Poppy seller burned

[Greed and Death]

It's a case of institutionalized hatred against men and women who put everything on the line for men and women like him. Not some lame fucking excuse like 'hungoverness'.

Or it's just a jackass in Manchester....

I did spread a rumor that the Liverpool FC team's new symbol would be the poppy.

[Quintium]

Ah. I think you're seeing a metanarrative where none exists - namely, that of intentionalism.

Or phrased less like an overeducated tosser, you're looking at this in terms of bipartisan politics, where I'm pretty sure we're just bullshitting about a crazy man.

And I respectfully disagree with that analysis, good sir. Feck! Arse! Drink! Girls! I think everything we say ultimately needs to fit in with our narrative, and so you are almost always able to predict what someone's opinion on a specific matter will be if you know what their general narrative is. For example, if someone who hates the west responds to a terrorist attack in a country once invaded by the west, he needs to make his response fit in with the dominant part of the narrative in his mind at the time. He could hold several views, but let's assume he feels the need to blame the west in order to ensure the continuity of his personal beliefs. He'll say, "Well, if [western country X] hadn't [action Y], then [terrorist attack Z] would never have happened!"

[Fartsniffage]

You know something we don't?

I know that Britain has a minority of people that are incredibly violent with soldiers on Remembrance Day, and I know that they are often the ones that are desecrating sites of military memorials and wreaths and so on. Why can't anyone else see this at what it is? A violent terrorist attack.

Because I live in Manchester and have seen to number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

[Vassenor]

No. I like worthy charities. I donate significant amounts to MsF for example.

And a soldier's life is not worthwhile?

No, because of what soldiers thirty years ago did.

[-The West Coast-]

I know that Britain has a minority of people that are incredibly violent with soldiers on Remembrance Day, and I know that they are often the ones that are desecrating sites of military memorials and wreaths and so on. Why can't anyone else see this at what it is? A violent terrorist attack.

Because I live in Manchester and have seen to number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

Say that again in a way that it makes sense, please.

[Greed and Death]

Because I live in Manchester and have seen to number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

Say that again in a way that it makes sense, please.

Fast is saying it is Manchester, the most likely cause of violence is it being Manchester, possibly football hooligan related.

[Scomagia]

I'm still not sure what you think people are denying, here?

Downplaying and ridiculing ("he may have done it to himself", "that must have been one hell of a hangover"), not denying. And what you see here are not arguments, but interests at play. The original poster seems to have the ulterior motive of inserting law-and-order, patriotic, perhaps even slightly far-right beliefs into the public discourse. The people responding, on the other hand, see their relative progressivism attacked and will therefore downplay or attack whatever argument the original poster presented in order to defend their own point of view.

I merely mentioned that it is not established whether or not he was actually attacked. People have been known to intentionally injure themselves and then fabricate an assailant, such as a woman a few years back who threw acid into her own face. Politics had nothing to do with my post. I saw a potential explanation for the event that no one else had suggested so I put it out there.

[-The West Coast-]

Say that again in a way that it makes sense, please.

Fast is saying it is Manchester, the most likely cause of violence is it being Manchester, possibly football hooligan related.

Wow Greed & Death, it sounds like you're all for the death of good, loyal and honest British soldiers and cadets and the erosion of the honor and memory the dead men and women who served in the past and present protecting their great nation. Congratulations!

[Rabotnikisoyedinennyye]

Good god.
I'm in the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, and I was just selling poppies yesterday. I hope they find this prick, and then do what's necessary.

Also, my country uses poppies, and I do wear them.

[Greed and Death]

Fast is saying it is Manchester, the most likely cause of violence is it being Manchester, possibly football hooligan related.

Wow Greed & Death, it sounds like you're all for the death of good, loyal and honest British soldiers and cadets and the erosion of the honor and memory the dead men and women who served in the past and present protecting their great nation. Congratulations!

Because I explained what Fast's position was ?
Really ?

[Land and Freedom]

Fast is saying it is Manchester, the most likely cause of violence is it being Manchester, possibly football hooligan related.

Wow Greed & Death, it sounds like you're all for the death of good, loyal and honest British soldiers and cadets and the erosion of the honor and memory the dead men and women who served in the past and present protecting their great nation. Congratulations!

You can find traitors to king and country everywhere in these degenerate times.

[-The West Coast-]

Wow Greed & Death, it sounds like you're all for the death of good, loyal and honest British soldiers and cadets and the erosion of the honor and memory the dead men and women who served in the past and present protecting their great nation. Congratulations!

Because I explained what Fast's position was ?
Really ?

Yes, really. If you're trying to deny the fact this was something more than "football hooliganism" than you're doing just what I described.

[Fartsniffage]

Because I live in Manchester and have seen to number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

Say that again in a way that it makes sense, please.

Because I live in Manchester and have seen the number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

[The Emerald Dragon]

No. I like worthy charities. I donate significant amounts to MsF for example.

And a soldier's life is not worthwhile?

She - At least, I think Fionnuala is, probably saw or grew up around British Army atrocities in Northern Ireland, I also think that She is an Irish Catholic...

And they REALLY didn't have good relations with British soldiers during the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s.

[Quintium]

Downplaying and ridiculing ("he may have done it to himself", "that must have been one hell of a hangover"), not denying. And what you see here are not arguments, but interests at play. The original poster seems to have the ulterior motive of inserting law-and-order, patriotic, perhaps even slightly far-right beliefs into the public discourse. The people responding, on the other hand, see their relative progressivism attacked and will therefore downplay or attack whatever argument the original poster presented in order to defend their own point of view.

