UK - Election 2015

[Craig B]

I pointed out that you were misunderstanding the definition of predator, and that the actual definition were asset-strippers. Banks were guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes, but not of asset stripping, and thus couldn't be called predators. Labour were wrong to use the term in the context they did.

And I'm saying that's complete nonsense, and in any case is entirely contradicted by your absurd "someone somewhere ... I am a cannibal" extravaganza

Keep going. It amuses me to watch you make a fool of yourself again.

All you need to do to stop everyone laughing at you is to understand that "predator" doesn't mean whatever you want it to. It has a very specific meaning, which is not "everything bad that the banks have ever done".

I've told you I will not be put off by this all too obvious attempt at intimidation and distraction. So it's pointless.

Applied to human beings, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predator states that the word predator means "A person or group that robs, victimises or exploits others for gain." That is the sense in which I use it. How you use it is your own business, not mine.

 

[Craig B]

If you are concerned with stigmatisation of selectivity I look forward to your activism against the stigma of higher tax rates on rich people.

Come off it. Stigma? That's what annoys people who pay higher rate taxes? The stigma. You're having a laugh. But it is interesting to learn that you're against higher rates of tax. Another proof of your Left credentials?

 

[Francesca R]

Come off it. Stigma?

Ah good, so you will similarly discard the stigma advanced in the "justification" for universalism that you linked.

Or do these things apply when you decide they do and not when you decide they don't? That's convincing!

But it is interesting to learn that you're against higher rates of tax. Another proof of your Left credentials?

Fabricates garbage not in evidence again.

Would you care to advance the income-egalitarian justification for government payments to the rich?

I may have to conclude that you've got nothing at all. That would be such a shocker.

 

[Craig B]

Ah good, so you will similarly discard the stigma advanced in the "justification" for universalism that you linked.

Or do these things apply when you decide they do and not when you decide they don't? That's convincing!

Fabricates garbage not in evidence again.

Would you care to advance the income-egalitarian justification for government payments to the rich?

I may have to include that you've got nothing at all. That would be such a shocker.

I have given you a whole document. You have kindly informed me that you disagree. So be it.

My point about the "stigma" of paying higher tax rates is of course that it is not a stigma at all, as you must know perfectly well. It therefore cannot be "discarded".

As I have said before: all this stuff is fine and dandy, but it's pure right wing ideology, straight from the Thatcher arsenal of wise ideas.

 

[MikeG]

And I'm saying that's complete nonsense, and in any case is entirely contradicted by your absurd "someone somewhere ... I am a cannibal" extravaganza I've told you I will not be put off by this all too obvious attempt at intimidation and distraction. So it's pointless.

Applied to human beings, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predator states that the word predator means "A person or group that robs, victimises or exploits others for gain." That is the sense in which I use it. How you use it is your own business, not mine.

You're going to wear out your shovel soon. I've just mended a really big one that would suit you nicely. But anyway.......

Continuing the trend of having to explain very simple things three or 4 times, let's deal with the highlighted. You said this:

.........The banks who exploited borrowers during the credit bubble were rightly accused of predatory lending.......

You didn't name the person who described them thus..........hence my "someone somewhere".

You didn't didn't name a bank ..........hence my "some bank".

You said "rightly accused" without showing how anyone came to that judgement, and you jumped straight from "accused" to:

the use of this term to describe abuse by banks of those members of the public who use their services is well established

So, in your view, an anonymous accusation of an anonymous bank establishes as a fact that all (presumably UK) banks are predatory. Are you following so far?

Taking this logic (that once an accusation is made against one member of a group, it perfectly acceptable to use that term against every member of the group), some people through history have been accused of being murderers or cannibals, and thus, by the logic you used, it is perfectly proper to call every human a murderer or a cannibal. Do you see?

I don't accept your logic. I don't accept your use of the word predatory in the way in which you use it. The really, really stupid thing here is that we are simply arguing over the interpretation of one word. I actually agree 100% with Anglolawyer on this when he said:

LIBOR fixers, PPI mis-sellers, criminal abusers of their defaulting customers, multi-billion pound fine-paying, economy wrecking, reckless, greedy, stupid fools. But not predator corps......

I presume you would agree with that too up to the point where he says "not predator corps", and will finally recognise that this tedious argument over the use of one word would be better ended. However, if you want to carry on, do feel free.

 

[Craig B]

... So, in your view, an anonymous accusation of an anonymous bank establishes as a fact that all (presumably UK) banks are predatory. Are you following so far?

I'm following that your quote from my post is quite dishonest. I explicitly wrote

... the use of this term to describe abuse by banks of those members of the public who use their services is well established, and it is an appropriate subject for political comment.

Which is far from saying that all, or even most, private companies or corporations are predators in this or any other sense.

