The EU debate - Part III

[DMD]

This delusional summary was brought to you by DMD, The Bringer of Peace™.

Wow, it's almost as if you're an enormous hypocrite with no grasp on reality, isn't it?

I was right, you're not a full shilling.

No wonder you've done your best to divert attention away from your ridiculous argument about the daft lass flogging beer.

The KKK hotel of yours is a classic.

You've actually summed up the type of discussion I was getting at in the earlier post of mine that you kindly quoted.

Thanks for providing a fine example of the feeble attempts at discussion some on here indulge in and try for adversarial, rather than discussion. It's amazing to think, despite all your wriggling, you pretty much agreed with those of us that said it was ridiculous, but STILL spent pages trying to turn it into some other point, so you didn't have to be on the same 'side'.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I was right, you're not a full shilling.

No wonder you've done your best to divert attention away from your ridiculous argument about the daft lass flogging beer.

The KKK hotel of yours is a classic.

You've actually summed up the type of discussion I was getting at in the earlier post of mine that you kindly quoted.

Thanks for providing a fine example of the feeble attempts at discussion some on here indulge in and try for adversarial, rather than discussion. It's amazing to think, despite all your wriggling, you pretty much agreed with those of us that said it was ridiculous, but STILL spent pages trying to turn it into some other point, so you didn't have to be on the same 'side'.

What was ridiculous about my argument on the Muslim woman not selling wine (not beer)?
I'll ignore the rest of your obvious deflection.

 

[DMD]

What was ridiculous about my argument on the Muslim woman not selling wine (not beer)?
I'll ignore the rest of your obvious deflection.

Your point about the woman being ridiculous for not selling alcohol was the bit we agreed on, before you veered off all over the place rather than having to be on the same 'side'.


I think I've found an answer to your KKK Hotel question Polly. What will you wriggle to next, Pirates maybe, is it okay to refuse pirates a bed, or parrots?

You must log in or register to see images

 

[petersaxton]

The story's not particularly relevant, but that part really is.
Tesco tried to please everyone, by allowing a staff member to avoid something that their religion doesn't approve of.
They ended up mildly annoying one bloke a bit. Hardly national news, is it?

It should've been avoided, as Islam doesn't prohibit the sale of alcohol, only it's consumption.
If she was personally that against it, then she probably shouldn't work somewhere that sells it.
If she's going to, then she should avoid working on any sort of till.

So who is in the wrong? I think she is. She shouldn't get a job which includes selling alcohol if she doesn't want to sell alcohol. I'm sure there's lots of jobs that don't include selling alcohol.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Your point about the woman being ridiculous for not selling alcohol was the bit we agreed on, before you veered off all over the place rather than having to be on the same 'side'.


I think I've found an answer to your KKK Hotel question Polly. What will you wriggle to next, Pirates maybe, is it okay to refuse pirates a bed, or parrots?

You must log in or register to see images

"No wonder you've done your best to divert attention away from your ridiculous argument about the daft lass flogging beer." - DMD

Real consistent there!

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

How does one woman not wanting to sell alcohol make it to a national newspaper? I get that the DM would want to make something of it as there's clearly a market for such stories but who is that indignant with rage that they are bothered enough to report it?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

So who is in the wrong? I think she is. She shouldn't get a job which includes selling alcohol if she doesn't want to sell alcohol. I'm sure there's lots of jobs that don't include selling alcohol.

Yep. Don't disagree.
I assume that she specifically went after a role that generally doesn't have to, but it's still part of the job.
Certainly not newsworthy though, is it?

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

How does one woman not wanting to sell alcohol make it to a national newspaper? I get that the DM would want to make something of it as there's clearly a market for such stories but who is that indignant with rage that they are bothered enough to report it?

Because they want to set up false equivalencies for people like DMD.
That's why you get the comparisons to situations that aren't remotely the same.

 

[DMD]

"No wonder you've done your best to divert attention away from your ridiculous argument about the daft lass flogging beer." - DMD

Real consistent there!

Absolutely. You tried your best to shift the discussion with your weird imaginings, but I kept steering it back.

KKK hotels though.

 

[DMD]

So who is in the wrong? I think she is. She shouldn't get a job which includes selling alcohol if she doesn't want to sell alcohol. I'm sure there's lots of jobs that don't include selling alcohol.

It's hard to tell from the meanderings, but most seem to agree she's in the wrong job.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Absolutely. You tried your best to shift the discussion with your weird imaginings, but I kept steering it back.

KKK hotels though.

