News i see the grave robbers are at it again

[Turamber]

There are no bodies on display, just a few belongings that survived the sinking and 100 years in the water. You can look at my socks now if you like, I won't be terribly upset though if you wish to wait until I've been dead a hundred years to look at them.

 

[Gumbo]

I just thought that having a relative would have been mentioned in the first post, as it gives some justification for the indignation.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm hoping by the way that all the people who are saying that it doesn't matter if there's a relative down there, wouldn't mind if i took a piss on some ww2 grave. Afterall, it's just bones down there and the piss ain't gonna seep through

 

[Gumbo]

I'm hoping by the way that all the people who are saying that it doesn't matter if there's a relative down there, wouldn't mind if i took a piss on some ww2 grave. Afterall, it's just bones down there and the piss ain't gonna seep through

I don't find someone looking at Titanic relics distasteful, however I would find someone pissing on them distasteful. The same would go for a ww2 grave.

I do, however, find you distasteful most of the time, and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
:kissit:

 

[Mabs]

I don't find someone looking at Titanic relics distasteful, however I would find someone pissing on them distasteful. The same would go for a ww2 grave.

I do, however, find you distasteful most of the time, and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
:kissit:

while i wouldnt use tohts phraseology, i would agree with the sentiment, which is you either respect the dead, or you dont, there is no "but" "if" etc

 

[Gumbo]

So no diving should be allowed on any wrecks where someone has died, and nothing should ever be salvaged from the seabed if someone has died in the vicinity?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't find someone looking at Titanic relics distasteful, however I would find someone pissing on them distasteful. The same would go for a ww2 grave.

I do, however, find you distasteful most of the time, and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
:kissit:

You see there's the point right there, it's like telling someone they're wrong if they like oranges.

It's all the same i see all the time, people judging one thing and then going on a rampage about almost identical things, because THEY are right ofcourse

 

[Wazzerphuk]

So by getting the underground every day I'm disrespecting those that died in 7/7, and during many other incidents of 'on the tracks'?

Still waiting for a decent resonse to the utter bullshit of disaster porn fans.

The actions undertaken by the people who have set this up are not disrespectful. Some people may choose to view it as disrespectful, that is their right (although I believe they're wrong). Some might not. This is fine. What's not fine is to suggest that the reasons these are going on display are to arouse sexual deviants and that the actions are akin to shitting in someone's mouth, or pissing on their dead body.

If some hadn't taken such a ludicrous and groundless viewpoint, maybe your opinions wouldn't have been mocked in the way that they have. If you kick up a fuss and act like a toddler people will probably notice and tell you you're being a bit of a plank.

 

[Gumbo]

You see there's the point right there, it's like telling someone they're wrong if they like oranges.

No, it's a consensus of civility. Ask a random sampling of 100 people in the street, and do you think the majority would think it acceptable to piss on a ww2 grave?

Then ask the same 100 if they think that it is distasteful to put Titanic relics on display.

I have no doubt that some will find them both distasteful. However, I also have no doubt that whilst the vast vast majority would find urination on monuments to be unacceptable, I think the majority would find the display of titanic relics acceptable, or at least there would be a more even balance of views.

 

[rynnor]

Still waiting for a decent resonse to the utter bullshit of disaster porn fans.

I used the term 'disaster porn' - what I meant by it is that theres a ghoulish fascination in a large chunk of the population for things/places/stories where either large numbers of people died or people were murdered by some nutjob.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, it's a consensus of civility. Ask a random sampling of 100 people in the street, and do you think the majority would think it acceptable to piss on a ww2 grave?

Then ask the same 100 if they think that it is distasteful to put Titanic relics on display.

I have no doubt that some will find them both distasteful. However, I also have no doubt that whilst the vast vast majority would find urination on monuments to be unacceptable, I think the majority would find the display of titanic relics acceptable, or at least there would be a more even balance of views.

It's not about putting things on display though, it's about the rummaging to begin with.

And also pissing on a grave is no different from pissing on grass, if you're going with the whole "they're not rummaging through bodies" point of view.

 

[Gumbo]

h.

And also pissing on a grave is no different from pissing on grass, if you're going with the whole "they're not rummaging through bodies" point of view.

Seriously? I can see why people become exasperated with you.

From your point of view, archeology is bad then? Are there circumstances under which archeology is acceptable to you? Or are you doing your usual trick of arguing for arguments sake?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Seriously? I can see why people become exasperated with you.

From your point of view, archeology is bad then? Are there circumstances under which archeology is acceptable to you? Or are you doing your usual trick of arguing for arguments sake?

