Excuse me? Asking a question consitutes "moving the goal posts" now, does it?

What does "good behaviour" in prison actually mean? Lack of bad behaviour? Or does the prisoner actually have to do something good in order to warrant the rewards? I tend to doubt it.

Stop calling people who have views you disagree with "trolls". It's a ridiculous attempt to stifle discussion that is all to common, and is the main cause IMO, of so many people feeling disengaged from politics. People that think the left is generally full of shit aren't stupid, and shouldn't be afraid to make their opinions known.

I outlined what's considered 'good behaviour' in my earlier post.

Before we venture down such dimly lit paths, why not suggest that the Government focus first of all on the actual fast food companies themselves? Most of their marketing is aimed at children, isn't it?

The truth is, if people started eating healthier these big companies wouldn't be too happy about it.

Another factor would have to be price. I tend to eat quite healthy, and I know that it isn't cheap. Fresh fruit & vegetables don't come cheap, and they don't have a long shelf life either. I usually find myself in the supermarket at least twice a week. Does a parent who works all day and looks after a child at night have time to do that?

Throw in chicken breast, fruit juices (real fruit juices, not the sugar-laden shit), fresh fish and the like and it can easily mount up. I can spend anything up to £150 per week just for me and my missus.

A family with two unemployed parents and three children or so have no chance when it comes to eating healthy. The shitty stuff costs far less, and you get more of it for your money.

I see you managed to make a detour from healthy eating to it all being the fault of the public sector again. You really are astounding.

Yes bacause your entire routine is that you post something and when shot down you resort to either changing the subject, playing the victim of an imaginary leftist conspiracy or ask a question slightly related to the subject while avoiding actually countering something put to you.



Which is why its pointless to actually engage in any kind of debate with you, you have no interest in any point of view unless it matchs your own so stop pretending you give a shit what anyone here actually thinks.

Also see above point about using a question to avoid actually countering other opinions/points.



See above point about imaginary leftist conspiracy only thing missing from this is a reference to The Gurdian which I don't read by the way, fact is Neil explained in very simple words why people think you are a Troll and as expected you ignored everything he had to say.

So stop acting like a Troll and people will stop treating you like one and for the record I personally don't give a shit if you are right wing almost everyone I know is and I believe that both the left and right are needed and that both sides have their fair share of idiots.

I don't agree that I've blamed it all on the public sector. The people who should take the vast majority of the blame are the parents in question.

£150 a week on food for just 2 people? Where are you shopping?

Fast food outlets should not be allowed to market towards children, you're right.

£150 how is that even possible, my partner and I eat great quality meat and Fish and our food bill is absolutely not even in your league, either you're lying or serious, serious fatties. Or fantastically wealthy, at which point your socialist leanings become more "Aaaahhh" as they're more Champagne and less poor striving for better.

My God, man. Several PMs over months? I had no idea it was so serious.

There's bound to be some counselling near you. Get in touch, please. This is some bad stuff going on.

If he toned it down and stopped being such a smug little prick he probably would have accomplished something but the sad fact is when you carry yourself like a cunt people will tend to ignore what you have to say even if it is positive so Oliver has only himself to blame for how the public thinks of him.

I think Charlie Brooker summed it well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWkWQ-39KLo

The genuine contempt Oliver had for that kid was plain to see and I refuse to take anyone who uses the mix loads of food up so it looks like shit method of making a point seriously.



Serious question what legal means can a parent use to FORCE his, her or their child to actually eat what healthy food? Im betting that if Jane Bloggs tied little Jimmy to a chair and force fed him his greens things wouldn't end well.

I know you were mainly getting at idiot parents who clearly don't care what their children eat btw.

I do enjoy the way you feel any abuse is caused by people being leftist bullying fuckwits, and it hasn't occurred to you that it may be more a reflection of the way you behave on here.
But c'est la vie.

The only way I am behaving on here is putting my points across in a reasonable way. If people can't handle that, it's their problem.

The problem is that too many people can't handle their narrow-minded viewpoints being challenged in any way, and throw their toys out of the pram when anyone dares to post something that goes against the liberal line. It seems to be fairly consistent across just about any kind of political forum on the internet, other than those that are strictly moderated.

I enjoy eating unhealthily.

You just couldn't have illustrated my point any better.

It's not even funny anymore.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. As I am to mine. It is not for the likes of you to state that the way I put my points across is "wrong", becuase they do not fit your tightly bound rules of discussion.

Why not try arguing against the points, rather than arguing against how they are worded?

People argue your points all the time. You don't answer them.

