|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 01/07/2019 17:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 17:19, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:18:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: [ ... ] I have no adverse prejudice towards cyclists. I am happy to acknowledge that a significant minority of them more or less comply with the law. The above statement shows how prejudiced you are. It's like saying. 'I have nothing against Black people, some of them are almost as good as White people.' It's actually exactly like saying that some cyclists are law abiding and that others (as it happens, these days, a majority) are not. That's what it's like saying. It is nothing at all like saying anything to do with being black. Thank you for proving my point. Before you start ranting I do consider the anti-cyclist bias equivalent to racism. You can be as wrong and as stupid as you like, I can't stop you. Being black (or Jewish or any other inherent characteristic) is not a chosen behaviour. Being a chav scofflaw cyclist *is* a chosen and deliberate behaviour. Your statement about what you consider (that's perhaps putting it a bit high) doesn't change that. Enlisting in a particular religion is not a choice? I would not previously have believed that you are so stupid as to think that being black - or being Jewish - is a voluntary choice. How is being Jewish NOT a voluntary choice? I was raised as a Christian then I grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales. You aren't helping yourself. Stop digging. I'm backing Jester on this one; you tried to conflate "professing a religion" with "having a skin colour." Quite distinct. Being Jewish is not "professing a religion", though it's easy to see why some people make that mistake. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that you didn't know that. Telling the SS at the railway station that you were no longer practising Judaeism didn't save you. Being Jewish is hereditary via the female side and applies even to a completely non-religious Jew. You can look it up if you like. So you are saying there exists a Jewish gene? No. So it is not hereditary, merely a mindset. Why does there have to be a particularly-identified gene or set of genes in order to be hereditary? Is there an Invisible Pink Unicorn gene? Only on your planet. Earth or Terra you mean. Forget the playground stuff. This isn't your old nursery alma mater. What happens when a Jew converts to Islam? Does their brain explode or simply rewire itself? You'd better see whether you can find such a person to ask them. BTW: If you're interested, you could always do a bit of reading rather than just shooting aimlessly from the hip. A good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F Read it. Is that an imperative (as in "You should read it")? I had read it before I cited it. Or was it a claim that you have read it? If you have, you obviously haven't understood it. Doesn't change the fact that being Jewish is not hereditary if an adult chooses to no longer be Jewish. No physical exam no matter how thorough can tell whether or not a person is Jewish. DNA can pinpoint ancestry but not fairy tale beliefs. You refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a non-religious Jew, do you? |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 01/07/2019 22:08, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 21:46, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:54, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 00:16, JNugent wrote: Now, tell me why I should respect cyclists who break traffic law constantly and repeatedly. Why should I respect somebody that chooses to use a dangerous form of transport (no matter how careful and law abiding the driver) and believes he can tell others using a much safer form of transport that their behaviour is dangerous. Unlike you, I work on the basis that criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and up, not down. IOW, you make up whatever you need to in order to evade questions whose answers are not advantageous to you. In other words, criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and up, not down. How is doing otherwise advantageous to me? That's the ticket. Create your own definitions within your own little world. That way you think your "arguments" (yes, I know...) cannot be beaten. Whereas it is always your habit to obfuscate or change the subject (as immediately above). You have now played your hand. If you think my point of view is open to argument then have a go. If you don't have a go then you can't beat it. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 01/07/2019 23:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 22:08, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 21:46, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:54, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 00:16, JNugent wrote: Now, tell me why I should respect cyclists who break traffic law constantly and repeatedly. Why should I respect somebody that chooses to use a dangerous form of transport (no matter how careful and law abiding the driver) and believes he can tell others using a much safer form of transport that their behaviour is dangerous. Unlike you, I work on the basis that criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and up, not down. IOW, you make up whatever you need to in order to evade questions whose answers are not advantageous to you. In other words, criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and up, not down. How is doing otherwise advantageous to me? That's the ticket. Create your own definitions within your own little world. That way you think your "arguments" (yes, I know...) cannot be beaten. Whereas it is always your habit to obfuscate or change the subject (as immediately above). You have now played your hand. If you think my point of view is open to argument then have a go. If you don't have a go then you can't beat it. It isn't easy to beat "arguments" couched in meaningless terms and founded upon meaningless "principles". Participants in argument have to operate from a common premise or set of premises. Your premises are decidedly odd (whatever "criticism of behaviour up, down and sideways" might mean). |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 01/07/2019 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2019 23:29, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 