[reece(:]

It’s disgusting yall are still defaulting that he is lying

[Twosugars]

Alf and Oliver say they're open minded but act like prosecution of the victim

[Toy Soldier]

If I was getting beaten up you damn well better believe I'd be keeping hold of my sandwich .

Plot twist: it's not related to sexuality or race, they were trying to mug him for his sandwich and he protected it with his life and they left empty handed. A victory.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If I was getting beaten up you damn well better believe I'd be keeping hold of my sandwich .

Plot twist: it's not related to sexuality or race, they were trying to mug him for his sandwich and he protected it with his life and they left empty handed. A victory.

Joey vibes

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Joey vibes

I was thinking this too

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Alf

You keep saying police have confirmed the fact's, and I keep asking you to prove it to me, yet you don't.

I've never once made out that he's lying, yet you say I have. I'm just talking about.the actual reality of what we know.

You keep making this about me, as though I've done something wrong, but it is you that has jumped to the conclusion of this story, before it's even been concluded.

Literally look at the first post? Look at the other links that have since been posted, you won't because you think ignoring the facts that have been established somehow makes them disappear, it doesn't.

You're just continuing to deny the reality of the situation which is that this is a hate crime and instead you're blaming the victim (who just so happens to be black and gay) for being attacked when the police have confirmed they have footage of the attackers tying a noose around his neck.

There's very little point in discussing anything with you if you continue to detach yourself from the facts like you have in this thread. Facts are facts and no vast amounts of denial is gonna change that.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Literally look at the first post? Look at the other links that have since been posted, you won't because you think ignoring the facts that have been established somehow makes them disappear, it doesn't.

You're just continuing to deny the reality of the situation which is that this is a hate crime and instead you're blaming the victim (who just so happens to be black and gay) for being attacked when the police have confirmed they have footage of the attackers tying a noose around his neck.

There's very little point in discussing anything with you if you continue to detach yourself from the facts like you have in this thread. Facts are facts and no vast amounts of denial is gonna change that.

Show me one post which I've made where I denied what he says is the truth. I've said there's doubts in his story, but I've never once denied it happened.

If there was any definite proof of this attack, then it would be all over the news, but at the moment there is none. Watch the police press conference, the officer still uses the word accusation/alleged

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Literally look at the first post? Look at the other links that have since been posted, you won't because you think ignoring the facts that have been established somehow makes them disappear, it doesn't.



You're just continuing to deny the reality of the situation which is that this is a hate crime and instead you're blaming the victim (who just so happens to be black and gay) for being attacked when the police have confirmed they have footage of the attackers tying a noose around his neck.



There's very little point in discussing anything with you if you continue to detach yourself from the facts like you have in this thread. Facts are facts and no vast amounts of denial is gonna change that.

But the Sandwich tbf

[Toy Soldier]

OK so to play Keanu Reeves in the 1998 smash hit "Devil's Advocate"... To an extent, I can see where Alf is coming from here, although I maintain my earlier opinion that its a bit odd that he's willing to jump to conclusions in one situation and then insist on evidence in another (we call this LT dissonance).

I do generally prefer to wait for a more complete story before blowing the horn of judgement.

Not doing so would indeed make me a hypocrite because I do insist on waiting for the full facts before conceding that an attack is for example, Islamic terrorism related, even when it seems like the most likely scenario. And there are some very important reasons for that.

Logically speaking I can't think of any decent argument for that not being applied at all times so... Yes... Unless there is video or witness statement then it's foolish to assume that we have the whole and accurate story. That's not saying that we don't. Again I'm just applying the same logic as above; it being wrong to say "this is obvz Islamic terrorism!" on the basis of a couple of Web articles.

I do also feel that Alf has backed himself into a corner here and is lashing out like an ol' dog being poked with a stick. It's not a very comfortable situation all round.

Also to Alf... I guess all I can say there is, I conceded that it's fair to reserve judgement in the absense of concrete evidence, in any and all cases, and I just hope that you'll be more inclined to apply that philosophy to other news stories in future, and not declare or imply that things are "obviously the case", having had a taste of the flipside.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

OK so to play Keanu Reeves in the 1998 smash hit "Devil's Advocate"... To an extent, I can see where Alf is coming from here, although I maintain my earlier opinion that its a bit odd that he's willing to jump to conclusions in one situation and then insist on evidence in another (we call this LT dissonance).

I do generally prefer to wait for a more complete story before blowing the horn of judgement.

Not doing so would indeed make me a hypocrite because I do insist on waiting for the full facts before conceding that an attack is for example, Islamic terrorism related, even when it seems like the most likely scenario. And there are some very important reasons for that.

Logically speaking I can't think of any decent argument for that not being applied at all times so... Yes... Unless there is video or witness statement then it's foolish to assume that we have the whole and accurate story. That's not saying that we don't. Again I'm just applying the same logic as above; it being wrong to say "this is obvz Islamic terrorism!" on the basis of a couple of Web articles.

I do also feel that Alf has backed himself into a corner here and is lashing out like an ol' dog being poked with a stick. It's not a very comfortable situation all round.

Also to Alf... I guess all I can say there is, I conceded that it's fair to reserve judgement in the absense of concrete evidence, in any and all cases, and I just hope that you'll be more inclined to apply that philosophy to other news stories in future, and not declare or imply that things are "obviously the case", having had a taste of the flipside.

I am not backed into any corner, quite the opposite. I'm on the front foot. You shouldn't be concerned for me, I'm happy.

Anyway, have you got any updates on this story? or have you just popped in to talk about me?

Who's next?

[SherzyK]

Originally Posted by Alf

I am not backed into any corner, quite the opposite. I'm on the front foot. You shouldn't be concerned for me, I'm happy.