Also, I am BEGGING the many people who've PMed you to stand up and be counted. In the spirit off fair play and honest debate, I think all us liberal bastards should volunteer forr suspension in the event that we are rude. It is incredibly sad that debate should be stifled by our horrific levels of hostility.

Is it a rule that socialists have to be poor? Is that a prerequisite to being a socialist?

The truth is, I'm far from being "poor", but I've worked hard for my money, and don't shirk paying my taxes, or believe that those who are less fortunate than myself are simply sucking people like me dry.

I fully understand that there are people in this country who don't have the opportunities that I have, and I don't grudge them any help they get at the expense of my tax money. It's called being a member of a civilised society.

As for my shopping bill, I spend a lot on fresh food and organic produce. Maybe you & your partner are the types who buy your quality meat and fish from the reduced counter? I don't roll like that, because I don't have to. I'm a rich socialist, remember?

i think we all know the answer to this rumbling debate. All households with no employment should be sent a DIY Vegetable patch.

How about you stop claiming that people are berating you for a difference of opinion, rather than the real reason, which is they're fed up with your non-method of argument, which consists of asking questions, then whining about the swearing as a smokescreen for the fact you've provided no counters, and moving the goalposts or hiding behind "the leftist agenda" as a standard fall-back when they address them, completely ignoring any points they make, then coming back and claiming none have been made, despite several people providing you with several, blatant, cited examples from previous pages?



I'm not talking about using legal means, though. People have been raising kids for millennia simply by providing them with the proper guidance in the right direction, which is my point. I'm not arguing that kids have a legal right to choose whatever they want to eat, but parents who cite that as a reason for actively supplying them with shit they know is bad for them are a bunch of wretched fucking cunts who don't deserve to even BE fertile, let alone have kids. I'm not a parent, but even I know that parents are supposed to have a sense of responsibility for their child, and that includes doing your best to get them to eat properly. Until a certain age, most parents get to decide anyway by being the sole providers, but later on, when the kids have access to other foods, said parents should be making every effort to educate and encourage these children to eat healthily, and any parent who does what that fuck-headed mother did by providing hot-dog/burger vans and so on is betraying that responsibility.

I wouldn't put it on a par with child abuse, and you can't really legislate for such things outside making sure schools provide nutritious meals, but it's bad parenting nonetheless. I suppose I'm simply advocating screaming abuse in said parents face, Aphex Twin-style, until they fucking listen.

Fuck off. You do not decide what is and what isn't a valid method of argument. Post your opinions. Other people do the same. Don't start telling peopel how and when and what they are allowed to post for it to be considered "valid" in your own cosy liberal world.


I agree with that. But why have we got to the stage where so many parents genuinely think there is nothing wrong with feeding their kids junk(or letting them feed themselves junk) despite the fact that it is obvious to everyone that they are becoming dangerously unhealthy as a result. IMO it is because of the increasing scope of the state, and the idea that people should leave things to "society" to take care of, whether that be education, basic socialisation (such as teaching kids to eat with a knife and fork, wipe their own arse, and even be able to sit up unaided), money (EMA as a benefits starter kit), and plenty of other things I could think of given time. The more the state does for people, the less they are prepared to do themselves, and society suffers as a result, particularly when cuts have to be made, as is the case at present.

Not having a go, but why is it that everyone on this forum who disagrees with you is considered automatically a liberal? I noticed a lot on this forum who disagreed with you have said that they are not liberals or left wing and are somewhere in the middle, yes me and others on here are more left wing than right wing but for the sake of those who arent stop generalising everyone who doesnt agree with you please.

I don't consider everyone that disagrees with me a liberal. I specified Carbomb in this instance. If this is not the case I apologise for making that presumption.

Personally I'm fed up of this cosy liberal world where 2+2 equals 4, and anyone who claims otherwise is silenced by the elite. What 2+2 equals should be left to the free market to determine.

No, YOU fuck off, you absolute wretch. There's an objective standard, used all across the entirety of academia, politics, history and economics, by people across the whole spectrum from left to right, and by whichever standard one measures the discussion on here, YOU have consistently failed, time after time, to live up to them. Don't try to hide behind subjectivity when you've displayed all the reasoning ability of a retarded child poking itself in the eye with a spoon.

Also: fuck you, and fuck you again. I'm not a liberal, and you know fuck-all about what I am, or what being left-wing is either, regardless of what your background is. You've spouted nothing but shite this thread.

So Happ thinks that fast food companies should be forced by the state to stop marketing to children, and that vast swathes of tax money should be spent on imprisoning the parents of fat children and putting said fat children into care. That's one incredibly confused libertarian.

