Jump to content

In the News


Ramandu

Recommended Posts


5 hours ago, CCB III said:


 

I met a trans woman at a party a few years ago, and was curious, started asking questions, she was really nice, explained the whole process etc, it's no fucking cakewalk. 
 


 


 



 

 

 

Did you shag him? 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, For Fecks Sake said:

This will come as a bit of a disappointment to you @Matt Armstrong's Dog

Jordan McSweeney, now I could be wrong (I have been in the past!) but not sure this bloke will be "brown" as you like to say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61925686

Just had a look at the lad (who I think it is going by his age and where he lived at the time (Dagenham) when recently on his page) on his Facebook profile.

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100058727825478

He's a white alright. No doubt, if indeed he is put on trial and subsequently convicted, he'll be deemed to be a person "failed by the system and others" and was experiencing a combination of a psychotic episode and an absence or abnormality of mind at the time of the attack but had no intention of killing the victim. 

His photographic quotes on FB may form the impression of an unstable mind, although that's just pure shite, used wrongfully in mitigation, in my book. A murderer knows what they are doing, regardless of their mental state, "poor upbringing", "feeling socially excluded", etc. End of.

He'll be admitted to Broadmoor Hospital indefinitely under the provisions of the Mental Health Act of 1983.

However, I can foresee the media depicting him, whether it be fairly or unfairly, as a white supremacist and misogynist, who is a member of The National Front or similar organisation. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Parklife said:

There's surely no way to know that? 

I had this argument with someone about tobacco, and was surprised to find out that it is true (or was a decade ago). Money raised from tax outstripped all spend on tobacco related diseases, by an order of magnitude.

Not sure if you could do the same for alcohol, as the negative effects are a lot more diffuse.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Parklife said:

It's almost like everything he types is founded on prejudice, rather than reality. 

You're obviously just cherrypicking specific points in my earlier comments to conform to your virtue-signalling agenda. 

My comments were non-prejudicial, objective, and reasonable, and covered a whole plethora of potential outcomes.

Did not I refer to a likelihood of a white ethnic carrying out the murder or I did I solely refer to browns only??

Maybe I've got Charles Bonnet Syndrome as well after all which is transferred to my fingers when typing. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

I had this argument with someone about tobacco, and was surprised to find out that it is true (or was a decade ago). Money raised from tax outstripped all spend on tobacco related diseases, by an order of magnitude.

Not sure if you could do the same for alcohol, as the negative effects are a lot more diffuse.

You surely can't possibly ascertain the cause of every illness and therefore the cost of treating all "tobacco related diseases". 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

You're obviously just cherrypicking specific points in my earlier comments to conform to your virtue-signalling agenda. 

My comments were non-prejudicial, objective, and reasonable, and covered a whole plethora of potential outcomes.

Did not I refer to a likelihood of a white ethnic carrying out the murder or I did I solely refer to browns only??

Maybe I've got Charles Bonnet Syndrome as well after all which is transferred to my fingers when typing. 

So many words. So little of substance said.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, The Boofon said:

It’s a reasonable assertion which seems to hold water when checked via various searches. 

How do you ascertain the cause of every single persons illness? You surely can't. 

How do you ascertain the individual cost of treating a particular patient? You surely can't.

Im sure there's been broad brush studies looking in to it, making a heap of assumptions and drawing deeply flawed conclusions though. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, CCB III said:

Where exactly? 

In your introduction of age as a factor.

The competition was not age restricted but it was gender restricted.

Your dismissal of women's (bio) views that a man (bio) won a contest for women and replaced with well if the woman who came 4th had won would it have been the same outrage.

You've made it about age when it was open to all ages but not all genders. 

Seems to me you're (as a man) telling women what they should do and how they should feel about something impacting them and them alone, and dismissing their views and concerns.

You also describe anyone who disagrees as hateful - again if a woman holds a view that men should not compete in women's sports they are hateful.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Matt Armstrong's Dog said:

You're obviously just cherrypicking specific points in my earlier comments to conform to your virtue-signalling agenda. 

My comments were non-prejudicial, objective, and reasonable, and covered a whole plethora of potential outcomes.

Did not I refer to a likelihood of a white ethnic carrying out the murder or I did I solely refer to browns only??

Maybe I've got Charles Bonnet Syndrome as well after all which is transferred to my fingers when typing. 

Not you being a racist bigot again is it...

 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Parklife said:

How do you ascertain the cause of every single persons illness? You surely can't. 

How do you ascertain the individual cost of treating a particular patient? You surely can't.

Im sure there's been broad brush studies looking in to it, making a heap of assumptions and drawing deeply flawed conclusions though. 

No you can’t. 
 

it’s a reasonable assertion is all I’m saying. 
 

Sounds plausible. Not bothered if it’s proven wrong.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, patrick bateman said:

Not you being a racist bigot again is it...

 

???.

Again? I am not and never have been a racist or a bigot, so your use of the word is inappropriate. 

Please feel free, along with your fellow clique members, to provide evidence to back up your slur. If not, shut the fuck up, you boring cunt.

For a man/woman/transperson that has hardly posted since registering on the forum, you come across as a sock puppet account user. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, patrick bateman said:

In your introduction of age as a factor.

The competition was not age restricted but it was gender restricted.

Your dismissal of women's (bio) views that a man (bio) won a contest for women and replaced with well if the woman who came 4th had won would it have been the same outrage.

You've made it about age when it was open to all ages but not all genders. 

Seems to me you're (as a man) telling women what they should do and how they should feel about something impacting them and them alone, and dismissing their views and concerns.

You also describe anyone who disagrees as hateful - again if a woman holds a view that men should not compete in women's sports they are hateful.

Seems like you're condensing womanhood to purely biological viewpoints. 
 

Reducing women to their reproductive organs, and nothing more.

 

Thats more sexist than anything I've said 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Parklife said:

There's surely no way to know that? 

not quickly that’s for sure.


You could check the annual reports of the uk listed tobacco and alcohol companies to get an approximation the tax raised. 
 

you could then check total govt spend on the nhs. 
 

But, arsed if I’m doing it. Easier just picking out GBNs. 
 

Even if it’s higher it’s kind of a moot point as if you compare non alcohol and tobacco companies who make similar profits then the tax revenue will be similar without the concurrent nhs cost. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Parklife said:

You surely can't possibly ascertain the cause of every illness and therefore the cost of treating all "tobacco related diseases". 

Yep, again that's what I said. But tobacco tax revenue is more than the amount we spend on diseases linked to tobacco, whether or not they were caused by tobacco.

Bit dated, but in 2015 UK tax revenue from tobacco was £12b. In the same year the total cost of smoking to NHS England was £2.6b. Add the rest of the UK and even the non medical costs, and it's still not even close.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015

The guy I was arguing went further, saying that we should take into account that smokers die younger, saving the government money on pensions and other healthcare. ?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...