You are intentionally misrepresenting me. That makes further exchange useless. Have a nice day.

 

[Francesca R]

I have given you a whole document.

Yeah and it conforms to what I said it did. Apologism for expanding the size of the state because that is believed to be a great thing in its own right.

You call that "conventional left". I don't think everyone agrees with you. But you can not defend it. It's not about progressivism. It contradicts that. You can't refute that either. So it's . . . What do you say? . . . Pure ideology.

What is the income-egalitarian justification for government payments to the rich?

Oh yeah, you have nothing. What a shocker.

 

[MikeG]

I'm following that your quote from my post is quite dishonest. I explicitly wrote........

... the use of this term to describe abuse by banks of those members of the public who use their services is well established........
Which is far from saying that all, or even most, private companies or corporations are predators in this or any other sense.

.........The banks who exploited borrowers during the credit bubble were rightly accused of predatory lending..........

Nice try, but your little get-out clause doesn't alter the fact that you, and therefore I in response, were talking about "banks that exploited borrowers".

Have a nice day.

You too.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah and it conforms to what I said it did. Apologism for expanding the size of the state because that is believed to be a great thing in its own right.

You call that "conventional left". I don't think everyone agrees with you. But you can not defend it. It's not about progressivism. It contradicts that. You can't refute that either. So it's . . . What do you say? . . . Pure ideology.

What is the income-egalitarian justification for government payments to the rich?

Oh yeah, you have nothing. What a shocker.

I have sent you a document with which I am in agreement. You have read it and don't agree with it. That's perfectly in order. The only "shocker" is that you seem to regard your collection of ultra-right prejudices as "left wing".

ETA If you sent me a document containing the arguments for immigration that you agree with, I would be very grateful. Or state them in your own words. Either will do.

 

[Craig B]

Dup deleted.

 

[Francesca R]

you seem to regard your collection of ultra-right prejudices as "left wing".

I think you have admitted already that you are clueless in respect of what my views actually are. And they are not the subject of the thread at all.

Your excercises in misrepresentation, speculation and well-poisoning will be discarded as usual.

What is the income-egalitarian justification for government payments to the rich?

Still nothing.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip The really, really stupid thing here is that we are simply arguing over the interpretation of one word.

snip

Agreed.

 

[Craig B]

I think you have admitted already that you are clueless in respect of what my views actually are. And they are not the subject of the thread at all.

Your excercises in misrepresentation, speculation and well-poisoning will be discarded as usual.

What is the income-egalitarian justification for government payments to the rich?

Still nothing.

You mean you haven't read what I sent you?

 

[Craig B]

Nice try, but your little get-out clause doesn't alter the fact that you, and therefore I in response, were talking about "banks that exploited borrowers".

And I see that you haven't noted let alone rebutted my response to your response. So here it is again.

... your quote from my post is quite dishonest ... You are intentionally misrepresenting me ...

 

[Rum]

Why does Labour continue to insist on sending John Prescott out to speak for them. He was on Today this morning and James Naughtie was being relatively gentle with him, but all we got from Prescott was garbled incomplete badly phrased replies, apparent evasions and a complete inability to express what the Labour party need to be doing right now. It was almost embarrassing.

 

[funk de fino]

Because he once punched a man who threw an egg.

 

[ceptimus]

The BBC are sucking up to the Conservatives - they're worried that the Tory government will cut or freeze their lovely licence fee and they don't want to upset them. So the BBC invite whatever Labour guys they can that will make Labour appear as unelectable as possible. I suppose they couldn't get Brown or Balls to appear this time, so Prescott was the best available choice.

 

[Craig B]

Why does Labour continue to insist on sending John Prescott out to speak for them. He was on Today this morning and James Naughtie was being relatively gentle with him, but all we got from Prescott was garbled incomplete badly phrased replies, apparent evasions and a complete inability to express what the Labour party need to be doing right now. It was almost embarrassing.

This nonsense didn't do the LP much good in Scotland during the election campaign.

 

[Rum]

The BBC are sucking up to the Conservatives - they're worried that the Tory government will cut or freeze their lovely licence fee and they don't want to upset them. So the BBC invite whatever Labour guys they can that will make Labour appear as unelectable as possible. I suppose they couldn't get Brown or Balls to appear this time, so Prescott was the best available choice.

Historically it is the party in power which gets paranoid and accused the Beeb of bias. I don't think they can win.

 

[MikeG]

The BBC are sucking up to the Conservatives - they're worried that the Tory government will cut or freeze their lovely licence fee and they don't want to upset them. So the BBC invite whatever Labour guys they can that will make Labour appear as unelectable as possible. I suppose they couldn't get Brown or Balls to appear this time, so Prescott was the best available choice.

The Conspiracy Theory sub-forum is thatta way ----->