Is this the beginning of the end of the Monarchy?

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

woodburner
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 pm

Post by woodburner »

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:How about contesting the content of the article. Just a thought.
I'm sure there's some merit to his arguments, that's not my point though. My point is about the motivation of the source, as a historian I'm sure you understand the importance of knowing *who* is saying things not just what's being said.
I have presented an argument myself. I have also presented an article. But you choose to attack, not the argument, but an easy target character.

Okay.

How very identitarian of you and how intellectually dishonest.
She is a deeply narcissistic, not very bright attention seeker of the Hollywood "celebrity" mould who has, predictably, jumped on the latest pathetic bourgeois bandwagon of "wokeness". But, who has found the less than obsequious attentions she has got from the British press in response to her and his pathetically hypocritical "woke" public pontifications not to her taste. Furthermore, race has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not even as if she looks conventionally "black" in any event. But, as I said, that has got bugger all to do with anything and certainly bugger all to do with anything in the minds of the vast majority of the British public. I would bet my house on that.

He, meanwhile, is as thick as pig-shit and is clearly mirroring her every opinion.
This is of course not an attack on a character(s). Or perhaps it is.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Little John
Posts: 8699
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

woodburner wrote:
Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote: I'm sure there's some merit to his arguments, that's not my point though. My point is about the motivation of the source, as a historian I'm sure you understand the importance of knowing *who* is saying things not just what's being said.
I have presented an argument myself. I have also presented an article. But you choose to attack, not the argument, but an easy target character.

Okay.

How very identitarian of you and how intellectually dishonest.
She is a deeply narcissistic, not very bright attention seeker of the Hollywood "celebrity" mould who has, predictably, jumped on the latest pathetic bourgeois bandwagon of "wokeness". But, who has found the less than obsequious attentions she has got from the British press in response to her and his pathetically hypocritical "woke" public pontifications not to her taste. Furthermore, race has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not even as if she looks conventionally "black" in any event. But, as I said, that has got bugger all to do with anything and certainly bugger all to do with anything in the minds of the vast majority of the British public. I would bet my house on that.

He, meanwhile, is as thick as pig-shit and is clearly mirroring her every opinion.
This is of course not an attack on a character(s). Or perhaps it is.
It is an observation about two people with regards to a specific sequence of events based upon their words and actions during the course of that specific sequence of events. I may be right or I may be wrong of course. That is the way of such observations. It is not, however an attack on their social/racial "identities"
Post Reply