Author Topic: Alex Salmond  (Read 5557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3237
  • Rating: 74
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2019, 10:42:29 AM »

Please to be advising where I said he wasn't guilty. Did you read properly?

What kind of naive tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system? Corruption is commonplace everywhere so why not here? Or is this not a possibility? I have literally seen someone falsely convicted with my own eyes. Knowing the facts and having faith is all well and good but a guilty verdict was still returned. Why that was I can only speculate. But that's a man's life more or less ruined. Did they bully the lawyers or the jury? Only a fly on the wall or someone with full vision of every piece of the jigsaw would know that. Bottom line is incorrect verdicts are a reality. Was OJ really innocent? Was Brendan Dassey really guilty? If Salmond has faith then good for him. I really hope this one is proved beyond doubt either way.

The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names.

Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting.

In terms of bullying lawyers, Salmond has the funds to get lawyers that won't be bullied. Bullying the jury? Possibly, but I doubt that'd happen in such a high profile case.

If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent.

I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court).

By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer.

I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

Offline Tyrant

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9563
  • Rating: 118
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2019, 02:21:46 PM »
The OJ and Dassey cases are utterly irrelevant, in the same way as the conviction of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is - a totally different legal system, which has no bearing in what happens in this country. You're just dropping names.

I'm not suggesting there's any relevance. I mention those just to emphasise that having faith in the (any) legal system doesn't mean anything.

Can you tell us about the case you saw? That does sound pretty interesting.

Yes. two females concocted a claim against one man. Their word against his. Jury believed them. Man found guilty.

If you're hoping for something to be proven beyond doubt then you'll be waiting a long time. It's his word against theirs and he proclaims his innocence. I doubt there'll be a killer piece of evidence that'll change it for you, it'll just be the weight of all the evidence. With that in mind, you probably won't believe the result if it doesn't go your preferred way as would be the case for those that really want him convicted if he's deemed innocent.

I don't think anyone is niave enough to have complete faith in the justice system, but then most aren't naive enough to have complete faith in one man (that they don't really know privately). As a result, most people simply weigh up the various components and make a judgement based on the evidence presented (until proven/disproven in court).

By looking at the evidence with a view to searching for a corruption that will see Salmond found guilty, you can look at the various points of entry where that could take place. For me, that corruption would ultimately take place in the planting of victims (completely making up the charges in other words), rather than at courtroom level in this instance. I don't see many avenues for a judge to intervene other than by not allowing evidence to be heard or by intimidating the jury. Given the publicity, I think that'd be a huge risk as it would definitely come out post trial and leave a judge with a lot of questions to answer.

I just don't think you're making your case particularly well (ironically). You're suggesting that it's impossible to get a fair trial, but you're not describing the ways in which that might happen and the mitigating factors in why that might be difficult. If you'd said, I think these women are making up their claims and being paid/bought/blackmailed/whatever into doing so, then I'd be more inclined to listen as to me that'd be the only credible way to get a false conviction. Otherwise, you've got a pretty weak case that reads as if you've got 100% faith in a man that is incredibly misplaced (whether he's guilty or not).

At no point have I said that I have 100% faith in Salmond. Someone (who can only see in from the outside) having doubts doesn't mean I'm denying that it's a possibility that the crime took place. All I'm saying is I have my doubts. So I don't really feel the need to fully explain every possible way that the trial could be stacked against Salmond. The accuser being paid or bullied into lying isn't something that even came into my head. My doubts around Salmond getting a fair crack of the whip stem from my worry that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have already decided on his guilt before the trial because they don't like the cunt or what he believes in. Are humans not hateful and vengeful by nature? My issue here is maybe isn't about lack of faith in the justice system but lack of faith in humanity.

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3237
  • Rating: 74
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2019, 03:30:23 PM »
I'm not suggesting there's any relevance. I mention those just to emphasise that having faith in the (any) legal system doesn't mean anything.

Yes. two females concocted a claim against one man. Their word against his. Jury believed them. Man found guilty.

