Search results

'kin hell. You're as bad as 'The Truth' or one of those other conspiracy theorists. Nah, I think I'm done here.

Ad hominem now. Are you going to work your way through all of them? You're being honest when you say your post wasn't sneery? Once again, absolute bollocks. The reason we're now debating what is and isn't a truism is because it deflects from the fact that your post was sarcasm personified and...

Nope. You've still not squirmed out of that one. Your post was sneery contempt and you and I both know it. Anyway, if you're going to try to use pedantry to dig yourself out of this hole you've made for yourself then the pertinent word in my posts was MOST of society. Even if all 11 million...

I don't doubt you're not alone in thinking that, it was the way you expressed it (as you've done in your latest post - sarcasm seems to be the order of the day). I've already quoted your post #164 twice and we seem to be going round in circles with you avoiding that.

It was after being asked if you thought all 11 million voters didn't think that a society with no charity is a good thing:

No. Simster called it right. You were being very sneery and that was what I was referring to. How can I say that most of society thinks it's a good idea if there was no need for charity? Because I believe it to be true. We could do a vox pop on here and I'll concede the point if I'm wrong but...

It certainly isn't arrogant to say truisms are ideas that most of society thinks is a good idea. It's almost a definition.

It would have been irony if I'd said that I wasn't arrogant. I can't be arsed debating that one with you. I just find it slightly odd that of all people , you're the one calling people arrogant after some of your posts on this thread. Now that's irony.

Physician heal thyself. So your post wasn't laden with sarcasm? Yeah, right. What about this gem from you?

"It would be a nice if there were no wars in the world" "Yes, you make a valid point" Can you see the absurdity of such statements? I'd have less of a problem with it if Self deigned to give us the benefit of his wisdom on how his 'valid point' could be achieved.

It certainly was but that doesn't preclude a utopian ideal where charity isn't necessary. I stand by my assertion that most people of all non-extremist political persuasions would think it's a good thing to aspire to. Absolute bollocks.

No wonder you're such a fan of Self's writing with sneering contempt such as that.

You think that do you? That everyone who voted Tory doesn't want a society where there is no need for charity? Or that voting other than Tory would more likely create this kind of society? Power to the people, Wolfie.

I doubt it too but I am somewhat bemused that just because Self said it, you felt the need to say it's a valid point. It is stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it? But if that's the point you seem to think is the important thing here then after reading Self sneer at Oliver for offering a...

Will Self thinks that what we need a society where no group is dependant on charity. Jesus wept, is this the great insight? Is he claiming this as his own idea? I'm sure Jamie would agree with that, it's such a truism that I'm struggling to think of any fair-minded individual who hasn't thought...

I must have missed that then. What's the valid point? That the working classes ought to know their place? That Self doesn't care for Oliver or his type? That Self wants us to know how much cleverer he is than Oliver?