Screwfix rubbish

[AdamW]

b******s

Unfortunately I don't speak Norwegian

People who cannot see that are wrong

It is refreshing to see someone who argues with such conviction in these times of wishy-washiness. However, as David has already said, you are being very dictorial. When you speak in a way like the above quote, you really are not rising yourself above the Daily Mail readers you have such contempt for.

people who are in favour of it are worth less than dogshït on the sole of my shoe

And people who can't appreciate the opinions and motives of others are worth less than the poop of the parasites who live in that dogpoop on your shoe...

Be glad to live in a country where people can have informed debate over hypothetical issues. I doubt that the death penalty will ever come back in (short of massive political upheaval and a revolution). So I really don't think you need to worry about it. But the fact that we can have this debate rises us above animals. Be proud of that. Don't just go in and say "You're wrong" to everyone you don't agree with. You are either incredibly highly strung, in which case you should assess your discussion technique for your own sake, or you are just trying to wind us up

And by the way, sheds are great.

 

[david and julie]

A referendum is a poll on an issue, it as nothing to do with right or wrong.

In the case of hanging 99% could vote for it. That doesn't mean it is right or wrong, it means 99% want it. Which is all that matters if you live in a true democracy.

The problem I see with a referendum is the way the question is phrased.

If I used Europe as an example ,the questions would have a slant or bias along the lines of.

Do you want further integration into Europe? Yes/No

Or. Do you want to leave Europe and risk us all being out of work, without money and starving? Yes/No

You can be sure a pro Euro Gov would use the second example to influence the opinion of the uncertain.

Adam is right. Ban must be winding us up.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

People who cannot see that are wrong

It is refreshing to see someone who argues with such conviction in these times of wishy-washiness. However, as David has already said, you are being very dictorial. When you speak in a way like the above quote, you really are not rising yourself above the Daily Mail readers you have such contempt for.

There are two classes of reasons why the death penalty is wrong.

1) The logical ones, e.g. it is not a deterrent, and it costs more than imprisonment does.

2) The moral ones, e.g. given that is is of no practical value, it is simply wrong for a civilised nation to put people to death as a punishment.

Class 1 arguments are so obviously and easily proved correct that nobody with half a brain can doubt them.

Which only leaves Class 2, and moral imperatives are not something that can be proven, they just are.

People who deny Class 1 reasons are demonstrably wrong on the basis of fact.

People who deny Class 2 reasons are wrong on the basis of moral imperative.

people who are in favour of it are worth less than dogshït on the sole of my shoe

And people who can't appreciate the opinions and motives of others are worth less than the poop of the parasites who live in that dogpoop on your shoe...

Firstly, that quote missed out the qualifier at the beginning - it is their worth in relation to their support for the death penalty that I was talking about.

Secondly, I appreciate that they have opinions, and motives. I just don't think that those opinions or motives are worthy of any consideration. They are utterly valueless.

Be glad to live in a country where people can have informed debate over hypothetical issues. I doubt that the death penalty will ever come back in (short of massive political upheaval and a revolution). So I really don't think you need to worry about it. But the fact that we can have this debate rises us above animals. Be proud of that.

I am glad, and I am proud. I'm also ashamed that some of my fellow human beings are in favour of the death penalty.

Don't just go in and say "You're wrong" to everyone you don't agree with.

I am right. Therefore people who do not agree with me are wrong. It is very simple.

You are either incredibly highly strung, in which case you should assess your discussion technique for your own sake, or you are just trying to wind us up

Neither.

And by the way, sheds are great.

You're not right there.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A referendum is a poll on an issue, it as nothing to do with right or wrong.

It is asking people what they want. It might be right to give them what they want, or it might be wrong.

In the case of hanging 99% could vote for it. That doesn't mean it is right or wrong, it means 99% want it. Which is all that matters if you live in a true democracy.

No - that's all that matters if you live in true anarchy. What should matter is what is right, and what is wrong. You do not necessarily give people whatever they want, just because they want it, or think they should have it, even if they are in a majority. In some/many/most cases it is right to give people what they want. And in some cases it is utterly wrong to give it to them, no matter what percentage want it.

This whole thing about the death penalty started up because I used it as an example, along with "2+2=5", or "the earth is flat", as an example of why there are cases where it really doesn't matter how many people want something, there are cases where their desire is wrong, and must be ignored.

Now, I'm not claiming that the issue of membership of the EC is anything like as cut and dried, or that there is a moral imperative to belong, but I am concerned that in a referendum people will vote on the basis of ill-informed opinion, just as they do (on all sides) in every election. Just look at the tradition of "the working class Tory" for an example of people voting in a way which is totally against their own interests.