MOTION: I move that we all ignore any and all points Happ makes ever. Whether we argue with him or not, he's only going to cite the "leftist bias" again to cover up for the fact he has no answers or has no intention of arguing by any recognised criteria, so we might as well save ourself the irritation and let him spout his sewage without wasting our time on the keyboards. There are plenty others on here who make for good debate without having to concern ourselves with Happ's drek. Jonathan Ford, johnnyboy and Van Dammer have provided good arguments for their perspectives in the past, even if I didn't agree with them; don't know if they're right-wing or consider themselves such, but it'd be like listening to their gentle chimes rather than Happ's irritating clanging.

All those in favour?

Get your own method of taking part in an adult intelligent debate and stop ripping off mine, you bennys.

I'd like Neil to follow through on his threat to get shot of Happ altogether. He's only trolling for a response, and has completely ruined every politics thread on this forum. I simply don't get the attraction of purposefully spending your days posting like an idiot, but it's all he has by the looks of it. He must be the most boring man alive in the real world.

I can only presume that the only reason he does it on the UKFF is that the more obvious places like CIF have banned him long ago.

Yes. He's been given ample opportunity to engage in a civilised discussion, but he's now made it explicitly clear he's uninterested in engaging in discussion and there's diminishing returns in any laughs he provides. It's time to move on. He's been an interesting subject though.

Like I've said, he's trying to make a name for himself. Can anybody actually remember anything about him or anything he posted before he became a politics thread mong? It just all happened a bit too quickly and overwhelmingly for him to be anything more than a complete WUM.

Carbomb's suggestion about completely ignoring him is a good idea but it won't work as long as people still believe he's being serious. Don't take him seriously - it's what he wants.

Just looked in the dictionary for the phrase "Fuck Off", and I found a "©ButchReedMark" next to it. Sorry, man.



He's been stinking up wrestling threads for years, Gladstone. Just ask Supremo, or anyone else who's ever posted in WWE threads. He pulls the exact same shit: makes a ridiculous statement or asks a contentious question, gets argued down, burrows down for a while, then re-appears to raise the same points again and behave like he was never made to look stupid and/or wrong, despite everyone else's memories to the contrary.

Forgiven. It's good to see an intelligent man like Gladstone has started a trend for correctly respecting my copyrights, patents and trademarks. It's cool this time little guy, but in future a PM asking permission (and residuals coming my way) would be nice.

I might be wrong but he's SharkWrestling, right? If so, I think he used to work on the same floor as (and trade tapes with) the UKFF's most left-leaning ever poster, Famous Mortimer. Which must have been fun for them.

He was Sharkwrestling as mentioned. He was well known for annoying Supremo with his circular arguments and hatred of ECW.

He was also a good tape trader before that.

So, one redeeming quality, then.

To be honest, whatever you think of Supremo now, he was genuinely considered one of the best posters on here back then - and had you seen the arguments that he frequently had with SharkWrestling/Happ, you would most certainly have been on his side. I cannot emphasise enough just how similar Shark/Happ's style of "debate" on the wrestling section is to what you've seen in the politics threads.

Why did he change from Shark Wrestling to Happ? Isn't there some sort of rule about having multiple accounts?

name change thread, same as you.

Cheers!

Aye. These characters always have a morbid fascination (not a libertarian, not a capitalist, then what? nihilism?), but there comes a time when that is outweighed by the inevitable frustration.

Tricky though, if he's left unanswered you can end up with people agreeing with him, then it's harder to not jump in.

I wouldn't worry about that, apparently people only agree with him over PM

Point is he's going to say the same things over and over again, whether you disagree with him or not, and whether you prove him wrong or not. So far, only person I've seen agree with any significant number of his points is Van Dammer, who tends to make the case better than Happ does, and thus is probably more worthwhile to deal with.

Anyone who agrees with the vast majority of what Happ says isn't worthy replying to either.

Liberal fascist. Stop trying to squash free and fair debate with your brutal intimidatory tactics.

I'm a cocaine liberal, I rather like it

Happ Hazzard is not allowed to post in this thread until 19th May 2011. If he posts in here before that date please report the post.

Ahem.

http://ukff.com/index.php?s=&showtopic...t&p=2351308

http://ukff.com/index.php?showtopic=124851...p;#entry2351302

I can recall him ranting a fair bit about how Vince Russo has never done anything good and Lance Storm is brilliant.


Leave Happ alone. It's not his fault he has a persecution complex.

I think the point being made was this is one of various threads that discuss the current political climate, which allows hap to continue his special brand of bizarre incoherent paranoid tabloid ramblings in other areas, which is not as ideal as it should be.