• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

UK Nanny State | Oi guv, that there's an assault spoon, innit?

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
380
278
305
I quoted your claim in a post you then quoted yourself.

You don't read.


I have no reason to explain myself for something that I didn't do.

This is you attempting to steamroll onward, assuming superiority, whilst you have yet to provide the necessary information.

Now, if you actually read, you'd see that I already point this out a few posts back.

You don't read.
Well why would you respond to a post that ascribes Londonistan to a pejoratively described group, if not to defend its usage?
 
Dec 15, 2011
5,453
12,695
1,010
Well why would you respond to a post that ascribes Londonistan to a pejoratively described group, if not to defend its usage?
OK.
So you still haven't shown me doing what you're claiming.
You first tried misrepresentation.
Then, when challenged, you ignored what was required and doubled-down on misrepresentation.
Then, you claim ignorance as to even knowing what your claim was.
Now you've magically re-learned what you feigned ignorance of in your prior post..
..and you're trying to deflect and do the "You have to prove you didn't do this thing that I claim you did" gambit.

No I don't.
And anyone that falls for this gambit is being manipulated into talking as if they did the unproven thing - playing into the fallacy the accuser has set up - and providing credence to the unproven claim by discussing it as though it were credible.

You made the claim. You need to provide the substance.
You claim I did something. You are required to show what I did, verbatim.

Allow me to be 100% transparent with you funkygunther funkygunther
You and I both know you can't do this.
I am simply providing enough rope for you to hang yourself with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
380
278
305
OK.
So you still haven't shown me what you're claiming.
You first tried misrepresentation.
Then, when challenged, you ignored what was required and doubled-down on misrepresentation.
Then, you claim ignorance as to even knowing what your claim was.
Now you've magically re-learned what you feigned ignorance of in your prior post..
..and you're trying to deflect and do the "You have to prove you didn't do this thing that I claim you did".

No I don't.
You made the claim. You need to provide the substance.
You claim I did something. You are required to show what I did, verbatim.

Allow me to be 100% transparent with you funkygunther funkygunther
You and I both know you can't do this.
I am simply providing enough rope for you to hang yourself with.
Nice try, I wanted you to spell out what you thought I was claiming of you but you didn’t, you gave me a clue as to try and maintain enough ambiguity to avoid scrutiny. This is a microcosm of the entire conversation. You say I’m claiming superiority and yet here you are role-playing a hangman.

We can talk about how much you like talking about yourself and whatever argument style you call this but let’s get back on topic. So I ask for your clarity, if there is no problem with saying Londonistan comes from right wing morons why did you counter that with mentions of terror attacks in London?
 
Dec 15, 2011
5,453
12,695
1,010
Nice try, I wanted you to spell out what you thought I was claiming of you but you didn’t,
I did this in the post following your claim.

You don't read.

I am claiming nothing other than you don't read. You persistently show this to be the case.

Your claim, the one that you are solely responsible for making, and that you are solely responsible for showing, verbatim, remains completely unproven by you. Despite repeated playground-level attempts to dance around your failure.

We cannot proceed with any of your talking points until you show you are credible and sincere.
(And when we do, you still owe me substance to your reference of Finsbury Park - which you've also danced around and avoided doing - but is still required)
To be credible you must show, verbatim, that I did what you claim.
To be sincere you need to post enough good-faith positions to undo all the bad-faith positions you've taken over your last half-dozen posts or so.

Nobody has manipulated you into doing this. You've done it yourself.
You chose to make the claim. You've chosen to act in bad faith when challenged (I've summarised some of your bad-faith antics in my previous post. Seems like you didn't read it).
My point has been persistent: show, verbatim, that I did what you claim.

Then we can move on.

This is (at least) the second attempt you've made to steamroll over your failures and demonstrations of bad-faith, and act like you are sincere in your engagement.

I just told you I am giving you enough rope to hang yourself with.

You don't read.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: DV27

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
380
278
305
We cannot proceed with any of your talking points until you show you are credible and sincere.
To be credible you must show, verbatim, that I did what you claim.
To be sincere you need to post enough good-faith positions to undo all the bad-faith positions you've taken over your last half-dozen posts or so.
No, we absolutely can move on but your ever-increasing trial criteria show you have no intention, and I’d actually say no ability, to. Next time, maybe don’t post stupid comparisons when someone triggers you with the phrase “right wing”.
 
