A Valentine’s wish

Posted on by

My Valentine’s Day wish is for terrorist maniacs to rip out the hearts, lungs and livers of all people who use the term ‘moral equivalence’ in political debate. It’s content-free drivel, used only to smear an opponent while giving yourself spurious intellectual credentials.

Either that, or for ****** ***** to snog me. Either would be acceptable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

8 thoughts on “A Valentine’s wish”

  1. Hey, John boy. I noticed you doing the ‘post and run away’ thing AGAIN, this time you’re bothering the House of Dumb.

    >>The CPS figures weren’t made up;<<

    The CPS said there were only 11 prosecutions in 15 years, the Telegraph found additional cases. Sure seems like the CPS is making up figures to me. Unless you can prove your next statement:-

    >>the Telegraph’s ‘debunking’ of them was.<<

    A) How do you know this?

    B) Where’s your proof?

    >>Which is similar, but subtly different. I wonder if you can see how?<<

    I’ve been around too long to fall for the idea that this wonderfully cryptic statement actually means anything. If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were making the mistake of assuming that making snide shots at others proves your intellectual superiority to them. Unfortunately intellectual superiority is the sort of thing that’s earned, and you’re not earning it my friend.

    Obviously you are fully aware that it has no meaning as well, which is why you never stuck around to back up your statements.

    My Valentine’s wish for you is that you snap out of this compulsion to troll around the internet showing your backside to people.

  2. This comment, which I made last time you raised this topic here, shows that none of the Telegraph’s examples fit the criteria we’re talking about.

    The CPS were asked to reveal home defence cases; they did. The Telegraph came up with a lot of tangential bullshit but no additional cases in which people were convicted of murder or manslaughter for killing a home intruder.

  3. Your limiting of the discussion to whether people are being charged and prosecuted for murder or manslaughter is just a nakedly attempt to warp the ‘criteria’ in favour of your argument, deliberately ignoring the people who are charged with lesser offenses into the bargain. Not very honest of you.

    The point is not about whether people are charged with murder or manslaughter for defending themselves, it’s about whether people are charged with anything for defending themselves, as even the Director of Public Prosecutions recognises:-

    >>Ken Macdonald QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced last week that the Crown Prosecution Service had found only 11 examples in the past 15 years of householders prosecuted for attacking intruders in homes, commercial premises and on private land.<<

    Mr. MacDonald isn’t talking about murder or manslaughter prosecutions, why are you?

    something else that makes your claim that the Telegraph came up with a ‘lot of tangential bullshit’ mere wishful thinking on your part… very few(possibly only two) of the additional cases mentioned in the article took place away from the homes of the victims, so what grounds do you have for claiming that the article was ‘tangential bullshit’?

    Yet another attempt to use high-faluting language to cover up your BSing that’s backfired on you.

  4. I notice that you’re decided to go back over to Dumbjon’s joint and continue the argument over there. Why? I don’t think he’s likely to be very sympathetic to your position. And if you’d actually read my last post, you’d have some inkling of how weak your own counter-argument is.

    So what are you trying to achieve, John? Do you want to be completely humiliated in public? Is that what you are after? Because you know what a bastard I am, John, and I’m very happy to oblige you.

    Your call, genius.

  5. I don’t really give a fuck whether Dumb Jon is sympathetic to my arguments or not. However, his blog features the article about home defence rights which this discussion, somewhat mysteriously, is based on. Mine doesn’t. Hence, argument continues over there.

    By the way, do you have any idea how much of an idiot using phrases like "high-faluting language" makes you sound?

Comments are closed.