On 24/11/16 11:34, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/16 11:10, GMM wrote:
On 24/11/2016 10:44, GB wrote:
On 23/11/2016 14:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
god knows why given the fact it's
used as a weapon nowadays in the black community
You make it sound like the entire black community throw acid at people.
The reality is that there are probably at most a few hundred acid
attacks a year in this country (allowing for under-reporting). Most of
the victims appear to be white, so even your proposition that this is a
'black' thing seems to be extremely doubtful. Do you have any basis for
this, or is it pure supposition on your part?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-last-10-years
Come on GB, you know we're living in the post-truth world, so we
shouldn't allow facts to get in the way of an opportunity for some
gratuitous racism.
Well for heavens sake, quoting te guardian is pure post truth
From the article.
*Globally, an estimated 80% of victims are women*.
Jaf Shah, the executive director of the support group Acid Survivors
Trust International (ASTI), said: €śLooking at the data in general, there
is a fairly large probability that a *high percentage of the incidents
are male on male attacks* and most likely to be gang related. The
numbers appear to be very high and suggest an increase, which is very
concerning.€ť
So which is it then Guardian? Male on male or women?
You can pick whichever you want to support your bigotry.
Well of course, I couldn't agree more. By now we should all know that
there are only two authoritative sources of information - the Daily Mail
and the side of a bus.
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/23/brex...tten-on-a-bus/
Straw man. I was not endorsing the sides of buses or the Daily mail. I
was merely pointing out that the phenomenal aplomb with which the
Guardian totally contradicts the evidence IN ITS OWN ARTICLE in order to
present a version of the truth that conforms to the bigotry of its
readership, and I selected the guardian PRECISELY BECAUSE it was cited
as a reference to prove a point, which it itself does not support,
although it claims to.
That other news outlets of a less left-leaning nature are very little
different, except insofar as tabloids, selling into the tits and bums
market, they actually don't pretend the high moral ground that the
Guardian does, is not the point.
The point is that the Guardian is as post truth and propaganda filled as
any tabloid. The only difference being the odor of sanctity that its
fast perishing corpse tries to emit.
--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"