At no point have I said that I have 100% faith in Salmond. Someone (who can only see in from the outside) having doubts doesn't mean I'm denying that it's a possibility that the crime took place. All I'm saying is I have my doubts. So I don't really feel the need to fully explain every possible way that the trial could be stacked against Salmond. The accuser being paid or bullied into lying isn't something that even came into my head. My doubts around Salmond getting a fair crack of the whip stem from my worry that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have already decided on his guilt before the trial because they don't like the cunt or what he believes in. Are humans not hateful and vengeful by nature? My issue here is maybe isn't about lack of faith in the justice system but lack of faith in humanity.

You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO."

By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. 

You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here.

Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2019, 04:31:25 PM »
I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature.

I agree on every one of your points and in support of this one, the Scottish legal system is a beautiful thing. With its foundations and core principles taken from ancient Roman Law, it's a masterpiece of human creativity which enshrines fairness and decency for all.

Any foundation-less claims that Salmond won't get a fair trial are not to be taken seriously because the claimant hasn't offered even a notion of how this might be possible. He simply hasn't thought it through and has confused what he wants to happen with his own absurd arguments and ridiculous points. That's ok, he's not the first to spik utter shite and he won't be the last although quite what makes a man put his head in the sand and attempt to deny a possibility, any possibility, is really quite bizarre and concerning.
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline Tyrant

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9563
  • Rating: 118
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2019, 11:33:39 AM »
You said "What kind of niave tit genuinely has complete faith in the justice system". and " This is a high profile man with powerful enemies who the establishment are terrified of. The justice system is mostly made up of establishmentarians. Thus making it extremely unlikely that he'll get a fair trial IMO."

By implication, you suggested that the justice system is going to interfere with the fairness of the trial. I don't think that's an unreasonable reading of your points - which were quite vociferous - is it? I think it's incumbent on you to explain in what way that might happen given the accusation. Fair enough if you can't be airsed, but don't expect folk to take you seriously. 

You could be right that members of the jury/prosecution/judge have pre-decided his guilt, but I'm saying that the judge pre-deciding will make little difference to the evidence presented, the prosecution are prosecuting and there is a good chance that the jury will be split between those that are supporters of the man and those that aren't. Inotherwords, it is equally likely that a jury could be filled with SNP voters as it is a jury filled with Tories if we're politically profiling here.

Also, I don't think human are hateful and vengeful by nature. I think the overwhelming majority are forgiving and incled to be cooperative (nice) by nature, but perhaps society and religion point them towards vengefulness. I doubt the human race would have got particularly far into its evolution based on hate and vengance.


All fair points and you might well be right. It could be argued that the victims won't get a fair crack of the whip because some pro-indy nuts might end up on the jury will have already decided he's innocent before hearing anything in court. That is a possibility. It's not so much that I can't be arsed typing out every way that I can think of in which the trial or charge list might be flawed. Alleged victim statements taken by police and manipulated to maximise the list of charges seems to be one that I've heard of happening before. There are so many possibilities. I don't know them all because I don't know the legal system inside out. Who amongst us does? I knew my post was contentious. But whether fellow DT posters take me less seriously as a result or not I can live with quite frankly.

If I'm wrong and he's tried 100% fairly then great. This is why I said that I hope the verdict is somehow proven beyond doubt and you (quite correctly) pointed out that anything being proven beyond doubt in a case like this is unlikely because it's going to be testimony based from the accuser and the accused with little or no witnesses.


I agree on every one of your points and in support of this one, the Scottish legal system is a beautiful thing. With its foundations and core principles taken from ancient Roman Law, it's a masterpiece of human creativity which enshrines fairness and decency for all.

A poor attempt at baiting from a man who recently claimed he has also seen wrongful convictions in court. (or were they in England whilst not following ancient Roman law? ::)) Surely in a legal system as fucking wonderful as you describe this wouldn't be happening.


although quite what makes a man put his head in the sand and attempt to deny a possibility, any possibility, is really quite bizarre and concerning.

Which is literally what you're doing in this thread?  ???


Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.


Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #45 on: February 07, 2019, 02:22:13 PM »
I don't know the legal system inside out.

This is why I said that I hope the verdict is somehow proven beyond doubt

It appears that you don't know even the basics about the legal system, let alone "inside out".

EVERY conviction in Scotland (and I understand in England too) needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is why I mentioned the Moorov doctrine in my first post, which I suspect the pf will need to get conviction in this case.

And yet , without knowing the very first basic fundamental premise of criminal law, you still feel qualified to state that it's "impossible in fact" for him to get a fair trial?

