M8 Yer Dugs A Nazi

[Old Greg]

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)

Have read article. Haven't seen clip, which I expect is NSFW. In what way was my not answering these questions dishonest? I was amusing myself really and it didn't create any false impression, I hope.

On the other hand you seem to be equating honesty with truthfulness. And you omitted the business about gassing Jews. Can you see how pertinent this is in informing judgment as to whether or not a conviction was justified?

[Bean]

Have read article. Haven't seen clip, which I expect is NSFW. In what way was my not answering these questions dishonest? I was amusing myself really and it didn't create any false impression, I hope.

because if you've watched the video and/or read the OP article, you are aware of the facts, you allege I've somehow 'omitted'...

On the other hand you seem to be equating honesty with truthfulness. And you omitted the business about gassing Jews. Can you see how pertinent this is in informing judgment as to whether or not a conviction was justified?

Can you see how anyone clicking on the OP article, has full access to all the information, you accuse me of omitting?

Your comments are risible and histrionic, nothing more.

I'll repeat...It's reasonable to expect people to read the thread OP article, BEFORE commenting.
(and therefore, not everything has to be entered into every post thereafter, it's assumed that you can recall them from the article - maybe we give you too much credit? )

[Old Greg]

because if you've watched the video and/or read the OP article, you are aware of the facts, you allege I've somehow 'omitted'...



Can you see how anyone clicking on the OP article, has full access to all the information, you accuse me of omitting?

Your comments are risible and histrionic, nothing more.

I'll repeat...It's reasonable to expect people to read the thread OP article, BEFORE commenting.
(and therefore, not everything has to be entered into every post thereafter, it's assumed that you can recall them from the article - maybe we give you too much credit? )

What is not reasonable or honest is for you to draw out one element of the story - the just a joke defence,
but not the bit about gassing Jews. It creates a dishonest impression.

You then went on to. defend yourself against the accusation of dishonesty by dishonestly equating honesty with truthfulness. And you now refuse to engage with regard to this. Which begs the question of why you in to such lengths in this case.

[Bean]

What is not reasonable or honest is for you to draw out one element of the story - the just a joke defence,
but not the bit about gassing Jews. It creates a dishonest impression.

You then went on to. defend yourself against the accusation of dishonesty by dishonestly equating honesty with truthfulness. And you now refuse to engage with regard to this. Which begs the question of why you in to such lengths in this case.

It's still meant to be a joke.....the phrases were used as trigger words, for the dog to respond to.......or did you think a pug randomly walks around the house doing a Nazi salute with no input from the owner?
(Hence why it's important to view the offending material, rather than relying on 3rd party accounts to guage how offended you are, ya snowflake)


Keep posting your histrionics though, I know what the article said, I know what I said, I know what the video showed. My post was sincere and assumed people had read the article (and are capable of retaining information for longer than 4 seconds...)


You cannot always expect everyone else to bridge the gap in YOUR reading comprehension failures

HTH BIDI

[Old Greg]

It's still meant to be a joke.....the phrases were used as trigger words, for the dog to respond to.......or did you think a pug randomly walks around the house doing a Nazi salute with no input from the owner?
(Hence why it's important to view the offending material, rather than relying on 3rd party accounts to guage how offended you are, ya snowflake)


Keep posting your histrionics though, I know what the article said, I know what I said, I know what the video showed. My post was sincere and assumed people had read the article (and are capable of retaining information for longer than 4 seconds...)


You cannot always expect everyone else to bridge the gap in YOUR reading comprehension failures

HTH BIDI

Firstly, you are still refusing to engage in honesty vs truthfulness. Nuff said.

Secondly, do you think that the intent of 'a joke' should be a complete defence in all circumstances? It is actually an interesting enough area of debate. The gassing Jews element is important in that it illustrates an extreme scenario. I wonder what Tommy Robinson would say if the joke was by a man from Rochdale of Pakistani origin about the sexual abuse of white girls (I am playing nice and I know you are not Tommy Robinson). It is worth turning these situations around sometimes.

[Bean]

Firstly, you are still refusing to engage in honesty vs truthfulness. Nuff said.

Incorrect;

Define: Honest;
free of deceit; truthful and sincere.

I know what the article said, I know what I said, I know what the video showed. My post was sincere and assumed people had read the article (and are capable of retaining information for longer than 4 seconds...)

So again, YOUR reading comprehension failures don't count as dishonesty on my part

Secondly, do you think that the intent of 'a joke' should be a complete defence in all circumstances?

Why are you trying to simplify this and apply it to all circumstances?
No, but then snowflakes et al, get offended during stand-up comedian performances, where everything is a joke...
BTW - "Following Meechan's conviction, British comedians Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel had made comments supporting Meechan" - and they know a little about comedy eh?

It is actually an interesting enough area of debate. The gassing Jews element is important in that it illustrates an extreme scenario. I wonder what Tommy Robinson would say if the joke was by a man from Rochdale of Pakistani origin about the sexual abuse of white girls (I am playing nice and I know you are not Tommy Robinson). It is worth turning these situations around sometimes.

He would probably say something along the lines of.... I don't think that's funny personally - but then it would depend on what the actual joke was (do you have an example?) and how it was delivered and to who and where.
(The key there is the word 'personally', i.e. subjective humour can still be humourous to others)

[Old Greg]

Incorrect;

Define: Honest;
free of deceit; truthful and sincere.