I merely mentioned that it is not established whether or not he was actually attacked. People have been known to intentionally injure themselves and then fabricate an assailant, such as a woman a few years back who threw acid into her own face. Politics had nothing to do with my post. I saw a potential explanation for the event that no one else had suggested so I put it out there.

Whether or not that's true - or, indeed, even somewhat credible - does not matter. The mere fact that you stepped in to doubt his account portrays you as one who is, perhaps, not as negative about immigration and multiculturalism as the general public. But in order to do that, you need to deflect or dismiss, for the sake of your own mental continuity, those stories which might conflict strongly with your narrative. The doubts expressed here, but on the other side of the divide also the people who agreed without a second thought, are just an expression of existing political loyalties.

You have no reason to doubt or speculate, and neither do the people who agree with the original poster's analysis of the situation. But you do. Now, I know you'll enter full denial now, and that is natural. But try to ask yourself why you felt the need to express your opinion and speculate about what happened. What's beneath the veneer in your case?

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

No. I like worthy charities. I donate significant amounts to MsF for example.

And a soldier's life is not worthwhile?

Certain soldiers lives, certainly.

But you wouldn't want to try and put words in my mouth would you?

[The Emerald Dragon]

Say that again in a way that it makes sense, please.

Because I live in Manchester and have seen the number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

On a non-thread basis.

WOO, you live 20 miles from me.

[Scomagia]

Or it's just a jackass in Manchester....

No, he was a violent terrorist. Not just a jackass.

Terrorism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Unless you have personally discovered a manifesto at the scene that the police somehow missed, I think the word terrorist might be exaggerating.

[Fartsniffage]

Because I live in Manchester and have seen the number of violent attack that happen in the city centre on a regular basis?

On a non-thread basis.

WOO, you live 20 miles from me.

Where abouts?

[Scomagia]

I merely mentioned that it is not established whether or not he was actually attacked. People have been known to intentionally injure themselves and then fabricate an assailant, such as a woman a few years back who threw acid into her own face. Politics had nothing to do with my post. I saw a potential explanation for the event that no one else had suggested so I put it out there.

Whether or not that's true - or, indeed, even somewhat credible - does not matter. The mere fact that you stepped in to doubt his account portrays you as one who is, perhaps, not as negative about immigration and multiculturalism as the general public. But in order to do that, you need to deflect or dismiss, for the sake of your own mental continuity, those stories which might conflict strongly with your narrative. The doubts expressed here, but on the other side of the divide also the people who agreed without a second thought, are just an expression of existing political loyalties.

You have no reason to doubt or speculate, and neither do the people who agree with the original poster's analysis of the situation. But you do. Now, I know you'll enter full denial now, and that is natural. But try to ask yourself why you felt the need to express your opinion and speculate about what happened. What's beneath the veneer in your case?

Did you go to a special school to learn these superior strawman skills? Seriously, dial it back. My post had nothing to do with immigration, multiculturalism, or anything else you care to mention. Why did I call the reported version of events into account? Because people shouldn't take things as factual until they are proven to be so.

[The Emerald Dragon]

Good god.
I'm in the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, and I was just selling poppies yesterday. I hope they find this prick, and then do what's necessary.

Also, my country uses poppies, and I do wear them.

I used to be an Army Cadet myself.

[Vassenor]

And a soldier's life is not worthwhile?

Certain soldiers lives, certainly.

But you wouldn't want to try and put words in my mouth would you?

If I managed that, I wish to apologise now while I have the chance.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Certain soldiers lives, certainly.

But you wouldn't want to try and put words in my mouth would you?

If I managed that, I wish to apologise now while I have the chance.

You're The West Coast?

[The Emerald Dragon]

And a soldier's life is not worthwhile?

Certain soldiers lives, certainly.

But you wouldn't want to try and put words in my mouth would you?

I hope you mean any soldiers who committed atrocities in Northern Ireland only, not British soldiers in general.

[Quintium]

Did you go to a special school to learn these superior strawman skills? Seriously, dial it back. My post had nothing to do with immigration, multiculturalism, or anything else you care to mention.

Please do try to understand what I'm saying here. I'm saying this - that the reason people question stories tends to be that those stories do not fit in with their narrative, whereas the reason people uncritically agree with stories tends to be that those stories fit in with their narrative. It doesn't matter what you said, because what matters here is the underlying rule of human behaviour that we will question that which undermines our personal narrative about a broader issue whereas we will not be as critical to that which supports our personal narrative about a broader issue.

Why did I call the reported version of events into account? Because people shouldn't take things as factual until they are proven to be so.

Can you really look yourself in the mirror and say that you apply the exact same standard to everything? That you question even stories that support your own world view? I don't think you can, because I don't think anyone can. As detached as I can be from time to time, even I know that I'm more likely to criticise things I disagree with than things I agree with (which, in combination with the sheer volume of doubts on the first page of the discussion, was why I entered into this debate in the first place). Don't get me wrong, the process this creates is useful. As long as there are two camps about any broader political matter, all stories put out by one side will be questioned by the other, and ultimately that's the type of environment where truth wins while nepotism and corruption lose. But there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral, critical human being, even if most people undoubtedly think they're him.