BF2S Forums Inmate hunger strike

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lol nice post. Pity the target will just deny, dismiss and put words in your mouth.

All I want is for him to respond to what I said and not something he embellishes then pins it to me as something I said, then argues it.

This is basically what you do the majority of the time. I've seen any number of people calling you out on it, yet you appear blind to your own faults in this regard.

Kinda like the rest of you when I talk about Islam, and you insist I am talking about ALL MUSLIMS. I realize when you make up shit I say, it is easier to argue.

Funny how again I've seen many times any number people argue directly with you to say the points you are raising isn't about all Muslims.

I have exaggerated a point to punctuate it, yes. We all have. THere is a difference between that, and making claims I said shit, I clearly did not say.


you lost me on this last one... I know I know..you "rest your case"....

Jaekus wrote:

You're the forum master of putting words in someone's mouth and then arguing against it when it wasn't even the point someone was making and yet you're whinging about it potentially happening to you?

ya think so? really?

Because I see it the other way. I see it that I am always trying to correct others in what I say.

I hate Islam, means I have somehow said I hate all Muslims.

I CCW somehow means I am a bloody thirsty vigilante hell bent on killing someone and taking joy in doing so.

I hate saggers, and personal irresponsibility somehow means I said I hate black people.

I support helping those that help themselves somehow means I said I hate black people.

I hate big govt. somehow means I said I support anarchy

I support our troops and the war they fight, somehow means I said I love war.

I support the death penalty somehow means I said don't care if innocent people are killed.

I am support equal rights for everyone and challenge double standards, somehow is an endorsement by me for racism.

So you see, everything I hold as an opinion and can defend, is twisted into something else so it can be argued against.

How is there an argument that supports racism? There isn't, so naturally you have to take what I say regarding some double standard I point out and turn it into racism, then declare you win because I am a racist, instead of arguing against what I said about double standard. 


Add to all of this the constant  refusal to quote my entire post and address it in context, instead selecting half sentences, or sentences out of context and arguing against them, and you are one of the worst at this, so please spare me the lecture of what you think I am the forum master of.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-17 10:44:19)

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

lowing wrote:

1.Don't know, Maybe we have a lot more people that feel entitled to a quality of life they did not earn. Maybe because in a socialist society your population does not have the differences in social status that we do in America, hence not as much envy do to all of your fairness and sharing instead of self reliance. MAybe it has a lot to do with with our lack in any real effort to control our borders allowing a flood of illegal immigrants into America. MAybe we just have more people that deserve to be in jail. What I do know is, crime among the middle class is low, crime away from urban centers is low. Crime among the producers  and earners of our country is low.


2.The US is up there with everyone else in car manufacturing, although I already acknowledged a loss of our foothold, great japan makes cell phones, ever hear of ATT, Verizon, Nextel, Sprint? IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Boeing?

3.Didn't say EVERYONE in Europe lives in flats. I made a point that it is easy for a middle class American to own land and a sizable home and it is something of a luxury for a middle class in Europe to do it, and most live in flats.

4.I said even Americans poor IE lower class, enjoy cell phones, internet access, tv's, cars etc..

5.I said most Americans live away from the city in suburbs, not the country.

6.I am less likely to be  victim of a crime for a lot of reasons, beyond the fact that only 3 percent of us will be victims. Where I live, my race, I have a means to defend myself, etc...

7.I said people that can afford it come to the states for their treatment. I did not say EVERYONE comes to America for healthcare.

1. From what I understand the conclusion of this paragraph is that you have 5 x more crime than elsewhere? I suspect that the majority of Americas earners are urban based as 80% of your population is. Therefore crime among earners isnt going to be low.

2. Im pretty sure its not Japan that makes cell phones. Nokia is finish, HTC is Taiwanese etc. The US has a smaller market share than Germany. Germany is 1/4 the size of the USA. Therefore USA isn't pulling its weight, I dont think I need to do the comparison to Japanese manufacturers?

3. It is no more of a luxury for somebody to own a "sizeable" home in Europe than it is in USA. Per capita no more people live in flats (or apartments) than they do in the US.

