comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 38 seconds ago
I'd think maybe there be other things on my mind, such as 50 dead people.

And I know you were being sarcastic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you going on about now?

There's a big difference between caring about the dead and caring about whether there was a minutes silence at a football match.

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

If someone went the whole weekend without posting anything about a lack of minutes silence and then suddenly became outraged about it late yesterday, just after they're read about it in a news article, then it's fair to say they are seeking to be offended than being genuinely offended by it.

If you don't agree then fine, but don't pretend it's not a logical comment.

comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 28 minutes ago
Also, it was both racially and politically motivated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. I think we just to use that term far too often, hugely diluting what it means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Manchester bombing was classed as terrorism, then why wouldn’t this be?

How about the atrocities committed in countries like Kenya and Nigeria, but no outrage from some members on this forum...

That's just your assumption. People may have thought there'd be one, saw there wasn't, then saw the article and got upset as they thought there'd be one. Also quite logical.

Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so, Winston.

comment by Kano (U20144)

posted 16 seconds ago

How about the atrocities committed in countries like Kenya and Nigeria, but no outrage from some members on this forum...
---
Maybe they need to read about it and wait for the FA to say something before they are outraged.

comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
That's just your assumption. People may have thought there'd be one, saw there wasn't, then saw the article and got upset as they thought there'd be one. Also quite logical.

Just because you say it is so, doesn't make it so, Winston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say it did - I said it's a logical opinion.

Personally I think you're just disagreeing for the sake of it, when the reality is pretty obvious.

So many people so desperate to be offended on social media these days.

comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 28 minutes ago
Also, it was both racially and politically motivated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. I think we just to use that term far too often, hugely diluting what it means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Manchester bombing was classed as terrorism, then why wouldn’t this be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was ultimately responsible for that?

comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Kano (U20144)

posted 16 seconds ago

How about the atrocities committed in countries like Kenya and Nigeria, but no outrage from some members on this forum...
---
Maybe they need to read about it and wait for the FA to say something before they are outraged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Absurd.

comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 28 minutes ago
Also, it was both racially and politically motivated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. I think we just to use that term far too often, hugely diluting what it means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Manchester bombing was classed as terrorism, then why wouldn’t this be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was ultimately responsible for that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that it wasn’t terrorism?

The reality pretty obvious?

Again, you're just agreeing with your own assumption, Winston. I have given an equally logical explanation.

comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 54 seconds ago
The reality pretty obvious?

Again, you're just agreeing with your own assumption, Winston. I have given an equally logical explanation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yours isn't logical at all.

Given the level of outrage shown by some, the idea that they didn't feel the need to comment on it all weekend is laughable.

If they thought there'd be one, then there wasn't, of course they'd be outraged. You're projecting your assumption onto the situation and making up "logical" explanation to say "Look at me, I am right." when you have no idea why an individual or a group are outraged.

comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 46 seconds ago
If they thought there'd be one, then there wasn't, of course they'd be outraged. You're projecting your assumption onto the situation and making up "logical" explanation to say "Look at me, I am right." when you have no idea why an individual or a group are outraged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So why not react sooner?

If it matters to them so much, why not raise it at the time? Why wait over a day and just happen to start going mad about it when the news report broke?

I'm not projecting anything. I'm using logic to form an opinion about the credibility of certain people's comments on social media.

You are desperate to dismiss my opinion for some strange reason.

Fact is, people love to be offended these days.

Maybe they did. Hence the article and more reaction. Others may have other more important hings in mind. Like finding out a 3 year old was killed, the killer being in court and others defending the actions of the killer.

There are many variables. You like the one that fits your assumption as you like to be right. Look at your last statement. You're, yes you, are offended by people being offended by this.

Maybe they did what?

The people I'm talking about, there was no mention of it throughout the weekend.

And no, I'm not offended by this. I'm mocking it.

Keep trying, you might find a coherent argument if you keep going for long enough.

Or maybe not.

You are offended. Otherwise you would not be here arguing with me about semantics and trying to pass it off as "mocking".

I'm not offended.

Mocking people's faux outrage is not being offended by it.

Hope this helps.

comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 28 minutes ago
Also, it was both racially and politically motivated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. I think we just to use that term far too often, hugely diluting what it means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Manchester bombing was classed as terrorism, then why wouldn’t this be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was ultimately responsible for that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that it wasn’t terrorism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I asked a simple genuine question.

"Mocking" people you don't know based on your own assumption. And then go on about it for a number of comments trying to provide "logical reasons" why a group of people you don't know are offended. Yeah, you're not offended. (I'm being sarcastic, just in case you couldn't tell).

comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)

posted 3 minutes ago

comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 28 minutes ago
Also, it was both racially and politically motivated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. I think we just to use that term far too often, hugely diluting what it means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Manchester bombing was classed as terrorism, then why wouldn’t this be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was ultimately responsible for that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that it wasn’t terrorism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I asked a simple genuine question.
----
Terrorists

comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by Lexington 125.2 (U8879)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Chains (U3979)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 28 minutes ago
Also, it was both racially and politically motivated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't necessarily make it terrorism. I think we just to use that term far too often, hugely diluting what it means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Manchester bombing was classed as terrorism, then why wouldn’t this be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was ultimately responsible for that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that it wasn’t terrorism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I asked a simple genuine question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And in doing so implied that it wasn’t a terror attack.

comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 3 minutes ago
"Mocking" people you don't know based on your own assumption. And then go on about it for a number of comments trying to provide "logical reasons" why a group of people you don't know are offended. Yeah, you're not offended. (I'm being sarcastic, just in case you couldn't tell).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, as I clarified for you, I'm not offended.

You want to focus on me because you realise your attempted critique of my logical opinion has fallen apart.

What was logical about your critique? It's all based on your own assumption.

comment by CurrentlyInChina (U11181)
posted 27 seconds ago
What was logical about your critique? It's all based on your own assumption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's logical to assume that if people are outraged by there not being a minutes silence, they will at least question why there is not one at some stage during or after the games - spread across a 48 hour period.

It's logical to assume that the news reports are what prompted the outrage, given that it was only after these reports that any hint of outrage (or indeed disappointment of any description) was voiced.

This is common sense but you're so keen to argue that you'll of course deny it.

But you assume your first point as fact when it's an assumption. You don't know people were outraged or not. You then use that assumption to jump to your second.