JFKvsNixon Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 If you really don't understand Halibut's signature, then you really do need to read up on the quote, before you post about it again. In truth, you are making yourself look a bit silly on this issue. As for the rest of your claims, can you substantiate them properly please. To be fair, sillier is probably the better word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Unsurprisingly, yes. It's a total pile of cack which you just made up. If of course there's any truth in it you will be easily able to substantiate it by referring to previous posts of mine, but since there isn't, anyone with an ounce of wit will easily see that you're just inventing nonsense about me for your own rather sad purposes. No, it's not a pile of cack. You invariably stand up for the ‘rights’ of the worst terrorists and murderers. For some reason, you think they should be afforded the same human rights as good, well-intentioned, law-abiding people. Every time a thread like this calls for harsh justice on people who've committed the most heinous of crimes, I just think to myself – ‘brace yourself for nauseous input top this thread, in a moment Halibut will be along telling us the criminal is a human being and must be treated accordingly’ - quite clearly sticking up for and defending the rights of these sub-humans. You do it every time - you're a sympathiser for terrorists, murderers and paedophiles - why deny it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 For some reason, you think they should be afforded the same human rights as good, well-intentioned, law-abiding people. That is the nature of human rights. It's literally all or nothing. Either all humans have certain rights or no humans have certain rights. quite clearly sticking up for and defending the rights of these sub-humans. I'd defend the rights of sub-human scum. I don't think sub-human scum should be hurt or harmed in the name of punishment or justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsar Chasm Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Woody actually, but irrespective of who initiated it ,it still seems to advocate the killing of a political follower of a organised group yet the poster seems to be defending Hookys rights even though he backs the actions of a more extremist organisation. Memory fails me at crucial times I find myself latching on to quotes and bands without background knowledge of meaning or political standing. 'This machine kills fascists' is snappy and means nothing to quote it or use it in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 'This Machine Kills Facists' still seems to advocate the killing of a political follower of a organised group No it doesn't. You've made a logical leap - a non-sequitur. 'This Machine Kills Facists' means that a machine exists (and this is it) and it kills facists. 'The person saying "This Machine Kills Facists" advocates the killings of facists' is a very different thing. Plus, I'd also like to add, there is a certain symbolism on putting the slogan on something that is neither a machine nor is capable of killing - such as a guitar. That differs greatly to putting the slogan on the side of a gun, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 I first saw it on a Billy Bragg guitar. It intrigued me. I'm glad about that, because it introduced me to Woody's music. The Bay City Rollers were great, weren't they:D Bizarrely, I saw them once at Mallory Park racing circuit in 1975 - they were on the island in the lake and dozens of teenage fans tried to swim out to get to them...the Rollers were evacuated from the site by helicopters and boats were sent out to pull the tartan bedecked and bedraggled teens out of the water. Shang - a - lang? Not 'alf, pop - pickers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 For some reason, you think they should be afforded the same human rights as good, well-intentioned, law-abiding people. Of course. That's how it works. For human rights to be meaningful they have to be applied to everyone. You do it every time - you're a sympathiser for terrorists, murderers and paedophiles - why deny it? You're being disingenuous and I think you probably know that really. The error in your thinking is assuming that because I believe such people should be dealt with humanely and within the law, that I actually think murder, terrorism and paedophilia are good things. This is of course a false assumption and you know that. I can't really blame you for being so reactionary and provocative ( I think it's in your nature ) but it does get a little tedious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 That is the nature of human rights. It's literally all or nothing. Either all humans have certain rights or no humans have certain rights. I'd defend the rights of sub-human scum. I don't think sub-human scum should be hurt or harmed in the name of punishment or justice. This is the concept that the frothers really don't seem to understand, about not stooping to return evil because you have received evil, that you cannot act in an inhumane way or else it just reduces you to the level of the scum that you are retaliating against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 This is the concept that the frothers really don't seem to understand, about not stooping to return evil because you have received evil, that you cannot act in an inhumane way or else it just reduces you to the level of the scum that you are retaliating against. But the frothers who only come out to defend these who (attempt to) snub human rights in massive ways never come out to defend non Muslim extremists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 But the frothers who only come out to defend these who (attempt to) snub human rights in massive ways never come out to defend non Muslim extremists! Like who for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.