"Human Rights" --European Court

[llcoolphil]

Is any of this about disagreeing with me, or not agreeing with me. I don't think so.

And I do love your resorting to bullying in advance, particularly amusing given your own words elsewhere. Waaaaay to go.

Have I been "stating universal rules to justice having said that it was entirely subjective and agreeing that justice was in fact universal"? Then he should be able to show where I have.

He can't, because it's trolling. But not very good trolling.

If you and your chummies want to keep on going as you're going, you're welcome to.

[worm]

Here we have an example of Neil categorically stating that justice is subjective:

There is no universal view of justice. The best it can ever get to is an idea of justice that the majority will accept.

Edited February 22, 2011 by worm

[gratedenini]

Now, care to explain how Im bullying you by pointing out what is self evidently true to everyone but you? I think you need to remember that just because you own the website, it doesnt make everything you post on it the undisputable truth. You own a website. You aren't master of the universe

[eFestivals]

Here we have an example of Neil categorically stating that justice is subjective:

Here we have the first of many examples of Neil stating universal rules to justice:

Here we have me asking if double standards are the antithesis of the universal notion of justice................

And here we have Neil confirming without any ambiguity that justice is in fact universal.....

To summarise, that's very clear evidence of Neil "stating universal rules to justice (the antithesis of 'double standards') having said that it was entirely subjective ('no universal view of justice') and agreeing that justice was in fact universal (it is 'correct' to say that double standards are unjust because they defy the 'universal definition of justice')."

All taken out of the context it was written in to give the effect you wanted, and ignoring the many posts that disprove what you wish to present me as. That your makes you what worm? Does phil have the same issue with your own lies, or just from one person?

As we got to see as the convo went along, all I was saying is actually what you and phil think on this subject. You both tried extremely hard to pick an argument, and all you found was that there was none to be had on the subject.

And now we're where we are - where you're picking an argument on different terms, because argument with me is what you want. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

It looks like I'll be having to scratch that itch soon.

[llcoolphil]

All taken out of the context it was written in to give the effect you wanted, and ignoring the many posts that disprove what you wish to present me as. That your makes you what worm? Does phil have the same issue with your own lies, or just from one person?

As we got to see as the convo went along, all I was saying is actually what you and phil think on this subject. You both tried extremely hard to pick an argument, and all you found was that there was none to be had on the subject.

And now we're where we are - where you're picking an argument on different terms, because argument with me is what you want. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

It looks like I'll be having to scratch that itch soon.

[eFestivals]

If you look at my first post in this thread it was answering a point made by tony, not you. You then came jumping in with your bollocks about idiot pills.

Where I asked if you'd been "on the stupid pills", I was better explaining what you said to tony as tony was asking a question of what I'd said. And my better explaining was necessary, to clarify how "universal" had been used by me, because you were presenting an incorrect view of what I'd said - as shown by your later acceptance of that clarification as being right.

Now care to explain your bullying comment or shall i just assume its another comment you’re not pleased with yourself about ozymandius

You were getting it in early - by saying that anyone who didn't agree with you and who agreed with me was by default "a twat" and "a sycophant" - which amusingly has you thinking yourself indisputably always right, the exact same thing you're saying is so very wrong when you're thinking I'm doing that.

Meanwhile, you're quite happy to use your own lies to make a point; again, the exact same thing you're saying is so very wrong when you're thinking I'm doing that.

And as for believing that if I'm (in your opinion) lying I'm abusing my position as the owner of this website, how do you manage to do the same thing without you being the owner of this website?

You have a beef with me, and your responses in this thread (as well as worms) are to do with that beef with me, and not what I've said in this thread - because the simple fact is that I was saying nothing different about justice to worm or you, despite the best attempts of you and worm to create a divide, as became clear.

As for anything else: I have to be here, as I run these forums. If you keep going as you are then they'll only be one outcome, and I think you understand that's not something you can call me a liar about.

Edited February 23, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

All taken out of the context

Edited February 23, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

So you want the context to go with the evidence now do you. Fine.........

You argued from the beginning that justice was subjective.

and it is. Each person is likely to have a different idea of what constitutes justice - as shown by the starting post of this thread, where that poster's idea of justice differs from the idea of justice that the law of this country implements.

This means that it can be absolutely anything at all and has no rules whatsoever.

No it doesn't. It means (in this particular case) that the 'rules' can be applied across a different range of opinions which conform to those 'rules'.

You then said in the very same post (see example) that there were definite rules to what we can call justice.

I said that operating double-standards about what is justice makes it not justice (or 'unjust'). Which is something you have said you agree with.