The problem I see with a referendum is the way the question is phrased.

If I used Europe as an example ,the questions would have a slant or bias along the lines of.

Do you want further integration into Europe? Yes/No

Or. Do you want to leave Europe and risk us all being out of work, without money and starving? Yes/No

You can be sure a pro Euro Gov would use the second example to influence the opinion of the uncertain.

I certainly hope so.

Adam is right. Ban must be winding us up.

You may be getting wound-up, but my posts are not a wind-up.

 

[AdamW]

Class 1 arguments are so obviously and easily proved correct that nobody with half a brain can doubt them.

It is the ultimate deterrent. With a prison sentence, you get out, you can do it again. If you're dead, you can't. Say someone is sent to prison for r*ping and murdering a child. They will get their head kicked in daily. After a period of time, perhaps a few years, they will probably either be lynched by other prisoners (to which the guards have been known to turn a blind eye) or will commit suicide. However, if you put them to death, they will not suffer so long. Surely this is kinder and more enlightened than effectively throwing them to the dogs.

However, I would like to draw your attention to one minor point: the name. Death Penalty I believe. AKA Capital Punishment. It is not called the Death to Deter Criminals. It is not called the Death to make an example. No. It is a punishment. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that punishments are there to serve two purposes.

1) deterrent
2) punishment itself.

The second, punishment, is by far the greater part of punishment. Hence the fact it is called punishment. Not deterrent. Punishment. With a "p", followed by "unishment". Rhymes with "dunishment". Only it is called "punishment". With a p. Not deterrent, which starts with a d. Which is like a rotated p. P, the first letter of "punishment".

I am right. Therefore people who do not agree with me are wrong. It is very simple

Well, the fact you are wrong negates your argument there! So you are wrong twice. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Now I am drawn on the subject of capital punishment, I am neither in favour nor against. I was merely playing devil's advocate here. Those of us who are right can do this. You can't, therefore you are wrong. Again. Three wrongs don't make a right either.

Well, that was an interesting and lively debate: Screwfix not delivering to death penalty (not deterrent) via Europe and the definition of opinion. I am happy to have won it. Not Ban. Who didn't. Cos he's wrong.

Thankyou lady's and gentlemen, I hope to see you all again for next week's debate: "Taps: chromed or brass?", to "the influence of futurism on the rise of fascism in Italy", via rawlplugs and "the price of fish in Guatemala".

 

[david and julie]

It would take a lot more than you to wind me up.

I have no view either way on the hanging debate. If you are truthfully saying it is cheaper to keep Peter Sutcliffe, for example, where there was no doubt whatsoever about guilt, alive. I would like to see your figures to support this.

Please don't use the morals excuse.

The only thing you have shown is that you are indeed correct that some people are not fit to make an informed choice.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Here's another example:

http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co....2004/02/05/SOMERSET_YEOVIL_NEWS_NEWS02ZM.html

The people at East Coker got what they wanted.

Was it right?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Class 1 arguments are so obviously and easily proved correct that nobody with half a brain can doubt them.

It is the ultimate deterrent. With a prison sentence, you get out, you can do it again. If you're dead, you can't. Say someone is sent to prison for r*ping and murdering a child. They will get their head kicked in daily. After a period of time, perhaps a few years, they will probably either be lynched by other prisoners (to which the guards have been known to turn a blind eye) or will commit suicide. However, if you put them to death, they will not suffer so long. Surely this is kinder and more enlightened than effectively throwing them to the dogs.

However, I would like to draw your attention to one minor point: the name. Death Penalty I believe. AKA Capital Punishment. It is not called the Death to Deter Criminals. It is not called the Death to make an example. No. It is a punishment. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that punishments are there to serve two purposes.

1) deterrent
2) punishment itself.

The second, punishment, is by far the greater part of punishment. Hence the fact it is called punishment. Not deterrent. Punishment. With a "p", followed by "unishment". Rhymes with "dunishment". Only it is called "punishment". With a p. Not deterrent, which starts with a d. Which is like a rotated p. P, the first letter of "punishment".

I am right. Therefore people who do not agree with me are wrong. It is very simple

Well, the fact you are wrong negates your argument there! So you are wrong twice. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Now I am drawn on the subject of capital punishment, I am neither in favour nor against. I was merely playing devil's advocate here. Those of us who are right can do this. You can't, therefore you are wrong. Again. Three wrongs don't make a right either.

