Question Eksdee, your input is wanted

[DaGaffer]

If the source posts were mature themselves, that might actually carry some weight. There's been rather a lot of vicious posting from Eksdee leading to a response which cannot be unexpected except to the most willfully stupid. This is no underdog. This is someone who has sought to deliberately inflame the FH community.

Load of rubbish. Wasn't even a particularly serious troll by the usual internet standards. I wasn't "inflamed" by anything.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This is someone who has sought to deliberately inflame the FH community.

If that's true, it's not even particulary well done

7/10 perhaps, but too aggressive i feel, with little if any backpeddling and opinion changing. Not to mention no claims of community vs you.

 

[TdC]

Baffling that making a reasonable argument, when the 'opposition' to the argument are largely satisfied with their solution being 'SHOOT 'EM ALL OR LOCK 'EM UP' or similar, is villified.

Tbh I didn't see you make reasonable argument anywhere. You simply took a stance where you disagree with the more harsh comments, yet deliver no ideas of your own other than the vague statement that you are aware it won't cleared up with hugs and handshakes.

While I admire you for daring to take the counter point, surely you are aware that for some of the more virulent people in the other thread this shit is striking way to close to home both figuratively and literally. I guess that when it comes that close, you have to be particularly open minded to allow a protester to set fire to your shop/car/whatever without wishing a particularly violent end on said protester. Sadly, this is not a protest: this is organized looting and vandalism on a grand scale. Some of the people in the other thread have work, friends, property, etc that they still want to be there tomorrow. On a wider scale, it costs perhaps 50 pence to set fire to a 100 year old shop that employs 10 people. How much does it cost to replace things after the shop has burnt to the ground? What do you think the insurance scumbags will do (btw, I do hope you aren't against my applying the term scum to insurance companies, cos I'm not going to view that one in the bigger picture my friend) to with the payouts and premiums of the people involved? It's going to take government intervention to force them to pay I think, because I'm quite certain that, for example, your average car insurance doesn't cover being set on fire by looters. The UK's, and on a smaller note the London council budget is fucked enough as it is without a bunch of people screwing it up further.

A long time ago I was witness to what I would label over the top police aggression, where a police car was driven at speed through a large group of after night-out revellers. Someone had taken the piss and instead of getting out and giving the idiot a swift kicking the officers concluded that driving their car through the group with wildly revving engine would be a better idea. What happened next was that most of the people in the street grabbed everything they could get their hands on, and attacked a shop across the road, breaking several windows and making off with books, because instead of it being a handy shop filled with xbrick games, it was a book store. At least they were potentially trying to better themselves through literature I guess. Anyway, my point is that the event of the evening that I found most shocking is twofold: 1) why did the drunken idiot jump on to the police car and freak them out, instead of leaving them alone like everyone else was doing? Is this really Darwin in action, or simply some retard trying to look big? 2) the very instant the police did something stupid, the crowd of people took it out on the nearest public property, busted stuff up and stole shit.

For me, the latter of the two is most shocking, because to me it means that under a thin crust of civilisation the majority of us humans are rather violent creatures who will do anything they feel like when they think it's justified, and/or they think they can get away with it. Not to mention a bunch of copy cat retards taking to the streets. I wonder if any one of those people will have the stones to come forward and say "I set fire to that shop and stole a bunch of shit"? What does it say about humans when they're fearless when unchecked, and have instant small cock syndrome when the face of the law looms near? Someone here said that human rights, and I'll stick human dignity and human freedom on that as well, is simply a concept that holds until someone decides to smack someone else in the head with a brick. It makes me extremely sad to think such thoughts, and I am always grateful when I see a human rise above themselves and not give in to the easy triggers.

 

[eksdee]

Why do I need to offer a solution as substance to counter-point? The point is that the 'solutions' offered by many people that I disagreed with in that thread are far more dangerous than having no immediate response at all - as I said, violence and fear breeds violence and fear.

And please don't be so quick to assume this doesn't 'cut close to home'. Due to my current job I don't live in London, but my partner does and she lives in one of the majorly affected areas. She's just been sent home from work in fact as they want to ensure she gets home safe. 90% of my close friends live in London, as well as all of my partner's family. Usually I don't like to discuss my personal life in detail on a forum, but I use this only to make that point. That doesn't stop me being able to be objective however, and that's all I have been asking for. I don't feel I have been unduly harsh or inflamatory, yes I have been somewhat so but mainly out of frustration in response to being misinterpreted over and over by the same people.

I don't in any way support the riots, making that assumption is just silly. Having a whole thread to 'call out' one person who presented a different opinion to some people in what I feel was a much more reasonable way than the counter-arguments I faced is even sillier.

 

[Embattle]

Pot calling kettle black.

The thread was actually about the fact you claimed you answered it when in fact you didn't.

 

[eksdee]

Pot calling kettle black.

The thread was actually about the fact you claimed you answered it when in fact you didn't.

I did, megadave even quoted it this morning in the thread. If one person found it why was it so hard for everyone else?

And what exactly do you mean by pot calling kettle black? I think you're confused.

 

[Embattle]

I did, megadave even quoted it this morning in the thread. If one person found it why was it so hard for everyone else?

And what exactly do you mean by pot calling kettle black? I think you're confused.

Seemed hard enough for you to find since you actually couldn't and at best it seems somewhat of a partial answer at best.

Well you seem to talk about everyone making assumptions about you while making enough about others, hence pot calling kettle black.

