|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 15, 2009 18:19:37 GMT
Hope that got all your attention ;D ;D Just wandering why there hasnt been any replies to new posts?? Is it because there is no debate against these factual posts and some can not handle agreeing with them or is it because in various posts I have backed everypoint I made, in particular with BA and our religious debates when he asked me to back what I said or is it because I am a Prod???  |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 15, 2009 20:49:33 GMT
Read the thread title you've given this and then ask yourself why anyone would want to participate in such a thread where such childish antics are used to get 'your attention'. Give yourself a big clap for having succedded in getting 'my attention'.
I was tempted to use a sarcasitc quote or similar in my reply and if I was a few years younger I know I would but I just find this attention seeking childish and pretty sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 15, 2009 22:22:50 GMT
Well BA it got you talking, the title itself hopefully will get people to at least view the thread and then maybe put up a post why people are not posting on recent topics.
The thread title was merely an attraction so that people will read and perhaps reply, stop taking it to heart, as it was very much tongue in cheek. There are plenty of other threads and posts that no-one has replied to and it may well be that this forum is for closing again. I have at least tried to keep the forum going but with no-one posting it would be nice to know if this is now the case and will remain so.
If that is the case then what is the point of me posting anthing when no-one has the courtesy to reply and as you well know I have the courtesy to reply to most threads and posts, afteral this is what a forum is all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 16, 2009 10:51:28 GMT
its because your a prod and we dont like prods.
no, joking, ive just been busy and i find myself lost in some threads now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 16, 2009 14:09:48 GMT
its because your a prod and we dont like prods. no, joking, ive just been busy and i find myself lost in some threads now. I knew it, I flaming knew it ;D ;D ;D At least you replied and explained, no probs. |
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Sept 19, 2009 15:38:53 GMT
For myself proper debate involves following logical lines of argument backed by reliable sources and the most important aspect is to listen to what others say in reply. To digest that reply and look for the merits contained within it. To look solely for the errors within the reply is to avoid the opportunity to make progress in developing a common ground.
I have tried to use this process with you Wasp, but you are either unwilling or unable to look for positives, your sole intent is to cast the blame solely onto Republicans while avoiding all the obvious you perpetuate. For you to say that you know Loyalism/Unionism is also to blame tries to remove yourself from that blame, as if you are not part of that community.
I am not looking to blame anyone, I am looking to see how we can make positive progress. If you are unwilling to engage in this then why are you in this forum? I see your whole objective here to obstruct progress. And therefore I see no point in joining in your petty games, I can make better use of my time.
If it has taken you this long to realise that something was wrong surely it should be obvious to you that you are not able to listen. Maybe if you made a serious attempt to listen you might hear something different, but I doubt you have the capacity to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Sept 19, 2009 22:33:42 GMT
For myself proper debate involves following logical lines of argument backed by reliable sources Ok I don't entirely disagree with you here, but, who do you consider a reliable source? In the past anyone with the slightest hint of being sympathetic to the loyalist/unionist cause was dismissed as an idiot, and a unionist sympathiser, so therefore not reliable. You, or someone else, then posted another source which refuted the original source. What made that source more reliable than the original source? The fact that he looked at the issue from a nationalist perspective? so therefore was more reliable? You couch your posts in what I call SF speak, it all sounds so logical, but when disected, it is no better or worse than the bigotted argument of some unionists. and the most important aspect is to listen to what others say in reply. To digest that reply and look for the merits contained within it Again I don't disagree, but who decides what does and doesn't have merit? In the mindset of most people, only those arguments which agree with their own personal belief deserve merit, that is a human trait, to argue otherwse is to delude oneself. To look solely for the errors within the reply is to avoid the opportunity to make progress in developing a common ground. Again, who decides what is an "error"? In my humble opinion, to take what someone says as a lie because they are not an academic, such as a professor/historian or other learned person, is to demean that person and to make them feel unwilling to carry on with the debate. Because they are not being taken seriously, and begin to feel they are demeaning themselves by continuing in the said debate. Other persons taking part in the debate need to understand that on many occasions, an opinion given is born from experience and not something read in a book or link. I have tried to use this process with you Wasp, but you are either unwilling or unable to look for positives, your sole intent is to cast the blame solely onto Republican while avoiding all the obvious you perpetuate. This is not a perception I have of WASP, in the past he and I have condemmed loyalist violence, loyalist paramilitaries and the activities of those on the loyalist/unionist side of the conflict that has been Ulster. Can you say the same for your statements on the republican side? I think not from the many posts I have read from yourself and other nationalist/republican posters on here and many other sites. This gives the lie to the suggestion that he or anyone else on the unionist side of the fence has intent to "cast the blame solely onto Republicans" Can you say the same about your attitude to republican violence? Again I think not, certainly not by my reading of the posts I have seen from you and other nationalists. For you to say that you know Loyalism/Unionism is also to blame tries to remove yourself from that blame, as if you are not part of that community. Is this your fear? That should you admit to the murder and mayhem caused by republicans, it would somehow cast some blame upon you yourself? If it is you are a bigger idiot than I ever thought you were. How in hells name can admission that some people in your community did something wrong, cast you, or WASP, in a bad light? You need to lighten up mate, so Jack the ripper was English = "All English are murderers" or "are at least responsible in some way for his actions", is this really what you believe?  