Oh gee, here come the usual bla di blaas.

Did you even read the part where i said "I'm not saying that i'm against it"? didn't think so.

All i've been saying is that it's no different.

Digging up a 1000 year old corpse from an egyptian tomb, is still, end of day, digging up a corpse and if you think that some special cases make it acceptable to dig through bodies, then it's the same as pissing on grass, it's just grass.

YOU may find it distasteful because you hold a view that there's something special in that patch of grass because it covers a body, but if i told you that you're being ridicilous, i'd be doing the same as people are doing on this thread; calling op ridicilous. And you wouldn't agree with me cvalling you ridicilous, because YOU hold the viewpoint of distaste.

You're getting worked up on even mentioing pissing on a grave

Note, since you're probably already thinking this in your narrow blame mind; i don't think pissing on a grave is ok.

 

[Gumbo]

So, arguing for arguments sake then. Trying to point out hypocrisy where none exists. You're beyond hope. It'd be great if you could, you know, just stay out of the threads where you don't have an opinion, instead of diving into them to argue semantics or hypotheticals, there's a good lad.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So, arguing for arguments sake then. Trying to point out hypocrisy where none exists. You're beyond hope. It'd be great if you could, you know, just stay out of the threads where you don't have an opinion, instead of diving into them to argue semantics or hypotheticals, there's a good lad.

It's not arguing just for arguings sake, but since you decided to go with that old thing, good night. Useless member of the "fingers in ears lala" family i see.

Learn to read, answer and discuss, then come back mister nappypants.

I have an opinion, i've stated it also, i've also reasoned it and offered varying POVs on it. You on the other hand have done...oh...nothing. Oh no wait, your only answer to my opinion was "omg you is so stupid" and a nonrelated question. Go figure.

 

[Gumbo]

OK, I'm going to cherry pick a post from earlier on.

I'm not saying that i'm against it, just that it's no different from opening a grave and rummaging there. If you fiddle with dead bodies, you fiddle with dead bodies.

Concistency is the keyword here.

Right, so you're not necessarily against it, however you seem entirely afraid to state your actual viewpoint on this topic and instead just want to pick holes in others? Ok, every class has to have a special kid, I guess you're just the one we're blessed with.

You seem keen on the consistency aspect, so in the spirit of emulating your staggering levels of idiocy, I'll bite.

In your opinion, and please, a straight answer, is it ever OK to learn about history by investigating locations where people may have died?

I'll jump ahead into your weird world of absolutes and suggest that because of your insistence on consistency, this is a simple yes or no question for you to answer.

It's weird because the rest of us tend not to deal in such absolutes. We allow our education, our experience, our ethics and our reason to influence what we find acceptable. The rest of us differ in our opinions because we have different educations, different experiences to call on, different ethics and then pull that altogether and use the sum of it all to come up with reasoned opinions on matters.

It is entirely possible to find the robbing of a fresh grave unacceptable, and yet the display of historic artifacts from a 100 year old shipwreck acceptable without being inconsistent, because my education, experience, ethics and reason allow me to do so. For another, with a different background, it is possible for them to find both unacceptable.

I can respect both views, as I think both are reasonable. I can't respect someone who wishes to argue the language, but not the point. Who is afraid to stand behind their opinion, or even to reveal it, and yet wishes to wade chest deep into an argument.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well how to put it gently so you understand it; go f*ck a goose.

You ignore everything i've said, only to ask some random question, because you're unable to discuss anything outside your happy place. As such, i'm not going to entertain your requests. Especially since you're psychoanalysing is so far fetched that it had to be brought by a three dog marathon.

Oh and while i'm at it; don't tell me to fix your problem for you. If you have a problem with what i say, but are unable(evidently) to discuss it beyond your safe little circle, then don't reply.

And one mroe thing; there never aws a comparison with displaying items and robbing graves, don't make sh*t up.

Here's something for you to read, many times, and understand;

I don't need to have an opinion on grave digging/robbing/etc to state an opinion on similarities. It's neither here nor there, so your only problem is that you're trying to discuss the yes/no aspect of the thread and using it to argue an entirely different POV.

 

[Gumbo]

I'll try again.

In your opinion, and please, a straight answer, is it ever OK to learn about history by investigating locations where people may have died?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'll try again.

In your opinion, and please, a straight answer, is it ever OK to learn about history by investigating locations where people may have died?

Can't read still it seems.

The relevance of that question is nill, because i didn't state an opinion on it, yet you argued the point i put forward.

If yuo're going to argue someones point, try sticking to it and not bring in something else.

 

[Gumbo]

What am I supposed to be reading?

