Wall of Mouths

That will pass as light comedy round these parts.

Did I tell you one about the rape victim?

Here’s some more entertainment for you:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/kitten-dumped-in-bin-i … 85172.html

mrs h wrote:

You were the one who brought up the child abuse jokes thing in the first place, I really couldn’t in my wildest dreams imagine being bored enough to think up ways to “smear” you

More lies - you said, “With all due respect, Sam you have been guilty of far worse ‘jokes’ than that and you know it! I’d prove it right now if it hadn’t all been deleted!”, and the only deleted “jokes” you could have been referring to were child abuse ones. Hopefully Rene can still access those deleted posts because I want to see whether you have the decency to apologise.

It doesn’t invalidate my premise and your argument is a clear attempt “to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise”, therefore it is indeed a “tu quoque” logical fallacy. Even if in the past I have joined in with offensive jokes, I haven’t made offensive, unfunny, violent statements and a week later expressed outrage over the same crimes. Your hypothetical “Gav” scenario is irrelevant.

I do not do and have not done what I believe to be wrong (despite your attempts to smear me by making false accusations), so you cannot legitimately accuse me of being a hypocrite.

You, on the other hand, *have* displayed hypocrisy and inconsistency. You freely admit to demanding the censoring of “jokes” *you* find offensive, but when someone else legitimately criticises another for making an analogously offensive “joke”, you attack the person making the criticism rather than the object of their criticism.

And how would my alleged personal conduct (making jokes about child abuse, which I have refuted and you have failed to support with evidence) invalidate my premise?

Even if I was being hypocritical (which I have already argued I wasn’t, as my jokes are clearly jokes, and not bluntly violent statements shortly followed by hypocritical outrage at real examples of said crime), your argument is logically fallacious:

“Tu quoque (pronounced /tjuːˈkwoʊkwɛ/ [1]), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for “you, too” or “you, also”. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.”

No, you didn’t just poke “a bit of fun” at me, you accused me of being a hypocrite who made jokes about child abuse. When I confronted you about this offensive accusation and told you it was totally untrue, you tried to change your argument by instead accusing me of giving you a “fucking hard time about getting it (the child abuse thread) deleted”, another false accusation which you again totally failed to back up. And all this even though you agree with my orginal argument. Lame, and shameful.

Yes, and I’m pointing out that as well as agreeing with my argument, your argument *against* me is completely false. By admitting that you demanded threads to be deleted because of your objection to “jokes” therein, whilst trying to undermine my own argument against offensive “jokes” (an argument you actually agree with!) through the use of baseless accusations, you’ve succeeded in making yourself look rather silly, ignorant, and arrogant (in my eyes at least, I’m sure no-one else is remotely interested in all this).

No I won’t. And the irony is, as you are totally wrong about me making child abuse jokes, and have provided no evidence of my giving you “a fucking hard time about getting it (the thread) deleted”, you are actually in agreement with my argument (that’s what’s implied by your earlier comment, anyway):

“I was just trying to be subtle in reminding you that of the 30 pages of sick child abuse jokes that were deleted you were a contributor to those pages. I don’t see the point in you trying to start an argument with someone when it’s going to make you look like a hypocrite. I didn’t say I didn’t agree with you, I just don’t think you are in a position to take the moral high ground.”

Ok, so post the links. Accusations need evidence otherwise they are absolutely meaningless, just like your slanderous accusation that I made child abuse jokes.

Alan wrote:

That was kinda my point with my first post here… you berating the cat joke is no different really than that person having a go at you for your upskirts thing. That person was highly offended by a perceived misogyny on your behalf, much like you were offended by perceived animal cruelty on Jobrok’s side. I’m sure both you and Jobrok are not like that in reality.

The difference being that my joke was at least obviously an attempt at a joke, whereas the cat “joke” was just bluntly violent.

mrs h wrote:

http://www.therapyquestionmark.co.uk/wallofmouths/discussions/post/126325/#post-126325

Sorry, where in that link is the evidence of my giving you “a fucking hard time” about getting a thread containing child abuse jokes deleted?

Are you going to provide any evidence for the accusations you keep making? If not then STFU.

I did not contribute a single joke to that thread as I had nothing at all to do with it. Retract that slanderous accusation right now.

Alan wrote:

I’m not having a go, btw, I just enjoy the WOM being no holds barred. Most of us enjoy politically incorrect gags, doesn’t mean we’d ever dream of putting the material into practise.

“I fucking hate black people. I think they should all be shot.”

*fast forward a week*

“Hey everyone, look at this story about a racist assault, isn’t it absolutely disgusting.”

Would that be OK, Alan?

Alan wrote:

Replace the word “humans” with “men”, the word “animals” with “women”, and the word “animal” with “domestic”… and you have upskirts.com! :-D

Not really, because what I made a joke about (and in a jokey manner, rather than just bluntly violent), isn’t a big problem in the world and it doesn’t cause huge suffering and death.

Also, what are you alleging has been deleted containing “jokes” of mine?

“I fucking hate cats.

She should have come back with a steamroller and flattened the bin with the moggy cunt inside.”

Glad you found that funny, mrs h! Now that there’s a no-holds barred policy on the WoM, I’ll look forward to making child abuse and rape jokes (then being outraged by real life examples of said crimes).

Strange, because a long time ago a whole thread of “jokes” about abusing handicapped kids was deleted on here (if I remember correctly), and weren’t you one of the people who found that thread offensive and highly distasteful?

To me his “joke” just fed into the general lack of respect humans have for animals, so to then act outraged by actual animal abuse strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.

If taking “upskirt” photos was a massive societal problem causing a lot of suffering, and I’d joked about it and then acted outraged by a real-life example of it, you’d have a good argument, Gav :-p

Jobrok wrote:

Sick fuckin’ cunts…!!!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dog-put-down-after-firewo … 41207.html

I know I had a giggle at the old one dumping the cat in the bin, but this is a whole different league.

Yeah, it’s perfectly fine to make jokes about hating and running over cats, but then act outraged by other acts of animal abuse…

Eastenders is like a fucking pantomime, I can’t believe anyone can take it seriously

Skream - Skream!

Fuck Eastenders!

Then if I were you I’d write a detailed refutation of their statement and publish it in relevant sites on the net.

According to that statement the band were only 41 minutes late?

deadsetgav wrote:

Who the fuck does he think he is?

Axl Rose - multimillionaire, narcissicistic, manic-depressive egomaniac who was in one of the best rock bands of all time!

His face reminds me of a grinning Death’s Head. The man’s evil as fuck.

Ha ha, I thought that comment wouldn’t go down too well. Face it though, he’s notorious for being late and unpredictable, if you bought a ticket to see him then you should have expected that kind of behaviour. He gave a warning that they would stop if it happened again and yet some bellend decided to lob another bottle on stage. Of course it’s not fair that everyone had to suffer for the actions of an idiotic minority, but at least eveyone knows now not to bother buying a ticket for GnR ever again. That said I do hope refunds are offered, I’m not sure how likely that is though?

I’d fuck off as well if supposed fans kept chucking bottles at me.

That war criminal should be in a dock at The Hague