So again, YOUR reading comprehension failures don't count as dishonesty on my part


Why are you trying to simplify this and apply it to all circumstances?
No, but then snowflakes et al, get offended during stand-up comedian performances, where everything is a joke...
BTW - "Following Meechan's conviction, British comedians Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel had made comments supporting Meechan" - and they know a little about comedy eh?


He would probably say something along the lines of.... I don't think that's funny personally - but then it would depend on what the actual joke was (do you have an example?) and how it was delivered and to who and where.
(The key there is the word 'personally', i.e. subjective humour can still be humourous to others)

1. You are still being dishonest. You previously said when challenged:

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?

You misrepresented the story by presenting some of the facts and inviting judgment, You presented the facts: a) Dog was trained to give Nazi salutes and b) It was a joke, but not c) He was saying Sieg Heil and Gas the Jews. Statement c) is more complete and changes the nature of the 'joke' in that it shows how offensive it was. You could simply say that he was convicted for training his dog to move its leg in response to statements. That is also true. Not honest though.

2. I am not trying to simplify things and apply it ato all circumstances - that was you. I was replaying your statement:

Well, since humour is subjective, all topics are available, or none are.

You appear to be simplifying it. Which way do you want it - all humour allowed under the law or boundaries? There are a couple of quite interesting questions underneath this. The first is should all communications be permissible in law if the intent is a joke or are there boundaries. Your statement above suggests you think the former. The second is: if there are boundaries, where are the boundaries and where do they lie?

3. Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel do know something about comedy, but that doesn't make them experts on the questions raised by this story, which are about the Communications Act and the law. It's worth listening to their opinion of course as there is an interesting and important conversation here about competing rights.

4. Personally, I think that Tommy Robinson would suddenly become an offended social justice warrior and talk about immigrants waging a war on white children, but it's just a view - we'll have to see whether it ever happens.

[Bean]

1. You are still being dishonest. You previously said when challenged:



You misrepresented the story by presenting some of the facts and inviting judgment, You presented the facts: a) Dog was trained to give Nazi salutes and b) It was a joke, but not c) He was saying Sieg Heil and Gas the Jews. Statement c) is more complete and changes the nature of the 'joke' in that it shows how offensive it was. You could simply say that he was convicted for training his dog to move its leg in response to statements. That is also true. Not honest though.

Histrionics and intellectual dishonesty from you I'm afraid, you're still not getting it are you?
OP article has all the information that you decry I've somehow left out.
YOUR laziness and failure to read the OP article, doesn't mean I've been dishonest - you've just been lazy and cretinous (As would any other poster commenting on a subject without reading the OP article )

hence why I previously stated;

or did you think a pug randomly walks around the house doing a Nazi salute with no input from the owner?
(Hence why it's important to view the offending material, rather than relying on 3rd party accounts to guage how offended you are, ya snowflake)

HTH BIDI

2. I am not trying to simplify things and apply it ato all circumstances - that was you. I was replaying your statement:


You appear to be simplifying it. Which way do you want it - all humour allowed under the law or boundaries? There are a couple of quite interesting questions underneath this. The first is should all communications be permissible in law if the intent is a joke or are there boundaries. Your statement above suggests you think the former. The second is: if there are boundaries, where are the boundaries and where do they lie?

All humour allowed. I had no idea whether you were trying to use a comedian in your example, or simply 'a man'

"if the joke was by a man from Rochdale of Pakistani origin about the sexual abuse of white girls "

It's not clear if 'a man' in your example is a comedian or Joe Public.....for me - comedians however, get a carte blanche when performing. A random man in the street does not - hence my comments;

then it would depend on what the actual joke was (do you have an example?) and how it was delivered and to who and where.

Those qualifiers do NOT apply to comedians performing
HTH

3. Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel do know something about comedy, but that doesn't make them experts on the questions raised by this story, which are about the Communications Act and the law. It's worth listening to their opinion of course as there is an interesting and important conversation here about competing rights.

Let’s stand up for the right to be offensive - spiked

"Nobody would deny that the phrases ‘gas the Jews’ and ‘Sieg Heil’ are unpleasant and incendiary, but when addressed to a pug it is clear that the intention is comedic, whether the joke is successful or not."

So your histrionics about 'leaving out' the exact phrases muttered is apparently worthless, according to the bolded part above.
Now, pop the kettle on, milk, 1 sugar. There's a good manfish.

4. Personally, I think that Tommy Robinson would suddenly become an offended social justice warrior and talk about immigrants waging a war on white children, but it's just a view - we'll have to see whether it ever happens.

Indeed, which is why it was an irrelevant question. We can only assume you have a man boner for Tommy.

[minestrone]

Have read article. Haven't seen clip, which I expect is NSFW. In what way was my not answering these questions dishonest? I was amusing myself really and it didn't create any false impression, I hope.

On the other hand you seem to be equating honesty with truthfulness. And you omitted the business about gassing Jews. Can you see how pertinent this is in informing judgment as to whether or not a conviction was justified?

To my surprise Greg is very, very upset about something he might be upset about if he got the chance to be upset about it.

[minestrone]

Don't be stupid be a smarty, come on join the Nazi party…