Pay to listen to Corbyn speak

[The Northern Baptist]

Apart from that The Institute of Aeronautical Engineering doesn't require you to be a certain race in order to join nor is it part of the Engineering Council nor funded by the Engineering Council.

Let me give you a different context.

UKIP Party Membership Fees:

Normal members: £50
Black People: £60

That still seem innocent?

Why do you insist on talking down to ppl?

 

[The perfect fumble]

That might be the stupidest and most reaching analogy I have ever seen in the entire history of this forum.

You've confused equality with inequality.



No it's incredibly simple. All people should be treated equally. That's the simplest and easiest thing in the world to do. There's no grey area about it.

And it wasn't designed to increase representation. That's absolutely ridiculous.

Can you point to anybody at all who has the disposable income to attend a political speech night for £30 but doesn't have the income to attend for £40? Can you explain why the organisers couldn't then set all prices at £30? Could you point to a single person who made the decision to attend based entirely on a £10 saving due to their race that couldn't afford to go at £40?

Of course not. Neither can anybody else. Because it was a symbolic and frankly a pathetically transparent gesture to appear to be "allies" of BAME members and reinforce how Labour "understand their plight" and all of that fucking patronising nonsense that infantilises BAME people rather than giving them exactly what they want which is equal treatment to everybody else. In my experience, BAME people don't want your fucking pity nor "discounts". They want to be not treated like a sub species of humans.

£10 less tickets increase to "increase representation". Do me a fucking favour. Do you just swallow these face saving PR statements with the gusto of a weekend worker on Tibb Street?



No I see a cack handed political gesture designed to appeal to BAME racists and their white apologists who also confuse equality with inequality.

You have so much anger, so much venom generated by so little. Little stuff sets you off on a frenzy, I guess you see this nothing story as symptomatic of some deeper malaise, a betrayal of something you hold dear, insignificant in itself but typical of what? The Islingtonisation of Labour?

The Labour party screws up all the time and yes it is prone to gesture politics but fundamentally racist? No and this cack-handed nonsense with the rally? Small earthquake no one killed.

You say you're a member of the Labour Party? So am I and yes I see the good and bad in the Party, but I stick with it because it offers hope and gives a shit for the people of this country, if you think Labour is racist and you can't stand the likes of me, it begs the question why you remain, you must hate being a member, you never seem to have a good word for the Party or at least for what you think the Party has become.

Oh, by the way, I've no idea what you're trying to say here....

No I see a cack handed political gesture designed to appeal to BAME racists and their white apologists who also confuse equality with inequality.

 

[Sir peace frog]

id pay someone to throttle jezza and may, infact the whole parliament ,all a bunch of self serving cunts

 

[SWP's back]

Why do you insist on talking down to ppl?

He’s entirely correct though in what he’s saying. That he has to repeat it several times and correct fallacious arguments probably leads to the tone.

 

[The perfect fumble]

He’s entirely correct though in what he’s saying. That he has to repeat it several times and correct fallacious arguments probably leads to the tone.

That's funny, when I do it I'm talking bollocks ;-)

 

[The Northern Baptist]

He’s entirely correct though in what he’s saying. That he has to repeat it several times and correct fallacious arguments probably leads to the tone.

He’s certainly confident in his own opinions. Whether he is correct or not is a matter of opinion though, not fact.

 

[stonerblue]

He’s entirely correct though in what he’s saying. That he has to repeat it several times and correct fallacious arguments probably leads to the tone.

What 'fallacious argument' was he 'correcting' ?

 

[SWP's back]

He’s certainly confident in his own opinions. Whether he is correct or not is a matter of opinion though, not fact.

No, on this it’s entirely a matter of fact. It’s discrimination based on a race. One race has o pay more than another.

There’s nothing remotely subjective about it so you would do as well to actually read the content of his posts rather than moan about the tone of them.

 

[SWP's back]

What 'fallacious argument' was he 'correcting' ?

You often ask throwaway questions like this and never have the decency to acknowledge my replies and simply slink back off to the dark places you inhabit.

But as stated by damocles and agreed by me, I’ll start you off with;

• Circular argument/reasoning
• Straw men

I’ll not hold my breath for your reply thanking me for pointing these two out for you.

 

[The perfect fumble]

No, on this it’s entirely a matter of fact. It’s discrimination based on a race. One race has o pay more than another.

And when one age group pays more than another is that ageist?