 

[Gumbo]

Ah right a crafty edit, I should know better hang on, I'll read it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nothing crafty about it, you press edit and edit.

If i hae a point to add, i press edit and not new post for every line.

 

[Gumbo]

Here's something for you to read, many times, and understand;

I don't need to have an opinion on grave digging/robbing/etc to state an opinion on similarities. It's neither here nor there, so your only problem is that you're trying to discuss the yes/no aspect of the thread and using it to argue an entirely different POV.

Nope, I'm taking up your point on consistency, and arguing that this is not an area where you can have such absolutes. I think, although others will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm also enjoying making you look like an idiot on what is otherwise a fairly boring Thursday night.

Am I wrong in suggesting that if you believe your own pronouncement that consistency is key when dealing with the dead, that you must therefore have a view that you are unable or unwilling to reveal and defend?

If we are dealing with consistency, then we are also dealing with absolutes. Therefore, you must have one of two views when considering the dead. All is fair game, robbing new graves, plundering wrecks whatever. Or you hold the opposing view that all dead should be left alone, forever, no matter what.

Both, to me, seem incomprehensible, but I have no doubt that there are some people in the world who hold them, and you might be one of them.

If, however, you don't personally hold either of these views, then we can safely say that you made the point about consistency, not because you were suggesting that you believed it, but in an attempt to stoke the argument.

That is your right, this is the internet after all and it's founded on people spouting bollocks to amuse themselves whether they believe in it or not.

It's just a lot easier to take people, and what they say, seriously when you think that they are speaking from a point of view that they hold, and not simply looking for a way to stoke an argument.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Easy to debunk all your babble with one line;

Consistency does not equal absolutes.

Try again.

Also i don't need to have an opinion on the matter to support consistency.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And also; if you claim you try to make me look like an idiot, it makes you sound like an idiot. Poor excuse to start an argument.

I also stand behind everything i say and haven't lied on a single aspect in my life, neither on internet or real life.

 

[Gumbo]

Right, so you've done yourself up then.

If consistency does not equal absolutes, in the case that we're dealing with here, then how is consistency relevant to the argument at all?

What consistency are you referring to?

You said

I'm not saying that i'm against it, just that it's no different from opening a grave and rummaging there. If you fiddle with dead bodies, you fiddle with dead bodies.

Concistency is the keyword here.

That is surely an absolute? It's dead or it's not, the circumstances are irrelevant. I'm only asking you to defend one point that you have made.

You seem to delight in sparking an argument, but quickly find yourself out of your depth when someone makes a reasoned counterpoint, or calls you on something that you have posted.

In debate, you are allowed to concede a point. You can put your hands up and say, on reflection, I was wrong.

In this instance, without you coming up with a credible reason for your insistence that 'consistency is the keyword', when dealing with the dead, you surely have to concede?

By the way, I am thinking of keeping some chickens in my backgarden here, would it be ok to fuck one of them, as I don't think we've really got the room for Geese?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not even bothering with reading what you dribble on about, since A; you're doing it out of spite and B; you're working under the cover of ye old "toht is x" and assume that no matter what is said, people will ofcourse point the finger at me.

It's pointless.

If you want to ask something about what i posted, then do so clearly and with relevance. How i feel about graverobbing is not relevant to what i said.

FYI, even if you failed to ask this, i'll answer it;

Rummaging through a dead body is the same, no matter the place.

Thought it was clear, but evidently not.

It doesn't matter one iota how i feel abuot it, it doesn't mean riding the tube is the same, it doesn't mean it's the same as watching relics. It's what's on the tin, dead body, rummaging.

 

[Gumbo]

Rummaging through a dead body is the same, no matter the place.

Thought it was clear, but evidently not.

Is the same as in a bad thing? Or is the same as in an acceptable thing?

PS, still waiting on the Chicken/Goose thing, might have to redesign the pen see?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Is the same as in a bad thing? Or is the same as in an acceptable thing?

Doesn't matter, as i've said plenty of times.

It's consistent, dead body and rummaging, same thing, no matter the place. Only point i made, only point you missed completely and started aaaaall this, just to disprove something that wasn't said.

 

[Gumbo]

Yes, we've established you think it's the same. I'm curious as to how you can have that view though.

Unless it's nihilistic and you are consistent in your view that you don't care one way or the other, which would be odd, but not impossible. It would make it strange that despite your nihilism on the subject, you felt it necessary to raise it in this thread.

Also, did you have a particular breed of Goose in mind, is one more accommodating than another to a gentleman's advances? I've heard they can be aggressive, should I try to surprise them when they're sleeping?