22:08, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 21:46, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:54, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 00:16, JNugent wrote: Now, tell me why I should respect cyclists who break traffic law constantly and repeatedly. Why should I respect somebody that chooses to use a dangerous form of transport (no matter how careful and law abiding the driver) and believes he can tell others using a much safer form of transport that their behaviour is dangerous. Unlike you, I work on the basis that criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and up, not down. IOW, you make up whatever you need to in order to evade questions whose answers are not advantageous to you. In other words, criticism of behaviour should only go sideways and up, not down. How is doing otherwise advantageous to me? That's the ticket. Create your own definitions within your own little world. That way you think your "arguments" (yes, I know...) cannot be beaten. Whereas it is always your habit to obfuscate or change the subject (as immediately above). You have now played your hand. If you think my point of view is open to argument then have a go. If you don't have a go then you can't beat it. It isn't easy to beat "arguments" couched in meaningless terms and founded upon meaningless "principles". I told you my stand point. There is no "argument" that can change my change my mind about it. Or for thinking that your attitude is wrong. You have seen other recent posts, I won't repeat it. Participants in argument have to operate from a common premise or set of premises. Your premises are decidedly odd (whatever "criticism of behaviour up, down and sideways" might mean). You often tell people what you think they mean - which does not resemble anything they wrote. You do understand it but you can't twist it. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:46:54 GMT, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/07/2019 12:39, MrCheerful wrote: On 01/07/2019 11:43, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 10:18:58 GMT, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:55, MrCheerful wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:40, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: Why do big box drivers ignore speed limits? Why do cyclists ignore all the rules of both the road and common sense? Remarkable, but not surprising, that motorists love to dodge the question. You have a favourite statistic (even though it is meaningless, but let's run with it), that cyclists harm the same number of pedestrians per vehicle mile as drivers. In other words, all this alleged law breaking by cyclists creates no additional harm. There is no possible moral argument for demanding that the individual's choice should produce a different outcome. The drivers know it's bad (pollution deathrate etc) but mustn't let themselves know this, so feel threatened by anything that shows them in a bad light. It's a denial thing. I can guarantee that if I were to take a short journey locally, 99 percent of the cyclists will be breaking one or many laws, Even if this is right, so what? How many motorists did they kill? despite their tiny numbers (probably a dozen in a three mile journey).ツ* Whereas the vast majority of the hundreds of motor vehicles seen in the same distance will not be noticeably breaking laws and are easily traced and apprehended if they do. Whereas 100% of drivers are a significant source of danger to pedestrians. Before they break any laws. I also note that despite this being a cycling group you continually try to move it to a driving group, why is that?ツ* are you too embarassed to admit that uk cyclists are a terrible shower of scofflaws? What do you expect? When idiots come in this group slagging off cyclists, what do you expect? -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 16:54:57 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 5:30:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 17:19, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:18:19 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:40, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:55:10 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 01:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 12:16:05 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 30/06/2019 22:23, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 8:40:07 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 30/06/2019 16:46, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 3:43:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: [Discussion diverted to religion and ethnicity; typical troll tactic.] PDFTT. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 16:13:47 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 4:51:29 PM UTC+1, budstaff wrote: On Monday, 1 July 2019 01:55:11 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 01/07/2019 01:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 12:16:05 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 30/06/2019 22:23, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 8:40:07 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 30/06/2019 16:46, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 3:43:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: I have no adverse prejudice towards cyclists. I am happy to acknowledge that a significant minority of them more or less comply with the law. The above statement shows how prejudiced you are. It's like saying. 