Filthy McNasty
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I think that your strongest statement was early on............http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tral-london-metro-store-2.html#post1063397809Unfortunately that link does not lead to the questions you keep going on about and you are unwilling to let me know which questions you are referring to. Also, I stand by my asylum comment, mentally ill individuals would be better served there than on the streets.
Private property, but it's an irrelevant detail in my opinion.
I think that your strongest statement was early on............http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tral-london-metro-store-2.html#post1063397809
Unfortunately the idea of a poster who went back and altered his comments to reflect "tone" after complaining about my tone? Lecturing about principals? I'm afraid leaves me tone deaf to your continued posturing about any pretense about principals. After all, private property is an irrelevant detail in your opinion too. No kidding?!? Imagine that.:screwyIn this case, I see a greater principal at work than property rights.
Unfortunately the idea of a poster who went back and altered his comments to reflect "tone" after complaining about my tone? Lecturing about principals? I'm afraid leaves me tone deaf to your continued posturing about any pretense about principals. After all, private property is an irrelevant detail in your opinion too. No kidding?!?
Unfortunately the idea of a poster who went back and altered his comments to reflect "tone" after complaining about my tone? Lecturing about principals? I'm afraid leaves me tone deaf to your continued posturing about any pretense about principals. After all, private property is an irrelevant detail in your opinion too. No kidding?!? Imagine that.:screwy :mrgreen:This has nothing to do with whether or not asylums are a good idea and why or why not.
Unfortunately the idea of a poster who went back and altered his comments to reflect "tone" after complaining about my tone? Lecturing about principals? I'm afraid leaves me tone deaf to your continued posturing about any pretense about principals. After all, private property is an irrelevant detail in your opinion too. No kidding?!? Imagine that.:screwy :mrgreen:
Your response has nothing to do with whether or not asylums are a good idea and why or why not.
Nor does it have anything to do with reasoning why property rights should have a higher regard than some other principal. But yes, in this specific scenario, I don't regard property rights as all that important to discuss as for me this is a case of the greater societal regard for the homeless. You will also not that I affirmed that I agreed with the company's actions to discourage loitering, my concern was with how they did it.
You tend to dodge for days at a time using a series of excuses that are tissue thin at best. You say this is your stream of consciousness? I've no doubt! But I predict no explanation of the batscribe crazy morass of this thread, which you made of it all on your own, will be forthcoming from you. Owing to the exact same "principals" you tried to employ before. What the hell? Prove me wrong.:2wave:I tend to alter my comments after the initial posting and have for years, I tend to be a stream of consciousness type of writer.
I will repost my previous comment as to make my response more clear.
So, do you wish to discuss the topic?
You tend to dodge for days at a time using a series of excuses that are tissue thin at best. You say this is your stream of consciousness? I've no doubt! But I predict no explanation of the batscribe crazy morass of this thread, which you made of it all on your own, will be forthcoming from you. Owing to the exact same "principals" you tried to employ before. What the hell? Prove me wrong.:2wave:
By the way, you know you just busted yourself again right? The "principal" behind your editing your comments after I have responded to them? This would be meaninglessness of course, if you had not postured about "tone" and "principals" in the same thread you went back and altered the "tone" in afterwards? Thus exposing your so called "principals" in a way you'd rather nobody noticed? Like it ain't THAT obvious? Would that help soothe your BS posturing about principals with your editing of your comments after you knew they had been replied to? In a thread where you were ironically appealing to a sensibility you feel unencumbered by yourself?Yes, I stand by my principal that in this scenario property rights are less important than the greater societal implications of these spikes. You have as yet to come up with a single line of reasoning as to why you oppose this.
By the way, you know you just busted yourself again right? The "principal" behind your editing your comments after I have responded to them? This would be meaninglessness of course, if you had not postured about "tone" and "principals" in the same thread you went back and altered the "tone" in afterwards? Thus exposing your so called "principals" in a way you'd rather nobody noticed? Like it ain't THAT obvious? Would that help soothe your BS posturing about principals with your editing of your comments after you knew they had been replied to? In a thread where you were ironically appealing to a sensibility you feel unencumbered by yourself?
Seriously, go ahead and try to explain all of this. Let me guess, your umpteenth dodge?
The best thing to do now is to repeat your self stated inability to perceive that which you have been shown before. And have been re-re-shown before. I made repeated attempts to discuss the actual topic with you and you clearly had no interest in that. Preferring to first foist then later illustrate what "histrionics" actually means. As well as dishonest editing of "tone" later. After you had made the mistake of whining about "tone" . As you concluded days ago, my capacity to spot and call your BS? Does not leave you feeling satisfied much less as if you presented any persuasive debate or argument otherwise. And I get that. I really do. You poor thing. :violinOk, given that I have made repeated attempts to discuss the topic with you and you obviously have no interest in that, preferring to go into histrionics instead. I have to conclude that you do not possess the capacity for discussing actual topics. Please look me up when you gain this ability.
