Livia Tossici-Bolt convicted at Poole Magistrates, UK.

[Cow Poke]

...
Same goes for Cop Out Cow Poke.

What on earth are you prattling on about, junior?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's so dishonest of you.
You turn 'I don't support unpeaceful aggressive protests' in to your own bent translation.
That's bent thinking.

You are surely never suggesting that CD is twisting your comments and being dishonest?

Now, if any pro-Palestinian protesters are unpeaceful or aggressive to anybody then those persons should be removed, arrested, etc.

But we Brits hear about the aid workers, women, children and other civilians being murdered, robbed, busted on the West Bank and in Gaza, and if you support that then shame in you.

You must realise by now that for several who post here, the deaths of Palestinians are of no importance.

[CivilDiscourse]

You are surely never suggesting that CD is twisting your comments and being dishonest?



You must realise by now that for several who post here, the deaths of Palestinians are of no importance.

I leave such intellectually dishonest pursuits to you, Mrs. "you should've put a qualifier".

[eider]

Well, given the context of how PSPO's were put in place because of PAST actions of abortion protests. And the question directed at you was whether, given the actions of Pro-palestinian 'anti-social' protests should cause the same restrictions. Your yes seemed to go along with the question.

Unless, you were simply trying NOT to answer the question, but make it look like you did....

Yet more bent thinking from you.

I feel quite sure that you don't give a hoot about the scores of thousands of dead Gazan civilians, nor the serious injustices to so many West Bank Muslims which have fueled so many protests where I live as well as round the World.

I reckon that you class all such protests as pro-terrorist.

[eider]

You are surely never suggesting that CD is twisting your comments and being dishonest?

Ummm.....errr..... Well, yeah.

You must realise by now that for several who post here, the deaths of Palestinians are of no importance.

You can add a few other nationalities and races to that list.

Just now I'm wondering about about how much damage is being down to the pension pots of millions of American workers as a result of this weekend's chaos. That's surely of some importance to them?

[CivilDiscourse]

Yet more bent thinking from you.

I feel quite sure that you don't give a hoot about the scores of thousands of dead Gazan civilians, nor the serious injustices to so many West Bank Muslims which have fueled so many protests where I live as well as round the World.

I reckon that you class all such protests as pro-terrorist.

I am pointing out that they are as guilty of the "anti-social" behavior you and hr are using to justify the anti-speech spots.

Under the logic you guys have been spouting that should mean that restricting them the same way is justified.

[eider]

I am pointing out that they are as guilty of the "anti-social" behavior you and hr are using to justify the anti-speech spots.

Under the logic you guys have been spouting that should mean that restricting them the same way is justified.

What total and absolute drivvel!

Most of the pro Palestinian demonstrations are legal and law-abiding here. Where individuals are unlawful, this does not make the entire assembly bad.

Coming within Abortion centre PSPOs unless visiting these or being involved in neighbourhood is unlawful.

Your ideas about this are bent.

[CivilDiscourse]

What total and absolute drivvel!

Most of the pro Palestinian demonstrations are legal and law-abiding here. Where individuals are unlawful, this does not make the entire assembly bad.

Coming within Abortion centre PSPOs unless visiting these or being involved in neighbourhood is unlawful.

Your ideas about this are bent.

You've reached circular reasoning.

The activities you are saying is illegal was MADE illegal, DUE TO (per you) the past "anti-social" behavior (before it was made illegal).

The pro-Palestinian protests are still in the pre-"made illegal" position. They are still being "anti-social".

The question to YOU is whether, like the past anti-social behavior was used to justify Making protests in certain areas illegal, justifies taking the same action against pro-Palestinian protests who are also demonstrating "anti-social" behavior.

Keep in mind aggressiveness does not actually take the place of rational argument. You seem to be conflating that.

[rogue06]

You've reached circular reasoning.

The activities you are saying is illegal was MADE illegal, DUE TO (per you) the past "anti-social" behavior (before it was made illegal).

The pro-Palestinian protests are still in the pre-"made illegal" position. They are still being "anti-social".

The question to YOU is whether, like the past anti-social behavior was used to justify Making protests in certain areas illegal, justifies taking the same action against pro-Palestinian protests who are also demonstrating "anti-social" behavior.

Keep in mind aggressiveness does not actually take the place of rational argument. You seem to be conflating that.

It is a case where if it is a cause that he favors, anti-social, violent behavior is fully acceptable. If it is a cause he opposes then even the most nonbelligerent and peaceful behavior is to be prohibited and cracked down on.

[Mountain Man]

It is a case where if it is a cause that he favors, anti-social, violent behavior is fully acceptable. If it is a cause he opposes then even the most nonbelligerent and peaceful behavior is to be prohibited and cracked down on.

Like all liberals, he in favor of free speech when it's his side talking, and in favor of censorship when it's the voices of the other side being silenced.

[rogue06]

Like all liberals, he in favor of free speech when it's his side talking, and in favor of censorship when it's the voices of the other side being silenced.

Hardly a trait unique to the left but in the past few years they have really embraced it as policy.

[Mountain Man]

Hardly a trait unique to the left but in the past few years they have really embraced it as policy.

I honestly don't see anybody on the right demanding censorship.

[eider]

You've reached circular reasoning.
.

....and you're being a troll.

[Cow Poke]

....and you're being a troll.

Can't stand the competition, eh?

[CivilDiscourse]

Can't stand the competition, eh?

It is my belief that he didn't like my call out on integrity. It was after that that he started trying to claim I misrepresented him.

He reminds me of the guy who thinks he's smart, but tries to "square up" when he's losing an argument, thinking that aggressive bluster stands in for rationality. The kind of person who'd roll up and tell Einstein "How about you meet me in the parking lot and I'll show what mc2 equals"