Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park

[Crispy]

I think I'll just put my arms out like a jesus then run around spinning with my eyes shut and shouting waaaaaaghhhh and hit anyone I happen to hit.

 

[ymu]

i would probably hit my mother if i absolutely had to but as it is highly unlikely i would absolutely have to may i just say that is an absolutely fucking moronic question to ask.

FFS

I was responding to editor's post, directly above mine, you egocentric moron.

oh just fuck off , reread teuchter's fuckin stupid comments about such attutudes being rooted in a time we should have left behind or whatever fanny-batter he was waffling and you'll see. ive got better things to do than pander to morons like you. and no, i 'withdraw' nothing.

If you won't back up your statement or back down, I'll just have to assume you're a testosterone-enslaved moron instead.

 

[cesare]

I think I'll just put my arms out like a jesus then run around spinning with my eyes shut and shouting waaaaaaghhhh and hit anyone I happen to hit.

That sounds suspiciously like my dad's clip round the ear in passing 'oops, sorry sonny'

 

[editor]

So you would only hit a man when there was absolutely no other option. You would only hit a man when it was actually not possible to not hit the man.

So is this the Big Point you've been ready to unleash all this time? Bit of an anti-climax, I must say.

If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not hit a woman, would you hit her? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.

Therefore you apply precisely the same criteria to hitting a man as to hitting a woman.

Hey! Why not ignore all my previous posts on the matter and just paste in your own words and then claim that it represents my opinion? Way to go!

Quite ridiculous.

 

[Melinda]

*misses Attica*

 

[cesare]

*misses Attica*

 

[editor]

But would you hit a woman if you absolutely had to?

Are, we're back to the fantastic fantasy scenarios again!

Here. Try this: I can think of no likely scenario where I would ever hit a woman. Such a situation has never, ever arisen in all my years on this planet - despite being in quite a few provocative situations - and I can see absolutely no reason why that should change.

However, if a drug-crazed woman wielding an axe on top of the Empire State building was about to cut the cable to which I - and all of my friends - were hanging on for dear life, I would almost certainly consider a violent response if it meant saving the day.

Damn! See what you've done there? You've gone and caught me out now!

 

[teuchter]

So is this the Big Point you've been ready to unleash all this time? Bit of an anti-climax, I must say.
Hey! Why not ignore all my previous posts on the matter and just paste in your own words and then claim that it represents my opinion? Way to go!

Quite ridiculous.

Sorry, but I missed the post where you stated that, in the situation where it was absolutely impossible to not hit a woman, you would nonetheless manage to not hit the woman. Which would be quite clever really.

 

[chico enrico]

I was responding to editor's post, directly above mine, you egocentric moron.

yes. that was clear from the progression of the thread. my point still remains valid. you utter clown.

If you won't back up your statement or back down, I'll just have to assume you're a testosterone-enslaved moron instead.

no. if you care to waste, oh...20 or so minutes of your life trying to find my response to your post you'll see i did answer it. i certainly wouldnt waste anything like that time on you, cos i dont give a fuck

 

[editor]

Sorry, but I missed the post where you stated that, in the situation where it was absolutely impossible to not hit a woman, you would nonetheless manage to not hit the woman. Which would be quite clever really.

Maybe it would be easier if I just gave you my log in and took the day off, rather than you having to state my opinion through the medium of your own posts?

I've absolutely no idea what you're on about with that bizarre gibberish above.

 

[chico enrico]

haha, this has become analagous to that news story about that mountaineer who got his hand trapped under a falling boulder and would have starved to death had he not severed it:

So you would only chop your hand off with a pen knife when there was absolutely no other option. You would only chop your hand off with a pen knife when it was actually not possible to not chop your hand off with a pen knife

If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not chop your hand off with a pen knife would you chop your hand off with a pen knife? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.

apologies for 'changing' quote, but this is simply to illustrate how fucking pathetic, infantile and moronic teuchter's posting was in the first place.

 

[teuchter]

haha, this has become analagous to that news story about that mountaineer who got his hand trapped under a falling boulder and would have starved to death had he not severed it:



apologies for 'changing' quote, but this is simply to illustrate how fucking pathetic, infantile and moronic teuchter's posting was in the first place.

Sorry, but you screwed up. Here is what you should have done:

So you would only chop your left hand off with a pen knife when there was absolutely no other option. You would only chop your left hand off with a pen knife when it was actually not possible to not chop your left hand off with a pen knife.

If you were in a situation where it was not possible to not chop your right hand off with a pen knife, would you chop your right hand off with a pen knife? You don't need to answer that because the answer is clearly yes.

Therefore you apply precisely the same criteria to chopping your left hand off with a pen knife as to chopping your right hand off with a pen knife.

That makes sense, doesn't it?

What you seem to have failed to understand is that the point of that post was to illustrate that the editor's statement that he'd only hit a man if he "absolutely had to" is in effect fairly meaningless, because it fails to establish the criteria that determine what an "absolutely have to" situation is.

Those criteria are what differentiates between the hitting man/hitting woman scenarios and also what differentiates between the chop off left hand / chop off right hand scenarios. It is the difference in these criteria that I am trying to establish and which no-one seems willing to define, let alone offer a rational explanation for the distinction.

I'm sorry if that's all too metaphysical for you though.

 

[teuchter]

Maybe it would be easier if I just gave you my log in and took the day off,

That sounds like fun. Let's do it!

rather than you having to state my opinion through the medium of your own posts?

I'm only trying to fill the void left by your declining to answer my question.

 

[chico enrico]

teuchter. i was a bit charitable earlier on: you're just a dick. now fuck off son.

