The “ I’ve got something to say, but it doesn’t warrant its own thread “ thread.

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

....I'm sure that Daggers will be thrilled to know that you consider what is happening to him and his family mere "collateral damage" as a consequence of "freedom". Thoughts and prayers, right?

I block people when they prove themselves to be complete pricks. I don’t care what those people think. My list bloomed during the referendum and Covid…unsurprisingly. You can’t reason with stupid. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, marbles said:

Okay - just a couple things that come to mind.  For the record, I am not trying to attack Daggers - I don’t like the guy, but I also don’t wish bad things on him.

 

Are they really grifters, or is it another case of Daggers hatred for the right causing him to label them as grifters?  
“”His inheritance” Really?  I hate hearing that from anyone.  His dad earned that money to do with as he pleases.  I really hate that he phrased it that way.

Not sure what he means by referendum - but I’m guessing his dad leans right, which I know Daggers hates. Its a real shame that the two of them couldn’t put their political beliefs aside in order to have a relationship.  Maybe then he would have actually talked to Daggers before spending the money.

 

Now, for the subject.

If he really is being scammed - that’s a crime and would fall outside the realm of what I am defending.  If it’s true, they should be shut down and prosecuted if possible.

 

 

I would be inclined to think they are grifters given the preponderance of them in recent times, but there you are.

[marbles]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I would be inclined to think they are grifters given the preponderance of them in recent times, but there you are.

Do you mean because of the term “right” or because you’ve seen an increase in grifters recently?

 

Like I said, if they really are grifters, what they are doing is committing a crime.  No where in any of my posts have I said people have the right to commit a crime without repercussions.

 

So, I’m not even sure why you would have brought up his issue.  

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, marbles said:

Do you mean because of the term “right” or because you’ve seen an increase in grifters recently?

 

Like I said, if they really are grifters, what they are doing is committing a crime.  No where in any of my posts have I said people have the right to commit a crime without repercussions.

 

So, I’m not even sure why you would have brought up his issue.  

 

...the latter.

 

And I brought it up because I believe that advocacy of near-to unlimited freedom of speech when married to policy decisions on it often leads to this kind of situation - where someone isn't or cannot be held accountable for words that do end up having a material effect on another person or people. It may not be what those who advocate for such near-to unlimited freedom of speech intend, but it is still an evident consequence of it.

[marbles]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

...the latter.

 

And I brought it up because I believe that advocacy of near-to unlimited freedom of speech when married to policy decisions on it often leads to this kind of situation - where someone isn't or cannot be held accountable for words that do end up having a material effect on another person or people. It may not be what those who advocate for such near-to unlimited freedom of speech intend, but it is still an evident consequence of it.

Gotcha

 

I understand, but this is not a legit example.  Free speech does not cover the commission of a crime - which this would be.

It really is an unfair comparison to try and make.

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, marbles said:

Gotcha

 

I understand, but this is not a legit example.  Free speech does not cover the commission of a crime - which this would be.

It really is an unfair comparison to try and make.

 

 

So be it, I disagree. But that's fine.

[marbles]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

So be it, I disagree. But that's fine.

I’m curious why you disagree

 

If something is already illegal, why would you use it to basically say “see, this illegal thing is what they are doing because you won’t make it illegal”.  Just makes no sense.  It’s already illegal, sooooo…….it wouldn’t be “as a result”.  
 

Guess I could try it this way.

 

I absolutely agree 1000% with you that anything that’s illegal, should be stopped from happening online.

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, marbles said:

I’m curious why you disagree

 

If something is already illegal, why would you use it to basically say “see, this illegal thing is what they are doing because you won’t make it illegal”.  Just makes no sense.  It’s already illegal, sooooo…….it wouldn’t be “as a result”.  
 

Guess I could try it this way.

 

I absolutely agree 1000% with you that anything that’s illegal, should be stopped from happening online.

 

 

 

 

I disagree that advocacy for near-unlimited free speech and that leading to crafting of policy hasn't been a contributing factor to situations like the one we're discussing. Yes, scamming is illegal, but due in part to that advocacy, getting an arrest, much less a conviction, or another measure of justice, is much more difficult than it might otherwise be.