 

[eksdee]

My reason for being flippant was I felt I gave the question what it deserved - an answer, nothing more. It wasn't a question I felt deserved much consideration or thought as the answer was obvious. Happy?

I don't feel I made any undue assumptions, and I'm much more annoyed about being misinterpreted by people either too lazy or too stupid to consider my points. Big difference there. The fact of the matter is the majority of people just got angry and spat vitriol, which is hardly going to lead to any kind of proper debate. But so be it, it just backs up my belief that most of the hatred towards the rioters is just as misguided as the rioting itself.

 

[Embattle]

You got misinterpreted by others because of the way you generally didn't back up your love in seasons with any real bite about dealing with the initial problem in your early posts, at least that is how it seemed. Instead you tended to want to call all those who were get somewhat frustrated by the lack of any action DM readers.

 

[TdC]

Why do I need to offer a solution as substance to counter-point? The point is that the 'solutions' offered by many people that I disagreed with in that thread are far more dangerous than having no immediate response at all - as I said, violence and fear breeds violence and fear.

you don't, but that which I was trying to get across in my long worded post is that it is natural for people to desire a solution. you argue against the proposal of "send in the Ghurka's", but are hesitant to state what you would rather see happen. that's a manner of arguing which is almost perfectly geared to frustrate the hell out of a lot of people. hence the rather harsh response, against which you state that everyone who stands by their guns is a blinkered daily mail reader (I paraphrase). And that is what brought me out of the wood work you see.

And please don't be so quick to assume this doesn't 'cut close to home'. Due to my current job I don't live in London, but my partner does and she lives in one of the majorly affected areas. She's just been sent home from work in fact as they want to ensure she gets home safe. 90% of my close friends live in London, as well as all of my partner's family. Usually I don't like to discuss my personal life in detail on a forum, but I use this only to make that point. That doesn't stop me being able to be objective however, and that's all I have been asking for. I don't feel I have been unduly harsh or inflamatory, yes I have been somewhat so but mainly out of frustration in response to being misinterpreted over and over by the same people.

I'm not assuming anything on your behalf, I am assuming things on behalf of people I know who live in the London area. As to your other point, I must say I do not feel you're being particularly objective at all: you're frustrated that the other people do not understand your point, however you have given them nothing to work with. Yes, there are several people here who would like nothing more than to have the army in to enforce calm, and yes, there are several other people here who realise that there are deeper issues which need to be addressed in order to resolve the long term situation, and some of those groups of people overlap. By arguing in the manner you did, you almost perfectly scored a hit on the let's all hate Eksdee button, which is fine with me either way tbh, but that also means that I don't understand why you're frustrated (wow, reading that is like reading Tohtori 0o (no offence, Toh )

I don't in any way support the riots, making that assumption is just silly. Having a whole thread to 'call out' one person who presented a different opinion to some people in what I feel was a much more reasonable way than the counter-arguments I faced is even sillier.

What I read was this: you objected to the rioters being called scum, and you objected to blindly calling the army in to pacify (nasty word btw) the situation. you argued in such a manner as to frustrate the group of people you addressed, who were mostly in agreement but held a different opinion than your own. Several people responded with a higher or lower level of intelligence in their posts.

Tbh I think that's fine. I'm all for lively discussion, and you mentioned yourself several times that this is a public forum. What I dislike is the rampant generalisation eg you calling them a bunch of Daily Mail zealots, and them labelling you a Guardian leftist etc, and the frustration to the point of actual anger from several people, and I believe this includes yourself due to the arguments being oblique.

Please note I am not taking sides (so I hope); I simply want the discussion to progress without people tearing each other's heads off or people getting banned.

 

[eksdee]

All good points. The only thing I disagree on is the apparent need to offer a solution, I stated many times that I didn't feel I could, but you're still missing the point I made that I was more concerned that rampant, angry vitriol is far more dangerous than no solution at this point.

As for calling people 'Daily Mail zealots', I can't defend my own hypocrisy in doing that. Frustration, no less. Which I hope is somewhat understandable when being hounded by multiple people at the same time and, I feel strongly, having my arguments completely wash over most of them due to ignorance, stupidity, laziness or a combination of all three.

 

[TdC]

All good points. The only thing I disagree on is the apparent need to offer a solution, I stated many times that I didn't feel I could, but you're still missing the point I made that I was more concerned that rampant, angry vitriol is far more dangerous than no solution at this point.

As for calling people 'Daily Mail zealots', I can't defend my own hypocrisy in doing that. Frustration, no less. Which I hope is somewhat understandable when being hounded by multiple people at the same time and, I feel strongly, having my arguments completely wash over most of them due to ignorance, stupidity, laziness or a combination of all three.

tbh I feel it's a very human thing to balance the argument, ie "don't do this, do that". I never studied debating tech to the point where I would be able to answer you properly. I just noticed the apparent effect of the argument, and the subsequent verbal spewage.

I note your concern for the group mentality, and please be aware I certainly am not telling you, as in you specifically, off or anything. I think the frustration on all sides is a product of the point of debate being oblique, and getting more so as points get refined more and more.

fwiw I find it quite laudable that you stuck to your guns against a large group of people loudly supporting a different opinion than your own.

 

[Bahumat]

lots of text

random quote

more text.

What's the capital of Guyana?

 

[Shagrat]

Georgetown.

oo oo what have i won

 

[Bahumat]

Georgetown.

oo oo what have i won

A banana hammock!

 

[Everz]

Eks was always a cunt <3.

 

[eksdee]

I resent that.