Dec 15, 2011
5,453
12,695
1,010
No, we absolutely can move on but your ever-increasing trial criteria show you have no intention, and I’d actually say no ability, to. Next time, maybe don’t post stupid comparisons when someone triggers you with the phrase “right wing”.
No. You are not credible or sincere. And you are simply resorting to repeating a failed argument from a page back as some definitive gotcha.
(I already demonstrated the relevance of my references - going back an entire 3 days in world history. You threw in a reference to Finsbury park - which you are yet to substantiate but are projecting your failure of making 'stupid comparisons' onto me. This is just smokescreen. You keep getting called out for your bad-faith positions and so, rather than address them, you just fling anything you think that can stick. Furthering your own demonstration of bad-faith argument and taking up more of that rope I told you I was handing out to you).

My position has been very simple: You made a claim about me.
My criteria has not changed or increased. Ever. (looks like you've just made another fallicious claim about me. Oopsie!)
My criteria is: show, verbatim, me doing what you claim.

You refuse to do this.
You refuse to do this one way.
You refuse to do this another way.
You refuse to do this a third way.
You refuse to do this a fourth way.

Now you are acting like this is so wearisome to you and my requirements are so high and 'ever increasing'.
This is a further bad-faith position you are adopting. You don't read.

My requirements have been clear, simple and the lowest of low standards to expect: you made a claim about me. Show, verbatim that I did what you claim.

The weary sensation you are encountering is due to you exhausting your stock of go-to bad-faith positions and trying to figure out how you can assert your claim without ever demonstrating it to be true, and still come out of this looking sincere and credible. (I've already told you how that last bit can be achieved. You don't read).

So, your third attempt to steam-roll your way over your failures has been quashed.
You are not credible or sincere. Your page of bad-faith arguments has demonstrated this.

Let's bring this to a close:
If your next response does not show, verbatim, that I did what you claim I did then we can take it as your explicit admission of your bad-faith arguments and as a shining endorsement of your refusal to engage sincerely or pay attention to what others are saying.
 
Last edited:

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
380
278
305
No. You are not credible or sincere.
My position has been very simple: You made a claim about me.
My criteria is: show, verbatim, me doing what you claim.

You refuse to do this.
You refuse to do this one way.
You refuse to do this another way.
You refuse to do this a third way.
You refuse to do this a fourth way.

Now you are acting like this is so wearisome to you and my requirements are so high and hard to follow.
This is a further bad-faith position you are adopting.

My requirements have been clear, simple and the lowest of low standards to expect: you made a claim about me. Show, verbatim that I did what you claim.

The weary sensation you are encountering is due to you exhausting your bad-positions about how you can assert your claim without ever demonstrating it to be true, and still come out of this looking sincere and credible. (I've already told you how that last bit can be achieved. You don't read).

So, your third attempt to steam-roll your way over your failures has been quashed.
You are not credible or sincere. Your page of bad-faith arguments has demonstrated this.

Let's bring this to a close:
If your next response does not show, verbatim, that I did what you claim I did then we can take it as your explicit admission of your bad-faith arguments and as a shining endorsement of your refusal to engage sincerely or pay attention to what others are saying.
A whole load of waffle with no content as usual...

In response to “Right wing morons trying to stir up fear mainly” where the subject is use of Londonistan. You replied:

“Was it 'Right wing morons' that just killed two people on London Bridge?
Was it 'Right wing morons' that killed around 10 people on London Bridge in 2017?”

By doing this you compared the usage of Londonistan as a means of the right-wing to stir up fear with terrorists stirring up fear through murder. The comparison was made in order to rank one above the other, to deflect away, and by doing that you were defending the usage of a Londonistan since when put next to the London Bridge terrorism it pales in comparison.

There’s the claim. Now you can tell me how off I am and what you really thought.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
5,453
12,695
1,010
OK. Well, looks like you didn't read or didn't care.

And so:
If your next response does not show, verbatim, that I did what you claim I did then we can take it as your explicit admission of your bad-faith arguments and as a shining endorsement of your refusal to engage sincerely or pay attention to what others are saying.