I am not looking to blame anyone, I am looking to see how we can make positive progress. If you are unwilling to engage in this then why are you in this forum? The reason why poor WASP is on this forum has always been a mystery to me personnaly. Your attitude, and the attitude of some others here, is the reason I left this forum recently. Your inability and again that of some others to see that all have wronged and come up short is something I find obnoxious and painfully sickening. Ok I wait for the denial, but it is my perception of some nationalists/republicans on here. Since you are so eager to give your percepion of WASP, then I think it only right that someone should give their perception of you and some other republicans. And that perception is that you and they are in denial. I see your whole objective here to obstruct progress. And therefore I see no point in joining in your petty games, I can make better use of my time. Well my friend, I think you needs must go look in a mirror, this time with eyes open, you may not metaphorically speaking, like the reflection If it has taken you this long to realise that something was wrong surely it should be obvious to you that you are not able to listen. Ok so you, only now, realising that something is wrong with WASP, makes you open and able to listen to WASP's arguments and contributions to any debabte? I think you are talking nonesense, not only that but I think you are well aware of that fact. Maybe if you made a serious attempt to listen you might hear something different, but I doubt you have the capacity to change. Listening is a two way street, or perhaps you are not aware of that fact either, I refer you to all that has been said above, or then again, perhaps you are not prepared to listen? |
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Sept 20, 2009 12:54:22 GMT
I agree that some sources are driven by political bias, and we must also add this into reading of them. It is not for me to decide what you consider reliable or you to decide what nationalists consider reliable. Our purpose here in this forum is to find a way forward where both opposing political views find common sources of agreement. But we can not try to impose one source or view over the other but consider options that allow both to exist side by side.
I do not hold with the view that 'academics' know best, my experience has taught me the opposite. So it is irrelevant to myself if the argument is intrinsically presented or not, I use my gut instinct (I know not very scientific) to tell me if the argument is honest. Then I take that argument seriously, and help develop it to its logical conclusion, because it is important that honest argument is brought out into the open for everyone.
People like Wasp (and he is not alone, there are many) who think that by condemning certain sections (Republicans - Loyalists) and omitting a select few place themselves outside of accepting a portion of blame themselves. Loyalism /Republicanism are products from the communities they exist inside, there is no independent opposing faction within the communities to those products. Some have sprouted but never flourished and that suggests that the ideology did not stand up with the respective communities. Individual criminal acts like 'Jack the Ripper' are not driven by a community supported ideology and there lies the difference, I thought that was obvious Bilk and did not need spelled out. But I think you got carried away in the heat of making your honest reply and tried to score a cheap petty point with no purpose other that to twist my honest approach and make it seem ill thought out. I can understand honest emotion and take no offense to a poor attempt at put down.
Bilk - I have read your post a number of times and formulated a number of different replies. Most refuting your perception of myself. But I recognize it as honest argument and I find it deeply disappointing that you have formulated that view of myself. (Maybe it was a generalization of nationalist/republicans, but I was definitely highlighted). I have never absolved myself or Republicans of blame, we were active and willing participants, and I am to be judged for my part and have never hid from that responsibility. But Republicans are not the sole cause, the blame can be equally attributed to many others. To go into a long rebuttal would serve no purpose if that is your honest assessment of my views, my views are there to be assessed and judged.
My objective in this forum is to engage in honest debate and look to see if common areas of agreement can be found. Along the way I would like to help those with limited information on what Republicanism should be about explore the ideology. I would like in return to explore aspects of Loyalism/Unionism, or get an honest perspective from those that live in Loyalist communities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 20, 2009 18:42:46 GMT
Although Bilk gave an excellent, fair and honest reply I would like to add to your post afd which is more than I can say for yourself with your picking and choosing which threads you post on that suit you best to forward your logic and demonize my community and culture. If you look back you will see there are very few threads I do not post on which proves I am debating my viewpoints with others regardless of the topic, you on the otherhand do not. I can only assume that it is due to the spoonfed double standards and hypocricy that republicans have.
For example if members of an Orange lodge, some members of a single Protestant church and perhaps backed/supported by a few members of the British government had abused just a few of the most vulnerable people in our society then republicans like yourself would have covered pages and pages of posts, joined mass protests/riots and would have been all over the media claiming about the poor downtrodden irish. Yet with the mass abuse against even disabled and blind children your silence like many others is deafening, nothing to say on the matter and if you do ever comment on religion you use the old ploy of having no time for religion, obviously you do because there are several words that would have made republicans come onto the streets in protest at any hint of abuse and these words are Protestant and or Unionist and or British. Demands for political status brought you onto the streets, demands for rerouting band parades brought you onto the streets, demands for alledged shoot to kill enquiries brought you onto the streets yet the absolute horrors against the most vulnerable in irish society has been met with total silence. So before you try to lecture anyone have a good think about that.