The best thing to do now is to repeat your self stated inability to perceive that which you have been shown before. And have been re-re-shown before. I made repeated attempts to discuss the actual topic with you and you clearly had no interest in that. Preferring to first foist then later illustrate what "histrionics" actually means. As well as dishonest editing of "tone" later. After you had made the mistake of whining about "tone" . As you concluded days ago, my capacity to spot and call your BS? Does not leave you feeling satisfied much less as if you presented any persuasive debate or argument otherwise. And I get that. I really do. You poor thing. :violin
As well you know, my "money" was on the fact, several days ago, that all these days later? For a series of tissue thin excuses you would still be asking me to hold your hand and link you up to post you lacked the intestinal fortitude to address the first and second, sometimes third time? Let me guess, you think I was wrong and you are a real interwebz "winner" somehow? Imagine that. :lamoMy money is on you trying to bring up anything except the actual topic though.
You got meOK you just went right off the rail there. I can only hope you were being facetious, as tacomancer has also delivered equally fatuous stances
I mean sure he spent the last few pages dodging and dodging and dodging. But kill people? I hardly think that level of (I hope) sophistry is necessary to quell what is obviously so farcical.
As well you know, my "money" was on the fact, several days ago, that all these days later? For a series of tissue thin excuses you would still be asking me to hold your hand and link you up to post you lacked the intestinal fortitude to address at the time. Let me guess, you think I was wrong and you are a real interwebz "winner" somehow, at this late point and despite your proud obstinacy and inability to follow the thread? Imagine that. :lamo
Poor thing. You probably (but who knows?) meant you wish you had "bet" for yourself to just dodge dodge dodge for an extended period of time. In which case you would have won! YAY! Then you could have claimed it was for a set of "principals" you cleaved to, rather than the "irrelevant" principals of private property rights. Your words. Of course as you explained before, the right of private property owners is second to a "compassionate environment" for the homeless. As if the homeless are being hunted down and executed in London. :dohI wish I had bet real money.
Poor thing. You probably (but who knows?) meant you wish you had "bet" for yourself to just dodge dodge dodge for an extended period of time. In which case you would have won! YAY! Then you could have claimed it was for a set of "principals" you cleaved to, rather than the "irrelevant" principals of private property rights. Your words. Of course as you explained before, the right of private property owners is second to a "compassionate environment". :doh
Moderator's Warning: |
Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro store after activists threaten days of protests over measure
Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro store after activists threaten days of protests over measure - Home News - UK - The Independent
Two thoughts
1. Tesco screwed up, they should have put a planter or a nice display there to make it both visually attractive (thus increasing their store value) and achieving their goal.
2. Good, until society can figure out how to better deal with the homeless issue, putting obstacles that may result in injury in the way is barbaric. I hope protests continue until spikes are gone from all locations.
So you would like to discuss the topic then? The last point was whether property rights should be prevalent over societal concerns, you have yet to make a counter point.
My money is on you trying to bring up anything except the actual topic though.
Points of debate brought up on this thread (because the topic is interesting and I want to try to get it back on track)
How strong should property rights be in a case like this? Especially versus societal treatment of the homeless.
Was it a good idea to close down the asylums in the 80s and should we bring them back?
Stuff brought up by the OP (will I will quote for convenience)
Please expand on your idea that societal concerns outweigh property rights. How far would you take that?
Is it OK for somebody to take something because they need it?
Property rights should not change depending onthe situation.
A business needs to créate a safe place for its customers to enter its doors.
If homeless people are sleeping right in front of the door, they will lose business.
That may be OK for you, but not for the business owner.
Again I will ask how far will you take your idea to take away peoples property rights?
For me its a situational thing. The original question posed to me was basically asking whether a person should be able to do whatever he wants since its their property. My view is that while I don't see an issue with discouraging loitering or vagrants, the cover of property rights isn't so absolute as to be able to ignore the greater social morality of using what amount to basically animal traps. Doing so contributes to changes in culture where such a thing is permissible and makes going one step further that much smaller a leap. The harm this causes, in my mind, is more important than some small compromise a property owner would be required to make.
You have a very odd view of reality.
Property right only extend until somebody else wants to take them away. That is odd.
How do you compare 1 inch spikes to an animal trap? Are you saying homeless people aren't capable of rational thought? You think they will see that and get trapped by the spikes?
These spikes cause no harm, they are a deterrent, not a punishment.
it be better if the business closes so the building could be taken over by the homeless? Is that your ultimate goal here with your opinion that property right only exist up until somebody wants to take them from you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?