Well - either that drivel was supposed to wind me up, or you somehow believe it made some kind of sense. Either way you're wrong. Getting to be a habit....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It would take a lot more than you to wind me up.

I wasn't trying - as I pointed out to you and Adam, my posts are not wind-ups.

I have no view either way on the hanging debate. If you are truthfully saying it is cheaper to keep Peter Sutcliffe, for example, where there was no doubt whatsoever about guilt, alive. I would like to see your figures to support this.

Unfortunately you can't pick only the "no doubt whatsoever" cases - you have to include all the "not sures" and the cock-ups, and the miscarriages of justice. And the cost of dealing with those is immense. Tell me - if you were presented with evidence that showed that having capital punishment cost more than not having it, would that change, or create a view?

Please don't use the morals excuse.

Why on earth not - do you not think that as individuals and as a society we should have standards of morality? One can argue about what the standards should be, but do you really believe that we should be amoral?

The only thing you have shown is that you are indeed correct that some people are not fit to make an informed choice.

I'm so glad you agree.

Your next assignment - how do you decide who is fit to make an informed choice?

 

[AdamW]

Dunno why you're still responding to this thread Ban. It has already been officially declared that you are wrong, and I am right.

I am happy to have won it. Not Ban. Who didn't. Cos he's wrong.

You see, there it is. An official declaration of wrongness of Ban. And Adam is right. There is no point trying to debate it. You are wrong, you know you're wrong, we know you're wrong. So to deny it would make you wrong, AGAIN! If you want more proof:

Adam is definitely right. Ban is most certainly wrong. ORDER! ORDER!

You see, even the Speaker of the House of Commons says I am right.

Ban is wrong.

Adam is right.

You can't change the facts. Especially not when you are wrong.

 

[ninebob]

Reminder to self, once again: Do NOT start reading Adam's post's whilst eating - only results in a laughing/choking combo which just ain't attractive!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Dunno why you're still responding to this thread Ban. It has already been officially declared that you are wrong, and I am right.

I am happy to have won it. Not Ban. Who didn't. Cos he's wrong.

You see, there it is. An official declaration of wrongness of Ban. And Adam is right. There is no point trying to debate it. You are wrong, you know you're wrong, we know you're wrong. So to deny it would make you wrong, AGAIN! If you want more proof:

Adam is definitely right. Ban is most certainly wrong. ORDER! ORDER!

You see, even the Speaker of the House of Commons says I am right.

Ban is wrong.

Adam is right.

You can't change the facts. Especially not when you are wrong.

The thing is, that none of that changes the fact that I am right about this, and I know I am.

You're just treating the issue of whether governments should cold-bloodedly murder their own citizens as some sort of game. It would be pathetic, if it wasn't so disgusting.

 

[david and julie]

Ban. with respect and not shouting or offending each other.

The issue is not really about the rights or wrongs of, or how an individual may feel about capital punishment.

That is separate and is down to ones own feelings and thought's or conscience if you prefer.

With an open and honest mind read this.

I am right, I am always right, I cannot be wrong, nobody elses view can be right if different than mine. The result of a poll is only right if I get what I want, everyone else is of limited intelligence especially if they read the Mail or disagree with me on Europe. Nothing can be right unless perceived as such by me.

Now my view is that the above comment is plainly ridiculous and you should agree. Have we all not recently seen similar comments though?

We don't need to agree but we all need to respect each others viewpoint.

If we did have a united Europe and the MEP's were all as you, what chance give and take?

Like children really, yes you can play football with my ball, as long as I can be in goal.

 

[AdamW]

The thing is, that none of that changes the fact that I am right about this, and I know I am.

You're just treating the issue of whether governments should cold-bloodedly murder their own citizens as some sort of game. It would be pathetic, if it wasn't so disgusting.

Eh? What was that you said? "My name is Ban. Ban is wrong."

To be right, you have to be able to prove you are not wrong. You can't prove you are wrong, as you have no abilities in the areas of debate, discussion, reason and argument.

Therefore you are wrong. You know you are wrong. You even said so:

My name is Ban. Ban is wrong

See, you did.

But this does not change anything, seeing as the discussion ended a whole 15 hours and 16 minutes ago. Don't you remember? We declared that I am right and you are wrong.

 

[pipme]

Watching neighbours kids playing in sandpit ... getting on like house on fire ... Until a little argument sprang up .. next minute, toys were flung out of pit and minor blows were exchanged .... Kids exit stage right into house ... Hour or so later, back again happily playing away together .... Why was I smiling and pondering ?