A free-for-all thread

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

Told you.

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

Anyway, Dan, you might not be calling the Met arseholes but you sure are calling them all pricks.

[AnnihiSlateR]

I don't get it dan, why do you go so far out of your way to discredit them?

[Azubi]

Lads, will you drop it? He said he doesn't want a discussion about it.

[Danroush]

Anyway, Dan, you might not be calling the Met arseholes but you sure are calling them all pricks.

I'll throw some figures in, don't take these as factual numbers, just a way of illustrating what I mean.

Say for example, I think that roughly 60-70% of them are more unjust than they are just, i.e. that they act more partially and biased than what should be allowed, granting of course that everyone is slightly partial, but this 60-70% are beyond what should, by my opinion of course, be accepted. Due to this being a majority, I refer to "The Met" as I refer to that 60-70%, because I usually assume that people realise that saying something about a group in general is not the same as saying that it applies to every one of them.

For example, if I said "women are weaker than men," generally, in the majority of cases this will be true. Of course there are many, many women who are stronger than men, but to say "women are weaker than men" does not rule out those women, other than perhaps that I could make myself clearer by adding "in general" to it. So perhaps I should add the words "in general" when I speak about the Met and for that lack of clarity I apologise, but for my overall opinion on them I do not

[Jim]

Out of interest, how many cases would it take for you to believe that perhaps the Met aren't as good as you're claiming?

See, this is a general problem with all public services. As I mentioned earlier with the NHS, it's a very poorly run organisation, because it's publicly funded. The public feel (rightly or wrongly) that they should have a say in how it's run. I personally don't think this is a good idea - the public should rightly have a say WHAT services are provided, but leave it up to people who know who to run organisations on HOW to deliver it. The NHS is a complete organisational mess, with each SHA and Trust running things their own way, recording things their own way, and the only thing they do consistently is reporting back to the Department of Health.

A similar analog might be seen in the Met, what they do is vital, but how they do it should not be left up to the public, that should be left to law enforcement experts who know how to proportionally implement what the public wants to be done.

[Noodle]

Lads, will you drop it? He said he doesn't want a discussion about it.

I read that part too, much like I read some things in The Sun.

[Danroush]

A similar analog might be seen in the Met, what they do is vital, but how they do it should not be left up to the public, that should be left to law enforcement experts who know how to proportionally implement what the public wants to be done.

Perhaps, but I'd suggest the public should have a small amount of influence in that "experts" will never be truly flawless, and to have at least some outside insight into how it is run can be greatly beneficial in keeping a balanced view.


(just a note, thanks for always talking to me like an adult unlike some others on this forum )

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

(just a note, thanks for always talking to me like an adult unlike some others on this forum)

Stop posting shite like this and people might start to respect you a bit.

[Jim]

Pro-Tip: I tackle his arguments rather than him. Stops the trolling somewhat.

[Danroush]

Pro-Tip: I tackle his arguments rather than him. Stops the trolling somewhat.

Yeah, if I'm having to defend myself against ad hominem attacks as much as what I'm discussing it sometimes becomes difficult to separate the two, especially when there's multiple replies to me every time I post

[Rickles_the_Mighty]

Pro-Tip: I tackle his arguments rather than him. Stops the trolling somewhat.

Yeah, if I'm having to defend myself against ad hominem attacks as much as what I'm discussing it sometimes becomes difficult to separate the two, especially when there's multiple replies to me every time I post

Ignore the ad hominems and get on with your discussions. It's really easy.

[Danroush]

Pro-Tip: I tackle his arguments rather than him. Stops the trolling somewhat.

Yeah, if I'm having to defend myself against ad hominem attacks as much as what I'm discussing it sometimes becomes difficult to separate the two, especially when there's multiple replies to me every time I post

Ignore the ad hominems and get on with your discussions. It's really easy.

I can understand why you'd say that, but when you have so many people trying to have a jibe at you in any way they can it does become quite grating. These days I've obviously got better at doing what you suggested, but it is a thing that's often easier said than done.

[thehairyone]

Witness now the magicaly disappearing act my bank balance will shortly be doing when I book all my Wacken flights...

[Noodle]

(just a note, thanks for always talking to me like an adult unlike some others on this forum )

Not everyone fancies a debate every week or two, and when it's about the same sort of subject, people will start to take the piss. Mainly because you're extremely tiring to debate against.

Just out of interest, are you part of a debating team/club/society?