 

[teuchter]

haha, this has become analagous to that news story about that mountaineer who got his hand trapped under a falling boulder and would have starved to death had he not severed it:



apologies for 'changing' quote, but this is simply to illustrate how fucking pathetic, infantile and moronic teuchter's posting was in the first place.

What you also fail to recognise is that my incompetently altering my quote, you inadvertently imply that hitting a man is exactly the same as hitting a woman, as you have replaced both with the same "analogy".

 

[untethered]

If these young folk want to work off some steam, perhaps they'd be better off debating the finer points of violence towards women on here than irritating innocent park-goers.

 

[cesare]

I love it when a debate progresses to the coloured font stage Can we start a book on who's going to be the first to deploy comic sans?

 

[editor]

What you seem to have failed to understand is that the point of that post was to illustrate that the editor's statement that he'd only hit a man if he "absolutely had to" is in effect fairly meaningless, because it fails to establish the criteria that determine what an "absolutely have to" situation is.

You're like those annoying twerps that bother vegetarians with ridiculous nonsense like:

"Ah, yes, but if you were stuck on a desert island with no hope of rescue and the only food available was roast beef, would you eat it?
Yes?!! Yes?!!!! Then ha ha!
I've proved that you're not a real vegetarian! I've won the argument!!! LOLz!"

 

[cesare]

teuchter. i was a bit charitable earlier on: you're just a dick. now fuck off son.

OMG pk's signed in under chico's log in


*Faynights*

 

[teuchter]

If these young folk want to work off some steam, perhaps they'd be better off debating the finer points of violence towards women on here than irritating innocent park-goers.

Chico already is.

By distracting him on here all afternoon we've probably prevented him from hitting at least three people in the park.

 

[ymu]

What you seem to have failed to understand is that the point of that post was to illustrate that the editor's statement that he'd only hit a man if he "absolutely had to" is in effect fairly meaningless, because it fails to establish the criteria that determine what an "absolutely have to" situation is.

Those criteria are what differentiates between the hitting man/hitting woman scenarios and also what differentiates between the chop off left hand / chop off right hand scenarios. It is the difference in these criteria that I am trying to establish and which no-one seems willing to define, let alone offer a rational explanation for the distinction.

I'm sorry if that's all too metaphysical for you though.

Which brings me back to where I came in on this thread. Those who do feel a greater taboo against hitting women may not, in practice, have a different standard when it comes to hitting men. But if they observed a man hitting a woman, they'd nevertheless get a whole lot more riled up about it than if he'd been hitting a man.

There are two straw men on this thread.

 

[teuchter]

You're like those annoying twerps that bother vegetarians with ridiculous nonsense like:

"Ah, yes, but if you were stuck on a desert island with no hope of rescue and the only food available was roast beef, would you eat it?
Yes?!! Yes?!!!! Then ha ha!
I've proved that you're not a real vegetarian! I've won the argument!!! LOLz!"

If I were a vegetarian presented with that argument I would simply say "yes you have, assuming that your definition of 'real vegetarian' is someone who would eat meat in no circumstances whatsoever". Depending on what my own definition of "real vegetarian" was, I would then continue the discussion accordingly.

I don't think it's comparable with our discussion where you are refusing to provide the critical piece of imformation that would make it meaningful.

 

[chico enrico]

If I were a vegetarian presented with that argument I would simply say "yes you have, assuming that your definition of 'real vegetarian' is someone who would eat meat in no circumstances whatsoever". Depending on what my own definition of "real vegetarian" was, I would then continue the discussion accordingly.

hey, i kinda imagine you to be like a cross between Mr Logic in Viz and that creepy precocious kid with the curly blonde hair and blue velvet suit who was on That's Life in the late 1970s as an 'antiques expert'.

ever find it strange that rooms seem to empty when you walk in?

 

[editor]

If I were a vegetarian presented with that argument I would simply say "yes you have, assuming that your definition of 'real vegetarian' is someone who would eat meat in no circumstances whatsoever". Depending on what my own definition of "real vegetarian" was, I would then continue the discussion accordingly.

LOL. Incredibly, you don't even see how ridiculous you're being.

If the only way you can 'win' an argument is by artificially constructing a scenario so utterly preposterous that it has no basis in reality, it's really not much of a victory at all.

 

[Melinda]

LOL. Incredibly, you don't even see how ridiculous you're being.

If the only way you can 'win' an argument is by artificially constructing a scenario so utterly preposterous that it has no basis in reality, it's really not much of a victory at all.

"One more such victory will undo me!"
© Pyrrhus of Epirus

 

[Chester Copperpot]

I can't believe this thread is still going!

 

[Melinda]

I can't believe this thread is still going!

And not even a need for Attica's convoluted contortions! Or is that contorted convolutions?

 

[quimcunx]

LOL. Incredibly, you don't even see how ridiculous you're being.

If the only way you can 'win' an argument is by artificially constructing a scenario so utterly preposterous that it has no basis in reality, it's really not much of a victory at all.

You really, really find the idea that there exists women on earth of sufficient size, strength or state of anger that you couldn't restrain them, so preposterous?

 

[chico enrico]

You really, really find the idea that there exists women on earth of sufficient size, strength or state of anger that you couldn't restrain them, so preposterous?

Behave!! there's websites for that sort of stuff - and this isn't one of them!

 

[editor]

You really, really find the idea that there exists women on earth of sufficient size, strength or state of anger that you couldn't restrain them, so preposterous?

This thread gets more surreal by the minute.

Where do these ultra-angry "sufficiently sized" and totally unrestrainable women hang out, and how might I end up getting into a violent contretemps with them?

Hang on, I think I know the answer: "in your head."