'I have nothing against Black people, some of them are almost as good as White people.' It's actually exactly like saying that some cyclists are law abiding and that others (as it happens, these days, a majority) are not. That's what it's like saying. It is nothing at all like saying anything to do with being black. Thank you for proving my point. Before you start ranting I do consider the anti-cyclist bias equivalent to racism. You can be as wrong and as stupid as you like, I can't stop you. Being black (or Jewish or any other inherent characteristic) is not a chosen behaviour. Being a chav scofflaw cyclist *is* a chosen and deliberate behaviour. Your statement about what you consider (that's perhaps putting it a bit high) doesn't change that. Enlisting in a particular religion is not a choice? I would not previously have believed that you are so stupid as to think that being black - or being Jewish - is a voluntary choice. How is being Jewish NOT a voluntary choice? I was raised as a Christian then I grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales. You aren't helping yourself. Stop digging. But you said it, so you must be. Now, tell me why I should respect cyclists who break traffic law constantly and repeatedly. How do you feel about motorists who break speed limits? What does it have to do with the way that cyclists behave (most of 'em)? As this veered into religion, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbgqtvJOJus I felt sure that would be https://youtu.be/FQ5YU_spBw0 -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 02/07/2019 10:50, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:46:54 GMT, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 12:39, MrCheerful wrote: On 01/07/2019 11:43, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 10:18:58 GMT, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:55, MrCheerful wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:40, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: Why do big box drivers ignore speed limits? Why do cyclists ignore all the rules of both the road and common sense? Remarkable, but not surprising, that motorists love to dodge the question. You have a favourite statistic (even though it is meaningless, but let's run with it), that cyclists harm the same number of pedestrians per vehicle mile as drivers. In other words, all this alleged law breaking by cyclists creates no additional harm. There is no possible moral argument for demanding that the individual's choice should produce a different outcome. The drivers know it's bad (pollution deathrate etc) but mustn't let themselves know this, so feel threatened by anything that shows them in a bad light. It's a denial thing. I can guarantee that if I were to take a short journey locally, 99 percent of the cyclists will be breaking one or many laws, Even if this is right, so what? How many motorists did they kill? despite their tiny numbers (probably a dozen in a three mile journey).テつ* Whereas the vast majority of the hundreds of motor vehicles seen in the same distance will not be noticeably breaking laws and are easily traced and apprehended if they do. Whereas 100% of drivers are a significant source of danger to pedestrians. Before they break any laws. I also note that despite this being a cycling group you continually try to move it to a driving group, why is that?テつ* are you too embarassed to admit that uk cyclists are a terrible shower of scofflaws? What do you expect? When idiots come in this group slagging off cyclists, what do you expect? So, logically, if you want to slag off car drivers, then surely you would go to a driving group? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On 02/07/2019 12:05, MrCheerful wrote:
On 02/07/2019 10:50, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:46:54 GMT, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 12:39, MrCheerful wrote: On 01/07/2019 11:43, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 10:18:58 GMT, TMS320 wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:55, MrCheerful wrote: On 01/07/2019 10:40, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: Why do big box drivers ignore speed limits? Why do cyclists ignore all the rules of both the road and common sense? Remarkable, but not surprising, that motorists love to dodge the question. You have a favourite statistic (even though it is meaningless, but let's run with it), that cyclists harm the same number of pedestrians per vehicle mile as drivers. In other words, all this alleged law breaking by cyclists creates no additional harm. There is no possible moral argument for demanding that the individual's choice should produce a different outcome. The drivers know it's bad (pollution deathrate etc) but mustn't let themselves know this, so feel threatened by anything that shows them in a bad light. It's a denial thing. I can guarantee that if I were to take a short journey locally, 99 percent of the cyclists will be breaking one or many laws, Even if this is right, so what? How many motorists did they kill? despite their tiny numbers (probably a dozen in a three mile journey).テつ* Whereas the vast majority of the hundreds of motor vehicles seen in the same distance will not be noticeably breaking laws and are easily traced and apprehended if they do. Whereas 100% of drivers are a significant source of danger to pedestrians. Before they break any laws. I also note that despite this being a cycling group you continually try to move it to a driving group, why is that?テつ* are you too embarassed to admit that uk cyclists are a terrible shower of scofflaws? What do you expect? When idiots come in this group slagging off cyclists, what do you expect? So, logically, if you want to slag off car drivers, then surely you would go to a driving group? It depends on how the slagging off is couched. Most of what ypu describe is second hand (something you thought you saw happening at a distance) or third hand (a newspaper report). Cyclists are evil because they don't obey laws, innit. Well, drivers are a significant cause of actual harm. Don't be so smug. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Angry driver on the wrong side of the road gets his comeuppance
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:05:55 GMT, MrCheerful
wrote: On 02/07/2019 10:50, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Mon, 01 Jul 2019 20:46:54 GMT, TMS320 wrote: so-called "Mr" so-called "Cheerful": I also note that despite this being a cycling group you continually try to move it to a driving group, why is that?テつ* are you too embarassed to admit that uk cyclists are a terrible shower of scofflaws? What do you expect? When idiots come in this group slagging off cyclists, what do you expect? So, logically, if you want to slag off car drivers, then surely you would go to a driving group? I guess some might. But this group is for cyclists. DKUATB. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Moment driver knocks cyclist off bike on wrong side of road in hitand run (video) | Bod[_5_] | UK | 2 | June 5th 19 09:05 PM |
Terminator on the wrong side of the road | Alycidon | UK | 3 | January 22nd 16 09:27 AM |
cycling on the wrong side of the road | wafflycat[_2_] | UK | 21 | July 26th 08 09:28 PM |
wrong-way sidewalk rider gets comeuppance | Ben Pfaff | General | 51 | October 10th 05 10:14 PM |
Wrong Side Of The Road | winnard | Social Issues | 33 | August 10th 05 03:22 PM |