Russia v Greenpeace

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not manufacturing a fight, nor do i have any interest in making you look stupid. I asked if you think it's ok for greenpeace to break the law, you answered yes. I asked for you to define "to what extent" and you did a cop-out "whatever the courts decide", which goes against your initial statement. Courts do not condone criminal activity.

Edit: And facepalm me all you like old.Tohtori. But what exactly do you want me to say?

I asked it clearly 4 times; how far do you think, as a person, personal opinion, criminal activity can go since you accept criminal activity as a tool.

It's just a question, no need to be so paranoid

 

[Scouse]

I asked it clearly 4 times; how far do you think, as a person, personal opinion, criminal activity can go since you accept criminal activity as a tool.

"How far?"
"As far as is reasonable based on that specific set of circumstances"
"No, Scouse, how far?"
"That depends on the circumstances, Toht. The courts decide that, and I think that's right."
"No, Scouse, how far, exactly?"
"Toht. I see what you're getting at - but the question is unanswerable in as far as it depends on unknown circumstances. Capiche?"
"NO, Scouse, how far, exactly?"

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Kh3ayh1LA

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's quite itneresting how you see your own posts since none of them say what you claim

And you also ignore what is stated several times that you can't support the courts and support criminal activity at the same time.

It's a copout statement that has no basis in reason or reality, but if that's how your imagination works, who am i to deny your delusion.

 

[Scouse]

you can't support the courts and support criminal activity at the same time

Why not? That's how it works.

I support the criminal activity of the Member of Parliament who broke the law like this. I also think it'll come out fine from the court system at the other end.

What's the fucking problem with that?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Because you're saying "It's ok to break the law if the law says it's ok in the end.", making you basically a "laws a law" guy

 

[Scouse]

I figured something out m8.

My girlfriend is much more logical than you.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No no, it's fine to think that the law is the law in the end. Don't get me wrong here, though this guy might disagree;

are the long-discredited arguments of simpletons.

I hope you're not too offended by that, but I can't help it if you are. It's the truth.

 

[Scouse]

OK. I'll bite.

you're saying - It's ok to break the law if the law says it's ok in the end

The LAW never says "it's ok" in the end. The law says its bad. Period.

The courts can say - OK, you've broken the law, but it was proportionate. That's OK. You're free to go. No harm done (apart from breaking the law).

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you only support someone breaking the law if the courts say it was ok? Simple yes or no.

 

[Scouse]

No. Of course.

But I'm done with this. You've nothing to offer in this "discussion".

 

[TdC]

you two argue all day and party all night...right? gwaaaan you can tell uncle teeds

 

[Scouse]

you two argue all day and party all night...right? gwaaaan you can tell uncle teeds

Just providing something to go with your popcorn m8.

Sorry the film's shit

 

[Bodhi]

I think the fact the one of Greenpeaces founding fathers wants nothing to do with them any more tells you all you need to know about the current crowd. Logic and reason left them a long time ago, now all they are interested in is sticking it to the Man. Just look at the vast number of crusties they dragged to the battle of Balcome, even though the residents couldn't give a shit.

Greenpeace in their original form, no problem. Current bunch of professional protesters, they can fuck off. Illegally board an oil platform anywhere, you're being a bit dim. Do it in Russia, well you deserve everything you get.

 

[old.Tohtori]

you two argue all day and party all night...right? gwaaaan you can tell uncle teeds

Well to be fair, you asked for it

You know, give people what they want.

 

[Scouse]

Grassroots activism in 40 countries...

 

[rynnor]

Grassroots activism in 40 countries...

Coupla hundred people if that in a country of 60 million shows the level of disinterest despite massive media exposure.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Take out friends and family of those people and it's even less.

Don't know if it says more about the disinterest of people, or the size of the effort.

 

[rynnor]

Take out friends and family of those people and it's even less.

Don't know if it says more about the disinterest of people, or the size of the effort.

Well yes - over here we have 4 people so 4 sets of families and friends - they managed to get a couple of struggling C list celebs to turn up too though they weren't exactly fluent over the issue

Nobody gives a shit tbh.

 

[Raven]

People give a shit as far as "Liking" something on Facebook...that's about as far as it goes.

But it raises awareness!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Shame that awareness applies to lolcats, babies eating lemons and penis pictures in the same quantity.

 

[old.Tohtori]

True old.Osy , it's not really a shame

 

[soze]

Fixed

The public weren't behind attacking Syria. The MP's remembered the fallout and loss of trust when they ignored public opinion on Iraq and know that the public's opinion has been vindicated.

This informed and influenced their position on Syria.

There is no way to know that though is there? As you said yourself the government are more than happy to ignore the people and invade at will. Saying they did not invade Syria because of public opinion is just an assumption. An equally likely one is they did not want to piss Russia off and increase the price we pay for Gas?

 

[Scouse]

Saying they did not invade Syria because of public opinion is just an assumption

I said it's part of the mix of reasons. I daresay not wanting to piss Russia off was another.