M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi

[BR14]

Where I live doesn't even have a distillery ! You're thinking of islay

aye, well, - i often think of islay. i have fond memories of that island

[NigelJK]

It's amazing that with all these laws and deterrents in place that something like Rotherham could have happened.

[Bean]

Self-evident twaddle.

The offensiveness of any statement is subjective. According to your "logic" either everyone is permitted to say anything, or all communication is prohibited.

Well yes quite, although that sounds awfully familiar... in fact that's pretty much the American version of free speech.
Except for direct calls to violence, or inciting criminal acts - they can say what they want.

I said that was true for 'comedy' acts etc. you've just then extrapolated it out to all of Joe public, which is not what I said.

The best way to challenge an ideology, is to allow people to express themselves and then, they can have their 'arguments' intellectually challenged.

It's snowflakes that want to control the words people are allowed to speak.

HTH

[Bean]

The context I posted changes the picture significantly. If someone is going to publish such videos on the Internet, then they deserve to be convicted in accordance with the law. If you had wanted to engage honsetly, you would have included the context, rather than just referencing the 'it's just a joke' pre-amble.

The original post by minestrone included the following quote;
"A YouTube video maker who was fined for training a dog to perform a Nazi salute on camera"

So how exactly have I been wanting to engage in a less than honest way?

What I said is true - namely, that in the video (he posted online - duh), he pre-ambled it with "this is a joke, yada yada" - but the judge didn't agree (and so he was convicted - duh).
Completely accurate and completely fair - now tell me, what I have posted in this thread that is wrong... I'll hold my breath shall I?

Also;
Q2: Have you actually watched the original clip of him and the pug?
- I think I know what your answer would be, given your two previous posts.....

[Zigenare]

The original post by minestrone included the following quote;
"A YouTube video maker who was fined for training a dog to perform a Nazi salute on camera"

So how exactly have I been wanting to engage in a less than honest way?

What I said is true - namely, that in the video (he posted online - duh), he pre-ambled it with "this is a joke, yada yada" - but the judge didn't agree (and so he was convicted - duh).
Completely accurate and completely fair - now tell me, what I have posted in this thread that is wrong... I'll hold my breath shall I?

Also;
Q2: Have you actually watched the original clip of him and the pug?
- I think I know what your answer would be, given your two previous posts.....

You cannot fight the court of public opinion. Unfortunately the Judge in this case didn't have the balls to stand up and try.

[NotAllThere]

You cannot fight the court of public opinion. Unfortunately the Judge in this case didn't have the balls to stand up and try.

Ah ah. Lacked courage rather than interpreted the law as he saw fit. I mean UK judges are always kowtowing to the public opinion. Well known for it.

You do live in your own little dystopian world. Seems a fairly angry, miserable place.

[Zigenare]

Ah ah. Lacked courage rather than interpreted the law as he saw fit. I mean UK judges are always kowtowing to the public opinion. Well known for it.

You do live in your own little dystopian world. Seems a fairly angry, miserable place.

Aww, someone disagreed with you. You poor little snowflake.

[xoggoth]

Adolph admirers clearly have to be more circumspect about how they honour his memory. I am having one of my balls cut off tomorrow.

[Old Greg]

The original post by minestrone included the following quote;
"A YouTube video maker who was fined for training a dog to perform a Nazi salute on camera"

So how exactly have I been wanting to engage in a less than honest way?

What I said is true - namely, that in the video (he posted online - duh), he pre-ambled it with "this is a joke, yada yada" - but the judge didn't agree (and so he was convicted - duh).
Completely accurate and completely fair - now tell me, what I have posted in this thread that is wrong... I'll hold my breath shall I?

Also;
Q2: Have you actually watched the original clip of him and the pug?
- I think I know what your answer would be, given your two previous posts.....

What you said was true but incomplete. By omitting important context, you are engaging in the conversation dishonesty. You have continued to act dishonestly by taking a dishonest view of what constitutes dishonesty.

Why did you not mention this when inviting opinion on whether the conviction was justified?

Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his partner’s pug responding to statements such as “gas the Jews” and “sieg heil” by raising its paw before posting the footage on YouTube in April 2016.

[Bean]

What you said was true but incomplete. By omitting important context, you are engaging in the conversation dishonesty. You have continued to act dishonestly by taking a dishonest view of what constitutes dishonesty.

Why did you not mention this when inviting opinion on whether the conviction was justified?

Is it too unreasonable, to expect that people commenting and labelling someone they've never met - at least watch the video in question, before saying GUILTY?

Tell you what, let's make it even easier for 'the congregation' to see your laziness;
Did you read the article posted in the OP, by minestrone?

It's clearly stated he posted the video to the internet (youtube)
It's clearly stated he was convicted and fined by the Justice system
It's clearly stated (and in the OP quote) that it was "for training a dog to perform a Nazi salute on camera" etc.
(That covers all your intellectual dishonesty and diversion tactics)

It shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that people commenting in the thread, have read the OP article -


Now answer the simple question(s);
Q2: Have you actually watched the original clip of him and the pug?
Q3Did you read the article posted in the OP, by minestrone?


PS. You could say omitting to answer simple question(s) is engaging dishonestly no?
(Always asking but not answering questions is a tried and tested tactic though, I'll give you that)