Anyway, have you got any updates on this story? or have you just popped in to talk about me?

Who's next?

What argument do you think you’re winning here?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

OK so to play Keanu Reeves in the 1998 smash hit "Devil's Advocate"... To an extent, I can see where Alf is coming from here, although I maintain my earlier opinion that its a bit odd that he's willing to jump to conclusions in one situation and then insist on evidence in another (we call this LT dissonance).

I do generally prefer to wait for a more complete story before blowing the horn of judgement.

Not doing so would indeed make me a hypocrite because I do insist on waiting for the full facts before conceding that an attack is for example, Islamic terrorism related, even when it seems like the most likely scenario. And there are some very important reasons for that.

Logically speaking I can't think of any decent argument for that not being applied at all times so... Yes... Unless there is video or witness statement then it's foolish to assume that we have the whole and accurate story. That's not saying that we don't. Again I'm just applying the same logic as above; it being wrong to say "this is obvz Islamic terrorism!" on the basis of a couple of Web articles.

I do also feel that Alf has backed himself into a corner here and is lashing out like an ol' dog being poked with a stick. It's not a very comfortable situation all round.

Also to Alf... I guess all I can say there is, I conceded that it's fair to reserve judgement in the absense of concrete evidence, in any and all cases, and I just hope that you'll be more inclined to apply that philosophy to other news stories in future, and not declare or imply that things are "obviously the case", having had a taste of the flipside.

LT dissonance
I call it an agenda

[Cherie]

Why can't people argue a point without resorting to personal insults? From what I can recall it used to be infraction worthy to discuss members in a negative way, bring back Josy please who used to apply the rules fairly. For me the victim is indeed a victim until proven otherwise even though there are some holes in his story but a traumatic incident can make you remember things differently to how they actually happened so maybe that is why

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Why can't people argue a point without resorting to personal insults? From what I can recall it used to be infraction worthy to discuss members in a negative way, bring back Josy please who used to apply the rules fairly. For me the victim is indeed a victim until proven otherwise even though there are some holes in his story but a traumatic incident can make you remember things differently to how they actually happened so maybe that is why

it's a forum ... where alternative views are expressed. By all means members can refute arguments, thats what it's all about, but i agree, it's a step too far to personally criticize other members, and it's happening ALL the time now.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Why can't people argue a point without resorting to personal insults? From what I can recall it used to be infraction worthy to discuss members in a negative way, bring back Josy please who used to apply the rules fairly. For me the victim is indeed a victim until proven otherwise even though there are some holes in his story but a traumatic incident can make you remember things differently to how they actually happened so maybe that is why

Hmmm it's complicated. Flat out insults for no reason obviously there is no call for, however with a lot of SD topics it simply isn't possible to genuinely discuss the topic at all if we all have to wear blinkers and never comment on / question each other's prejudices and agendae. I suppose we should always try to do so respectfully, though. But if its outright not allowed the topics become pointless and meaningless, full of "elephants in the room".

I honestly think the vast majority of members would rather people say what they mean rather than skirting around things disingenuously which is what used to happen all the time when the "don't discuss each other" rule was more harshly enforced. I guess it goes too far if it descends into mocking, or if its a small post just to call someone out without any elaboration or further contribution to the topic.

I mean I agree that entering a topic to say "OMG you are such a bigot" isn't necessary, but I'll never agree that it shouldn't be OK to say "Hmm I think this view is bigoted because..." with an explanation.

[parmnion]

Imo, Alf has been calm and reasonable, more like a cuddly cat than a snarling dog.

[Dash Darington]

There's enough about this story that's bizarre and implausible to warrant skepticism, especially in light of the trend of black people victimizing themselves in hoax attacks.

[Dash Darington]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Guys he kept hold of his sandwich so the hospital confirming he was treated for a fractured rib and bruising are clearly lying

Smollett told fans that he wanted to clarify that following the attack, he was bruised but his ribs were neither cracked nor broken.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/enter...ert/index.html

A solid example of why all the people who are acting like they know what happened are talking out of their ass. Smug and completely wrong. He wasn't even admitted to a hospital. Wait for the facts.

[SherzyK]

Originally Posted by Dash Darington

Smollett told fans that he wanted to clarify that following the attack, he was bruised but his ribs were neither cracked nor broken.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/03/enter...ert/index.html

A solid example of why all the people who are acting like they know what happened are talking out of their ass. Smug and completely wrong. Wait for the facts.

He was still attacked nonetheless, why ignore the facts? The police did confirm that the attack did indeed happen, regardless of broken ribs or whatever. Do you not think this attack was unprovoked or even just a little bit cruel?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by SherzyK

The police did confirm that the attack did indeed happen, regardless of broken ribs or whatever.

When? All I've seen confirmed was that he had a piece of rope around his neck, that he had some bruises, and that some people were outside at the same time.

[SherzyK]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

When? All I've seen confirmed was that he had a piece of rope around his neck, that he had some bruises, and that some people were outside at the same time.

Well he didn’t beat himself up and get those bruises that’s for damn sure

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by SherzyK

Well he didn’t beat himself up and get those bruises that’s for damn sure

On a dark and icy night, can you not think of another way someone could get lightly bruises arms and ribs?

[SherzyK]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

On a dark and icy night, can you not think of another way someone could get lightly bruises arms and ribs?

With a rope around their neck while two other men were present? Hmmmm I wonder

[SherzyK]

Explain the rope please

I’m waiting for an entire essay countering what I said

[Oliver_W]

Who knows - were neck injuries mentioned in the hospital reports? Why did he just keep it around his neck (which somehow got around his neck through his cold weather clothing) for 45 mins after the attack? Why did the bleach not discolour his clothes or burn his skin?