about racist fundamentals doesn't hold water with me,
Supporting evidence already provided.

"Bethancourt demonstrates, the history of racism emanates from Europe, beginning with the crusades and then moving forward with the Iberian conquest of the Americas." https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1670

"a tricky question: were medieval people racist?
For those familiar with some of the more horrible parts of the Middle Ages, such as the mass murders and expulsions of the Jews, the Crusades, or the wars in the Baltics, the answer might seem obvious: of course they were." https://www.publicmedievalist.com/medieval-people-racist/

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/nice-day-for-a-walk.514187/page-3#ixzz5ZMeWuRpj
 
I didn't make any claim because the person was wearing a hat!
I'm not sure if you're a willful liar or just extrememely forgetful.
Resorting to extremely limited quoting of my comments now?
Why not post the complete comment of mine?
I didn't make any claim because the person was wearing a hat! It was the type of hat that suggest where their sympathies lie.
If you suggested that my type of footwear suggested some characteristic you might be more realistic, e.g. blue suede shoes, waders, riding boots, long leather boots, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top