 

But so it goes.

 

Edit: as an example, Alex Jones. How much was he able to scam, how much damage was he able to cause, while hiding behind the defence that freedom of speech should be sacrosanct pretty much always?

Edited 8 April 2023 by leicsmac

[marbles]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I disagree that advocacy for near-unlimited free speech and that leading to crafting of policy hasn't been a contributing factor to situations like the one we're discussing. Yes, scamming is illegal, but due in part to that advocacy, getting an arrest, much less a conviction, or another measure of justice, is much more difficult than it might otherwise be.

 

But so it goes.

No offense, but your logic is pretty bad.

They’ve already identified an issue and addressed it - but you use that same (previously addressed) issue and say “this needs to be addressed”

 

I’m sorry, but what?!?

 

Nevermind.  You will never be able to explain this in a way that doesn’t come across as a giant stretch of the imagination.

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

No offense, but your logic is pretty bad.

They’ve already identified an issue and addressed it - but you use that same (previously addressed) issue and say “this needs to be addressed”

 

I’m sorry, but what?!?

 

Nevermind.  You will never be able to explain this in a way that doesn’t come across as a giant stretch of the imagination.

 

 

It's clearly not being addressed well enough, I think that is obvious, and I think we just disagree on where the responsibility lies for that.

 

I'm not sure how much more I can clarify that and I think our positions on the matter are pretty well established, so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

 

[grobyfox1990]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, fair enough then.

 

I quote, "My father is giving away my inheritance to a collection of online far right grifters and a particularly ugly political party.

 

We haven’t spoken more than three words since the referendum."

 

I mean, caveat emptor might apply, but personally I only think that's fair if the person who has been hoodwinked has the ability to get back at the scammers personally. Which, sadly, isn't often true, given legal action is often time and money-intensive, especially across borders.

Well colour me absolutely gobsmacked. I skim read your posts and you always seem very reasoned and mature. You’re the last person I’d expect to fall out with close family over something as frivolous as politics and money. I’m genuinely disappointed over what you’re going through as you’re defo not an internet bozo. Really hope you can all find a way to compromise at some point, nothing more important than family etc 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Well colour me absolutely gobsmacked. I skim read your posts and you always seem very reasoned and mature. You’re the last person I’d expect to fall out with close family over something as frivolous as politics and money. I’m genuinely disappointed over what you’re going through as you’re defo not an internet bozo. Really hope you can all find a way to compromise at some point, nothing more important than family etc 

Nah, it's not me man. Look further up thread.

[grobyfox1990]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, it's not me man. Look further up thread.

Ah crap I see you put ‘quote’ … yeh about me skim reading posts and referring to those internet bozos….

[Royston.]

My skybet account has been suspended but they have not sent a link to my email so I can resolve whatever.

 

Can anyone advise??

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, Royston. said:

My skybet account has been suspended but they have not sent a link to my email so I can resolve whatever.

 

Can anyone advise??

Online chat? 

[Royston.]

22 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Online chat? 

You need to log in to use that and I can't log in

[ozleicester]

This is always worth watching

 

 

[Daggers]

12 hours ago, ozleicester said:

This is always worth watching

 

 

Not advisable for City fans rn 

[Daggers]

[Parafox]

Just noticed my nephew looks like David Tennant.

 

A photo taken at his recent marriage.

 

[Tommy G]

Dalai Lama is a nonse 

[NAKC20]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

Just noticed my nephew looks like David Tennant.

 

A photo taken at his recent marriage.

 

He doesnt look very happy. Assuming the photo was taken after the vows and the reality of being married was already sinking in 🤣

[foxile5]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Dalai Lama is a nonse 

Seen this today.

 

I'm honestly baffled at the behavior. I mean, I find it hard to believe he's a paedo but I can't really see how he'd have deemed that kind of behaviour appropriate?!

 

What the **** was he thinking?

[Tinman]

[HighPeakFox]

I'm giving a concert on Saturday and it's a sell out. 

 

I'm pretty proud of myself, not going to lie.