So criminal acts carried out by republicans were community supported?? Again you have justified loyalist attacks against your community.
How condescending of you to speak to bilk like that, it is blatantly obvious you are trying to winde him up for a reaction to try and put yourself above any Unionist here. You have not made an entirely honest approach, you are trying to create a viewpoint by nic picing parts of peoples posts while at the sametime failing to address your own failures not only in debating skills and manners but by trying to be involved in the many threads here and not the ones that you think will further your agenda.
When are you going to start this objective because I have seen very little evidence if any of this so far. What I have seen is your constant insulting of people because of their replies which you dont like or agree with while at the sametime trying to promote your own alledged 'honest' debating opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Sept 20, 2009 19:24:08 GMT
I agree that some sources are driven by political bias, and we must also add this into reading of them. It is not for me to decide what you consider reliable or you to decide what nationalists consider reliable. Our purpose here in this forum is to find a way forward where both opposing political views find common sources of agreement. But we can not try to impose one source or view over the other but consider options that allow both to exist side by side. I do not hold with the view that 'academics' know best, my experience has taught me the opposite. So it is irrelevant to myself if the argument is intrinsically presented or not, I use my gut instinct (I know not very scientific) to tell me if the argument is honest. Then I take that argument seriously, and help develop it to its logical conclusion, because it is important that honest argument is brought out into the open for everyone. People like Wasp (and he is not alone, there are many) who think that by condemning certain sections (Republicans - Loyalists) and omitting a select few place themselves outside of accepting a portion of blame themselves. Loyalism /Republicanism are products from the communities they exist inside, there is no independent opposing faction within the communities to those products. Some have sprouted but never flourished and that suggests that the ideology did not stand up with the respective communities. Individual criminal acts like 'Jack the Ripper' are not driven by a community supported ideology and there lies the difference, I thought that was obvious Bilk and did not need spelled out. But I think you got carried away in the heat of making your honest reply and tried to score a cheap petty point with no purpose other that to twist my honest approach and make it seem ill thought out. I can understand honest emotion and take no offense to a poor attempt at put down. Bilk - I have read your post a number of times and formulated a number of different replies. Most refuting your perception of myself. But I recognize it as honest argument and I find it deeply disappointing that you have formulated that view of myself. (Maybe it was a generalization of nationalist/republicans, but I was definitely highlighted). I have never absolved myself or Republicans of blame, we were active and willing participants, and I am to be judged for my part and have never hid from that responsibility. But Republicans are not the sole cause, the blame can be equally attributed to many others. To go into a long rebuttal would serve no purpose if that is your honest assessment of my views, my views are there to be assessed and judged. My objective in this forum is to engage in honest debate and look to see if common areas of agreement can be found. Along the way I would like to help those with limited information on what Republicanism should be about explore the ideology. I would like in return to explore aspects of Loyalism/Unionism, or get an honest perspective from those that live in Loyalist communities. We have in the past had the same, or certainly a similar debate, that headed where this one is going, so I will be going over old ground here. That I believe is the problem we have regarding any site that has the asperations you have laid out, such as finding common ground. We will never find common ground that suggests we forget our past and pretend it didn't happen, that is the way of the coward and those with a guilty mind. There were very many victims of the murderers on both sides, before we can even begin to move on, the issues relating to those victims must first be addressed. We cannot push on and pretend those people do not exist, which is what people in denial are doing right now. For a start I don't think at anytime I have heard WASP mute outright support for loyalist paramilitaries or their activities. So how you can ask him to face up to the part he played in those activities baffles me. I'm not sure on what information you base your assumption that unionists in any great numbers supported these activities. I know little of what happened in nationalist communities but my perception was that they in general were not greatly supported in the murder, harassment, and terrorisation of innocent people going about their daily lives. This is bourne out (until very recent times) by the lack of support that the political representatives of the paramilitary groups had at the polls. The change in their political fortunes came about only when they called a ceasefire and eventually laid down their arms and gave up what they called the armed struggle. That suggests to me that they did not have the widespread support you suppose in your posts. So what part did the wider unionist community play that could suggest that they in some way encouraged the loyalist paramilitaries to murder innocent people, and for which they should contemplate their roll in those murders, as you suggest WASP should do? I suggest none. In most cases fear muted any protests at what the paramilitaries were doing. The lack of a groundswell of protest at the arrest and incarceration of those same paramilitaries, certainly within unionist communities, also suggests a lack of support. Opposition to the GFA which would have and did lead to the release of political prisoners was strongest in unionist communities. This does not for one moment suggest to me that there was any great support for loyalist paramilitaries, in fact the opposite is the case. Even the election of the present bunch of DUPers came about because of their opposition at the time to the GFA and the release of prisoners. And the political representatives of loyalist paramilitaries still attract a minute vote from the unionist people, in most cases being elected only on third or fourth counts in our crazy election system, designed to get people like them elected. |
|