More deflections and inventions. There's a shock.
You tried to shift the discussion with the B&B Christians and have now gone off on one, because you were proven wrong.
Can't admit that though, so you have to create this other fantasy. You're fooling nobody.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

It's hard to tell from the meanderings, but most seem to agree she's in the wrong job.

It's not hard to tell, at all. Absolutely nobody has said that she was right, apart from you!
You suggested that she should've done exactly what she did, then backtracked when it was pointed out.

 

[DMD]

More deflections and inventions. There's a shock.
You tried to shift the discussion with the B&B Christians and have now gone off on one, because you were proven wrong.
Can't admit that though, so you have to create this other fantasy. You're fooling nobody.

Proven wrong my arse.

You've shown yourself up good and proper, no help from anyone else. Stop being a tart and take your **** up on the chin. It's unlikely to have been your first and I doubt it'll be your last if this is anything to go by.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Proven wrong my arse.

You compared two situations which were different and it took me about ten comments to get the reason for it through to you.
Utterly, obviously wrong, but you can't admit it, so you deflect and divert.
It's the same every time.

 

[DMD]

It's not hard to tell, at all. Absolutely nobody has said that she was right, apart from you!
You suggested that she should've done exactly what she did, then backtracked when it was pointed out.

I said school kids do, because that's the law. She's old enough to sell it, employed to sell it, so should either sell it or quit. If you check, that's what I said in the same post before saying she shouldn't have refused and after saying she should buzz. Now she's highlighted her unsuitability it's bye bye for her.

That's a piss poor attempt at you trying to 'win'.

 

[DMD]

You compared two situations which were different and it took me about ten comments to get the reason for it through to you.
Utterly, obviously wrong, but you can't admit it, so you deflect and divert.
It's the same every time.

But they're not. You kept banging on about discrimination, which was your argument not mine. You can't 'win' by inventing an argument and then claiming it's wrong.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

I said school kids do, because that's the law. She's old enough to sell it, employed to sell it, so should either sell it or quit. If you check, that's what I said in the same post before saying she shouldn't have refused and after saying she should buzz. Now she's highlighted her unsuitability it's bye bye for her.

That's a piss poor attempt at you trying to 'win'.

Yes, you flip-flopped after I pointed out your error.
You admit that you initially said that she should've called for someone else, so you really don't have a point.

But they're not. You kept banging on about discrimination, which was your argument not mine. You can't 'win' by inventing an argument and then claiming it's wrong.

I've given you the legal reason why you're wrong and you're still insisting that you're not. It's like talking to a brick wall.
The couple that owned the B&B were sued for discrimination. The Muslim woman didn't discriminate.
Is that really that hard for you to understand?

 

[NSIS]

Yes, you flip-flopped after I pointed out your error.
You admit that you initially said that she should've called for someone else, so you really don't have a point.

I've given you the legal reason why you're wrong and you're still insisting that you're not. It's like talking to a brick wall.
The couple that owned the B&B were sued for discrimination. The Muslim woman didn't discriminate.
Is that really that hard for you to understand?

Understand, no. Admit and accept that he understands, yes!....

 

[Stan]

PNP, you're trying to reason with someone whose main intention is to keep the discussion going as long as possible as it's how he fills his empty life when he's not on the chat lines.

There is no other logical explanation for why Dull frequently changes direction and categorically refuses to give a straight answer to a question.

Either that or the multiple posters he's bored to death are all wrong about everything

 

[DMD]

Yes, you flip-flopped after I pointed out your error.
You admit that you initially said that she should've called for someone else, so you really don't have a point.

I've given you the legal reason why you're wrong and you're still insisting that you're not. It's like talking to a brick wall.
The couple that owned the B&B were sued for discrimination. The Muslim woman didn't discriminate.
Is that really that hard for you to understand?

You take desperation to whole new levels.

How can I be wrong, when I wasn't arguing that point? That was YOUR point, as I kept pointing out to you.

I said she should have buzzed, because that's what she did. I then went on to elaborate further, but in your desperation to avoid being on the same side, you rambled off all over the place, and added some of the most ludicrous scenarios.

You've ****ed up big style, just man up, take it on the chin and move on.

You've quite nicely highlighted why threads meander all over with no end result, because you and others are desperate to 'win' rather than discuss. You seem determined to keep up the pathetic 'them' and 'us' we know best and 'no matter what you say, we know what you 'really' mean',attitude.

It's the sort pompous of attitude people rejected with Brexit and the Trump vote.