These are universal rules, which completely negate a purely subjective sense of justice.

But they do not negate 'justice' as being subjective.

Now I've asked you several times to tell me which it is - either subjective and so completely arbitrary and without fixed subjective definitions, or composed of universal factors, such as the consistent and fair application of law among citizens and a fixed set of subjective definitions. You haven't answered.

I've given my opinion. My opinion is very clear (tho I concede it might not have been expressed clearly in every response).

Justice is both subjective - in that each person might have a different idea of what consistutes justice - while having 'rules' that have to be applied universally (so that there's not a different idea of justice depending who that idea of justice is being applied against).

Go on, tell me that's wrong, again.

The definitions of the words 'subjective' and 'universal' have been correctly used by me. Any issues you might have with what I've said can only be because you are working from the wrong definitions of those words.

Get over it.

[llcoolphil]

Where I asked if you'd been "on the stupid pills", I was better explaining what you said to tony as tony was asking a question of what I'd said. And my better explaining was necessary, to clarify how "universal" had been used by me, because you were presenting an incorrect view of what I'd said - as shown by your later acceptance of that clarification as being right.

You were getting it in early - by saying that anyone who didn't agree with you and who agreed with me was by default "a twat" and "a sycophant" - which amusingly has you thinking yourself indisputably always right, the exact same thing you're saying is so very wrong when you're thinking I'm doing that.

Meanwhile, you're quite happy to use your own lies to make a point; again, the exact same thing you're saying is so very wrong when you're thinking I'm doing that.

And as for believing that if I'm (in your opinion) lying I'm abusing my position as the owner of this website, how do you manage to do the same thing without you being the owner of this website?

You have a beef with me, and your responses in this thread (as well as worms) are to do with that beef with me, and not what I've said in this thread - because the simple fact is that I was saying nothing different about justice to worm or you, despite the best attempts of you and worm to create a divide, as became clear.

As for anything else: I have to be here, as I run these forums. If you keep going as you are then they'll only be one outcome, and I think you understand that's not something you can call me a liar about.

[eFestivals]

Jif you wanr to do it do it, dont keep threatening. But before you do i dare you to put up our full exchange and let everyone make a judgement on it.

You mean the "full exchange" where you rather amusingly use your invented bullshit - or lies as you like to put it - to condemn me for what you believe to be lying?

And that would be viewed differently to our more normal open exchanges here, how exactly? There's more than enough of that sort of bollocks here already so I ain't gonna bother, tho there's nothing within that which scares me one iota.

Some simple facts phil: I really don't give a shit what you might think of me, and yet I have no issue with you posting here - unless all you're going to do with your posts is follow my own posts by picking an argument with me just because you can (as worm has done in this thread by disputing anything he can of what I've said yet saying nothing different to what I've said for much of those exchanges - and which you've also done in this thread, but to a lesser extent).

It's something which is boring me and others here senseless. It's not only my posts here that puts many others off posting.

Edited February 23, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

No it doesn't.

[worm]

unless all you're going to do with your posts is follow my own posts by picking an argument with me just because you can (as worm has done in this thread by disputing anything he can of what I've said yet saying nothing different to what I've said for much of those exchanges - and which you've also done in this thread, but to a lesser extent).

[llcoolphil]

Some simple facts phil: I really don't give a shit what you might think of me, and yet I have no issue with you posting here

[eFestivals]

Ahhh, here we see the problem. Your illiteracy.

PMSL - says the man who doesn't know what subjective means.

sub·jec·tive

   /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled[suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA

–adjective

1.

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

2.

pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3.

placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4.

Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5.

relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

6.

pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

7.

Grammar .

a.

pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.

b.

(in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.

c.

similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.

8.

Obsolete . characteristic of a political subject; submissive.

[eFestivals]

Sorry Neil, in the last 10 days you have accused me twice of seeking to undermine your website, ave threatened to smear some shit in my face the next time we met and also to contact my employer to report me for posting on here during the day.

If that isn't having an issue, it would be really interesting to see what having one looked like.

Some simple facts Neil - I have only ever posted the truth. I know you don't give a shit what I think of you - as you pointed out the other day, your first lesson in customer service would be that the customer isn't always right. You've taken that to an extent of 'virtually isn't ever right'. Maybe that's why you and the editor both had to take pay cuts this year eh.

You have chosen to undermine this website; you have taken a "perhaps I should in return..." response to that as being a statement of fact, but you don't lies, eh? - especially when you tell others you've given me you work details so I can call them (you haven't - that makes you a liar), etc, etc, etc. And I guess you've not noticed a recession, eh?

FFS.