Haha, fuckin have him off Spion!
John Terry case
- Thread starter jon545660
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Haha, fuckin have him off Spion!
No, I clearly did not say that at all and I didn't need to state I was limiting my point since it was very clear I was referring to this case.
Rosco : Whether Ferdinand is a cunt is an opinion, isn't it?
Me : Obviously not. We can see he is not literally a cunt therefore it can not be an opinion, and so is now a slur and prefaced by 'black' meant as a racist slur.
And that takes us back to the point I did make, which was that legally it is impossible for a court to rule on someone being a 'cunt' or not since that is totally subjective and lacks a legal definition (other than being a slang term for the female vagina). Therefore a ruling must be based on a literal interpretation and makes this case a total farce.
Full text of Terry's interview with the police. It's quite interesting actually.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/interactive/2012/jul/10/john-terry-police-interview-text
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/interactive/2012/jul/10/john-terry-police-interview-text
But your point that Ferdinand isn't literally a cunt is not specifically related to the court case or even legal process at all!!!!!!!! It's a general point that can (and, logically, must) be expanded to assert that someobody being a cunt or not can *never* be an opinion, since the conditions that support that (the accused not literally being a cunt) apply universally to all people, and therefore to all instances of any person calling any other person 'a cunt'.
All the other stuff about legal process I'll ignore because it's got precisely fuck all to do with the disagreement.
It's everything to do with it and it's precisely the point I'm making, that the court has no legal basis to apply the commonly acknowledged interpretation and so must consider it a slur and with the addition of the adjective 'black', now a racial slur - which from my posts (all referring to / commenting on this case) should be obvious ! Whether or not this can be expanded upon is irrelevant since there is no debate about the wider application, simply how it is viewed in the context of this case.
I'm at a complete loss as to how you have taken my comments on this case, interpreted them to have a universal application, and subsequently continue to do so even when I go to lengths to explain my original (obvious ?) intention.
Compare and contrast: "Obviously not. We can see he is not literally a cunt therefore it can not be an opinion, and so is now a slur and prefaced by 'black' meant as a racist slur."
That's what you said. That is a line of reasoning that has applicaton to ANY similar scenario. How is it specific to this particular case?! And anyway, that's beside the point: if you think the above is true, how can you possibly deny that is the same as saying that somebody being a cunt can never be a matter of opinion. The conclusion follows directly from the assertion!!!!!!!!! For it not to follow there would have to be a possibility that some people are, literally, cunts. Do you not see this?!?! Did you never take a verbal reasoning test at school?! I couldn't give a fuck how you intended it to come across, as long as you continue to claim that the meaning was clear, because it fucking wasn't. There's no reference to the case in the above statement. No reference to legal basis bla bla bla. This is such a fucking ridiculous thing to argue about, but I'm damned if I'm going to let it go, because you're so obviously wrong.
What the fuck are you two arguing about.
What is the title of the fucking thread FFS !? Jesus Christ is it that difficult to look up half a screen ? Does that not compute with you at all ? Do you read every post in total isolation of it's context ? Every post I made was in relation to this case but you continue to go off on a tangent and spout shite. Talk about banging your head against a brick wall.
Absolutely fuck all.
It's his fault, though. 🙄
It's his fault, though. 🙄
PH is right though - storm in teacup.
Aaaaaaaaarrrghhh! How many fucking times do I have to explain to you that whether you were talking about the case or not is irrelevant! Have you even got the remotest idea what you're arguing about?
Honestly, I'd never realised what a thick twat you were before. 🙂
FFS and I've told you a dozen times already that I was only referring to the phrase as it pertains to the legal interpretation. Is this beyond comprehension or do you insist that all possible expositions must be considered relevant !
I always knew you were a pedantic git - case proven.
But how were you? How?
"Obviously not. We can see he is not literally a cunt therefore it can not be an opinion, and so is now a slur and prefaced by 'black' meant as a racist slur."
To me that has got nothing to do with legal interpretation. It's a general reasoned comment on the quality of the term 'cunt', on whether it can ever be more than abuse. That's a comment on the word cunt, not on the law, or on this or any other case! So therefore you can't claim it only has significance for this particular case, because it must apply to *every* use of the word!
Even if you meant what you claim to have meant (which frankly makes no fucking sense to me at all) how could I possibly have known that given it's so unclear? Let's start from the beginning: what did you intend to convey with the above words?
"Obviously not. We can see he is not literally a cunt therefore it can not be an opinion, and so is now a slur and prefaced by 'black' meant as a racist slur."
To me that has got nothing to do with legal interpretation. It's a general reasoned comment on the quality of the term 'cunt', on whether it can ever be more than abuse. That's a comment on the word cunt, not on the law, or on this or any other case! So therefore you can't claim it only has significance for this particular case, because it must apply to *every* use of the word!
Even if you meant what you claim to have meant (which frankly makes no fucking sense to me at all) how could I possibly have known that given it's so unclear? Let's start from the beginning: what did you intend to convey with the above words?
We clearly are in agreement with regard to the specific point I was making but to continue this debate in this thread is both selfish and vacuous - I'm sure you and I are the only ones having even a passing interest in this battle of semantics. PM me if you wish to continue.
Fair enough, you were wrong and I was right. I'm happy to leave it there. Hopefully next time you'll know better than to ruin a thread in order to lose an argument with me. 🙂
Some of these insults are in jest, but I think everyone needs to pack that in. That includes mods.
It's too easy to misconstrue & start an argument, & it makes the forum look more aggressive than it is.
It's too easy to misconstrue & start an argument, & it makes the forum look more aggressive than it is.
"the court m'lud is to decide whether the labia are included in the definition. For example, 'you flappy cunt'.... Is this correct? Are we referring to the labia, or' flaps' in this case. Or is this simply a description of extra skin on the entry way to the vagina? "
Does it have any bearing on whether or not Terry committed the offence though?
Could be, but Terry did say it and it was ment for Ferdinand.
And they have video evidence of the incidient.
Terry himself said, when I'm watching this video that doesnt look good. Hence the defence of sarcastically repeating the words.
I haven't been following the case much, i dont know the exact offence and its wording. But can someone be guilty of something like harassment if the person being harassed didn't even know he was being harassed harassed?
Does anyone know the specific charge?
He is charged with having committed a racially aggravated public order offence. Whatever that means.
Nice one, just what I need in work, a gif of someone doing a wanker action.
- Status