4.

lowing wrote:

even our poor have a greater quality of life than a lot of other nations, I would hardly say our system doesn't work.

cheekyninja wrote:

You said Americas poorest have a better quality of life than most other countries. Wrong.

I dont think that counts as me putting words into your mouth?

5. Your only reference I can find to suburbs is

lowing wrote:

. But most Americans that choose the suburbs can also afford the suburbs. We do not need to be rich to be land owners or home owners.

I believe you were making the point that most people live in the country unless they choose to live in the suburbs. Then you further emphasised the point by saying you couldnt believe that anybody would live in an urban environment unless they couldn't afford the country.

6. Saying you are less likely to be a victim of crime is in direct contradiction to point 1. You cant have more crime and less crime at the same time.

Approximately thirteen million people (approximately 5% of the U.S. population) are victims of crime every year. Approximately one and a half million are victims of violent crime.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

5% of the population per year is nowhere near 3% over their lifetime. Not even close unless its the same 13,000,000 people each year of course.

7.

cheekyninja wrote:

You said that everybody who can afford it flocks to the US healthcare system. Wrong.

lowing wrote:

I said people that can afford it come to the states for their treatment.

Okay so one word was difference but saying "people that can afford it" clearly infers that only those that cant, dont.

I cant see anywhere that I have put words into your mouth?

1. no the majority of our population is do not live in the cities. They live in the suburbs. Oh and again, suburbs do not equal the country. I told you we 3% of our population that will be victims of crime in their lifetime, not sure how you can say that 97% of us will not be victims IS NOT the vast majority, but whatever. 
2. Ever hear of IBM, Intel, ATT, Google, Apple, Microsoft, whatever Japan or Taiwan makes would merely be paper weights without the technology to power them.

3. Sorry, from what I have read,most in Europe live in flats, most of those that own homes, do not have land with them and probably are even partially attached or fully attached to surrounding homes. Most sub-divisions, here have a single family home on .5 -1 acre of land.  Bottomline, I have read land with home ownership is very expensive in Europe and out of the reach of most Europeans. IS this true or not. I will let you have the final say on it.

4. What I meant was even Americas poor enjoy a better quality of life than other nations poor. Our poor still have luxury, including a home.

5. already said, country does not equal suburbs. Most people live in the suburbs. not the cities and not the country. I didn't I "couldn't believe" shit. 
I said most people live in suburbs, and for that to happen, they pretty much would WANT to live in suburbs, those that live in the city, either are very rich or very poor, not much middle class in our cities.

6. Depends on where you live, your race, your environment, our lack of boarder control.  Plenty of factors goes into crime stats.   

7. Sorry big difference. I said those that can afford it come to the states for their treatment. I didn't say EVERYONE does, nor did  Isay they come here for our health care system. I said they come here to have their personal diagnoses treated. Reason being they can get treated in a timely manner and do not have to wait in line.

Anyway I am done with this line of conversation. All you and I are doing is trying to maneuver each other into a corner, by a slip up of wording and I don't like it, so if you wanna talk about the OP lets. If not, take the final word.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-18 05:25:34)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ninja wrote:

3. It is no more of a luxury for somebody to own a "sizeable" home in Europe than it is in USA. Per capita no more people live in flats (or apartments) than they do in the US.

Large American homes are typically very cheaply built and horribly energy inefficient.
Its hardly a badge of honour to have a big house there any more than it is to boast about how great the quality of life is based on how many Happy Meals the average person eats.

lol, now I said I base my quality of life on happy meals? of well, whatever.

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ninja wrote:

3. It is no more of a luxury for somebody to own a "sizeable" home in Europe than it is in USA. Per capita no more people live in flats (or apartments) than they do in the US.

Large American homes are typically very cheaply built and horribly energy inefficient.
Its hardly a badge of honour to have a big house there any more than it is to boast about how great the quality of life is based on how many Happy Meals the average person eats.

i've gotta say, that (ninja's post) is a little bit naive and misguided. america has way more space, is often far newer (and thus more cost-effective / efficient / cheaply made) and has a much younger property market than europe. to own a sizeable home in an old town / city in europe is going to be exponentially more expensive than to own a new prefab detached house built alongside 1,000's of others in vast post-1950's suburbs. a decent sized townhouse over here will go for the same price as a large mansion in the us. a lot of it is to do with population and space, really; we have very densely packed urban spaces that are hugely sought-after. i mean, you can pay up to £750k for a 1-bedroom basement level flat in the nicer parts of (central) london. what could you get for $1.5mill dollars in the us? i guess to a lesser degree you have the same gentrified effect in upmarket areas of new york, la, san fran, etc.

