[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have never misquoted you. You've accused me of it and in response I've posted your own words back to you...

Well. it doesn't matter to me whether you agree or not because I was actually answering a post from MTVN. I quoted him...

So... are you going to answer every one of my posts today? Are you bored and looking for an argument? Because I'm not interested.

You misquoted me yesterday livia..

I corrected you then remember? When you start involving 'the forum' in your posts know that 'the forum' has the right to reply.
I have been involved in this discussion from the off I don't intend to be railroaded off.
If you don't want to respond to me that's fine.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You misquoted me yesterday livia..

I corrected you then remember? When you start involving 'the forum' in your posts know that 'the forum' has the right to reply.
I have been involved in this discussion from the off I don't intend to be railroaded off.
If you don't want to respond to me that's fine.

With respect - 'Circular argument' is futile and wearing. To 'Question' then be replied to with a valid 'Answer' , only to 'Ignore' the answer and pose the same 'Question'.

To 'Contradict', then be replied to with a valid 'Response' which rebuts the contradiction with clear 'Evidence', only to 'Ignore' then make the same 'Contradiction'

To 'Misrepresent', then be replied to with a valid response which 'Exposes' the 'Misrepresentation' by the use of clear 'Evidence', only to 'Ignore' then persist with the same 'Misrepresentation'

is very wearing, and is not conducive to proper discussion or debate, but does, instead, always result in futility and bad feeling.

Just putting that out there.

[Toy Soldier]

The question remains, though. If all tibbers are circular arguers and most circular arguers are tibbers, how many angry tibby rants does it take to bring down a multinational terrorist organisation?

I can't claim to know the answer but I will for damned sure be here to find out!!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The question remains, though. If all tibbers are circular arguers and most circular arguers are tibbers, how many angry tibby rants does it take to bring down a multinational terrorist organisation?

I can't claim to know the answer but I will for damned sure be here to find out!!

42.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

42.

So what you're saying is... That 42 rants against Islamic extremism would cancel out Islamic extremism? And if 42 is the meaning of life, then "anti 42" is the inverse of the meaning of life. So, it then follows, that Islamic extremism is the meaning of life??

*suspicious*

Is that really jew, Livia? Or some sort of Islamic imposter?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So what you're saying is... That 42 rants against Islamic extremism would cancel out Islamic extremism? And if 42 is the meaning of life, then "anti 42" is the inverse of the meaning of life. So, it then follows, that Islamic extremism is the meaning of life??

*suspicious*

Is that really jew, Livia? Or some sort of Islamic imposter?

LOL... your train of thought is unique, TS.

I won't mention to my father you think I am Islamic imposter for fear he will burst into flames.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The question remains, though. If all tibbers are circular arguers and most circular arguers are tibbers, how many angry tibby rants does it take to bring down a multinational terrorist organisation?

I can't claim to know the answer but I will for damned sure be here to find out!!

You got me T.S.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't think for one minute that Muslims in the UK are less opposed to extremism, I just think the mind-set here is different. I don't think they feel the need to be vociferous because people in this country don't require the Muslim community to stand up. The reaction on this forum endorses that for me. When the kosher deli was attacked in Paris, some of the first comments up here were 'I hope the Muslim community isn't caught in a backlash', followed by comments that it was probably a coincidence it was a kosher deli and nothing to do with any kind of anti-Semitism. We have endless comments about Muslims and terrorists being two quite different things, which they are. Yet I have been questioned quite aggressively by more than one person about Israel's stance on Palestine simply because I'm Jewish, indeed, one poster said on the thread about the Jewish man being spat at in Paris, that we have to stop arming Israel.

I think that 7/7 was at least on a par with the Paris incident, don't you? What we're having here now is an orchestrated campaign with professional photographs to encourage people to take part, not a spontaneous outpouring of public solidarity.

Ok that's an interesting point which you might be right about. I wouldn't necessarily consider that a bad thing though, if you are right then doesn't it speak positively of how the Muslim community has largely integrated into our society that people do worry about a potential backlash, and that people are concerned to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and extremists? I would also like to think that Jewish people wouldn't feel out of place here in their own country, maybe that's not as true now as it was maybe ten years ago which is sad if so.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

With respect - 'Circular argument' is futile and wearing. To 'Question' then be replied to with a valid 'Answer' , only to 'Ignore' the answer and pose the same 'Question'.

To 'Contradict', then be replied to with a valid 'Response' which rebuts the contradiction with clear 'Evidence', only to 'Ignore' then make the same 'Contradiction'

To 'Misrepresent', then be replied to with a valid response which 'Exposes' the 'Misrepresentation' by the use of clear 'Evidence', only to 'Ignore' then persist with the same 'Misrepresentation'

is very wearing, and is not conducive to proper discussion or debate, but does, instead, always result in futility and bad feeling.

Just putting that out there.

With respect I'm not interested in your opinion on my interactions with other members, stick to the topic please.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

With respect I'm not interested in your opinion on my interactions with other members, stick to the topic please.

Oh my dear Kizzy ; the last 154 posts on this thread have not been 'on' topic, of which a great majority are your posts. In fact, it was you who brought the 'topic' to where it was in the very final post - post no 151 - to which I immediately responded with post no. 152; my 'Circular Argument' post, the post you now quote. So to be exact, I am being 'on topic'.

As for your statement; "I'm not interested in your opinion on my interaction with other members", then this is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of your statement to Livia in your post no. 151, in which you state: "When you start involving 'the forum' in your posts know that 'the forum' has the right to reply". So it is alright for you to claim democratic process when it suits you, but you deny other forum members the same democratic right when it doesn't suit you?

Further, and to be exact; I was not just voicing my opinion on your "interaction with other members", because you are guilty of the very same 'Circular Argument (and other 'Strawman' techniques) in your discussions with me on this thread, and with me on virtually every other thread on this forum, and therefore, my concern for "other members" suffering from your circular argument tactics was in reality, just secondary to my primary concern of your use of such tactics in discussions with me.

Finally, this is not a personal attack; it is FAIR COMMENT - A STATEMENT OF FACTS, made in the honest hope that, once highlighted for you, you will desist from using such tactics, thereby ensuring more honest, reasoned debate, because all Strawman tactics merely impoverish a debate/discussion by causing such members who they are employed against, to resist joining in discussions - deterred by an inescapable sense of futility.

It is, after all, a democratic discussion forum, where 'right to reply' is afforded to every member.

[Kizzy]

It is coming across as tag teaming kirk.

Anyone has the right to post yes, but I'd appreciate it if you discussed the topic and not me, this is serious debates and this is a sensitive subject.

[Vanessa]

Some people have been posting these videos on facebook. I don't want to see that on my timeline.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is coming across as tag teaming kirk.

Anyone has the right to post yes, but I'd appreciate it if you discussed the topic and not me, this is serious debates and this is a sensitive subject.

No one on here knows better than I do Kizzy about being single-handed against multiple antagonists who are 'teamed up' - and you have been part of such 'teams' against me on many occasions, so I assure you that I am not participating in such tactics, merely responding to your posts and to your responses to my posts. If other members are similarly engaged with you in a parallel manner, then it is not incidental but coincidental.

I agree with you that this should be a serious debate on a sensitive nature, and my posts are always serious in nature and the passion I write with very sincere, but I admit that - just like your good self - I do become frivolous in reaction to frivolity, and I do tend to 'follow suit' when a thread deviates from the original topic.

Anyway, I suggest we leave it there. We have not fallen out or lapsed into personal insult (something I am genuinely pleased about) and I look forward to further debate/discussion with you.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

No one on here knows better than I do Kizzy about being single-handed against multiple antagonists who are 'teamed up' - and you have been part of such 'teams' against me on many occasions, so I assure you that I am not participating in such tactics, merely responding to your posts and to your responses to my posts. If other members are similarly engaged with you in a parallel manner, then it is not incidental but coincidental.

I agree with you that this should be a serious debate on a sensitive nature, and my posts are always serious in nature and the passion I write with very sincere, but I admit that - just like your good self - I do become frivolous in reaction to frivolity, and I do tend to 'follow suit' when a thread deviates from the original topic.

Anyway, I suggest we leave it there. We have not fallen out or lapsed into personal insult (something I am genuinely pleased about) and I look forward to further debate/discussion with you.

I have never done that, I have my opinion on a topic and mine alone.