That reminds me, the other day on some trashy tv show there was a reference to someone's "mansion" in the US being like $800k. It was about 10 years ago at that value, but still, the average newish three bedroom house in the suburb I currently live in costs about that much. Quite surprised how cheap some housing appears to be in the US.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-18 06:22:10)

It does become rather more complicated when you consider for example that the UK have based their economy on the housing market and by how much housing prices have increased (vs average wage) over the last 10-20 years. Then you have the fact that we have southern migration and a housing shortage which is further inflating prices. Then the recession hit and house building stopped when we were supposed to be building record numbers per year, this isn't so apparent at the moment because demand is much weaker due to the climate, however once it picks up the shortage is going to have a serious impact upon prices.

Admittedly I have over simplified the point but I would maintain that living in the countryside in the UK is more down to personal preference than whether one can afford to or not.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol, now I said I base my quality of life on happy meals? of well, whatever.

happy meals are ace lets be fair

as a side to the housing discussion, it's worth considering that some european governments aren't overly fond of people living in the middle of nowhere - it makes the provision of services (healthcare, education, utilities and so on) more costly than it needs to be. so getting planning permission for a new build in the country is quite hard, raising the prices of the existing property.

Example, one of my uncles in NI built a pair of houses on his land a decade ago, then stormont changed the policy around planning permission almost specifically because it was becoming too impractical to provide basic services. result, the houses have near tripled in value (after considering inflation etc) in the 10 years.

I am shocked, you are run by a nanny state far worse than I ever imagined. Are you saying, your govt. doesn't want you venturing too far away from them because it is harder to keep tabs on you and take care of you?

I thought you were just having a moan about me putting words into your mouth and then you come out with that?

lowing our infrastructure is much older than yours in america. no shit the govt. is going to try and incentivize people to live where it's more convenient for everyone. if you live in a nanny-state, you'd rather it be an efficient one than one that throws money away, no?

Uzique wrote:

and it's hardly them making it 'purposefully hard' for you to leave populated areas. it's simple business. it's like saying your private cellphone companies in america are making it "purposefully hard" for you to enjoy your freedom of living out in the middle of the desert because it costs more - no shit - for them to provide you with a phone-line or cell coverage. omfg socialists!

Actually old school cellphones (the ones that had the purse or trunk antennas), had a much better connection and were powerful enough to pick up a signal in the middle of the desert as there weren't towers everywhere.  The have since been deactivated as cell companies don't like them. I learned that off a 'pawn stars' episode.

i'd hoped there was a fairly decent conversation about the differences between the US and Europe and why those differences exist, but if you're just going to go 'lol nanny state' and so on then v0v i cant be arsed.

FatherTed wrote:

i'd hoped there was a fairly decent conversation about the differences between the US and Europe and why those differences exist, but if you're just going to go 'lol nanny state' and so on then v0v i cant be arsed.

well if you wanna tell me that the govt. goes out of its way to make sure you don't venture off too far for its own conveniences , I am not sure what kind of a response you would expect from a person who, above all, values his freedom from govt. intervention in his life on such matters.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-18 10:01:38)

Uzique wrote:

lowing our infrastructure is much older than yours in america. no shit the govt. is going to try and incentivize people to live where it's more convenient for everyone. if you live in a nanny-state, you'd rather it be an efficient one than one that throws money away, no?

Still seems kind of odd.  Can't anyone over there who wants to build out to some out of the way place just pay someone to get connected: water, electricity, phone, etc.?  Here, no one is discouraged from building a home out in the boonies.  It's just on their dime if they want the coverage afforded in established infrastructures.  Like contracting out police and fire.  propane tanks and water towers where gas and water lines are never going to happen.