Very difficult (impossible in fact) for a man like Salmond to get a fair trial.
 



A poor attempt at baiting from a man who recently claimed he has also seen wrongful convictions in court. (or were they in England whilst not following ancient Roman law? ::)) Surely in a legal system as fucking wonderful as you describe this wouldn't be happening.

The Scottish legal system is very highly regarded in many countries in the world. The law does not mean ONLY criminal law. There are many other aspects of human existence that are covered by legislation and judicial interpretation. "The rule of law" that you've heard all the politicians regurgitate means the separation of powers and recognising the distinct roles of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

What you fail to understand is that it is not the weakness of the system that leads to wrongful convictions (in criminal law) or wrongful decisions in civil law (where the burden of proof is less, being on a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). It is wholly down to the evidence presented and where a policeman lies, or where a witness misinterprets a situation but presents it as fact (or also lies), this is not the fault of the legal system itself.

It is very common to engage a reflection strategy, to simply throw back an argument (or an insult) in the face of your accuser, particularly when exhausted and having run out of credible arguments. It's what weak people do;

The opposite of what you know to state so confidently that he's guilty.

Which is literally what you're doing in this thread?  ???

I did NOT deny any possibility. You on the other hand did: -

Like him or not he's a smart man. Too smart, in my opinion, to get all gropey and force himself on anyone when he has so much to lose. It doesn't make sense.

I'm worried that we won't hear "facts" or truths. Very difficult (impossible in fact) for a man like Salmond to get a fair trial.
 

It is poetic that you then go on to prove your inability to embrace possibilities with your closing statement: -

Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.

Karma as a concept is widely misunderstood and it has many different meanings. Just because you don't believe in the concept - you are probably an ignorant atheist too? - doesn't mean that Chinese philosophy over millennia is completely without merit and that the doctrine of Yin and Yang does not exist. Your failure to embrace the possibility doesn't mean that the other billions who follow Hinduism are misguided. The Bhagavad Gita isn't nonsense just because you say it is. The three gunas of nature embraced by Yogi cultures and practised in Yoga might be beyond your limited imagination but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

You should seek understanding before seeking confrontation for the sake of it. I believe that one creates one's own luck and I believe that we reap what we sow, matters that are described in some of the interpretations of karma. You however have attributed some meaning of karma to me without first knowing what I mean and, I strongly suspect, not having invested the energy to read any philosophy (let alone Eastern philosophies) which kind of proves that you are lacking in credibility and imagination but still think you've got all the answers. You sir, are a small bitter man with a major problem.

Edit: By the way, Salmond hasn't got "so much to lose" in terms of his "career". That is already spent. It's his reputation that is at stake here, plus his liberty.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 03:05:10 PM by rocket_scientist »
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline Tyrant

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9563
  • Rating: 118
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #46 on: February 07, 2019, 03:18:10 PM »
It appears that you don't know even the basics about the legal system, let alone "inside out".

EVERY conviction in Scotland (and I understand in England too) needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

And yet you still feel qualified to state that it's "impossible in fact" for him to get a fair trial?



The Scottish legal system is very highly regarded in many countries in the world. The law does not mean ONLY criminal law. There are many other aspects of human existence that are covered by legislation and judicial interpretation. "The rule of law" that you've heard all the politicians regurgitate means the separation of powers and recognising the distinct roles of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

What you fail to understand is that it is not the weakness of the system that leads to wrongful convictions (in criminal law) or wrongful decisions in civil law (where the balance of proof is less, being on a balance of probabilities rater than beyond reasonable doubt). It is wholly down to the evidence presented and where a policeman lies, or where a witness misinterprets a situation but presents it as fact (or also lies), this is not the fault of the legal system itself.

I do understand your point, Rocket. There's nothing complicated about it. But I don't agree that in a legal system apparently worth writing home that a person should lose his or her liberty because one person lies. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. It comes down to the jury's opinion of what reasonable doubt is. There was massive doubt in the case that I saw. I felt a not guilty verdict would be reached or at least a "not proven". The jury were wrong. You obviously wouldn't attribute this to the "legal system". Rather the testimony given in court but the fact is that the legal system allowed it to get to court in the first place. The semantics are not that important when a person's life is on the verge of being fucked up. I've read/heard countless times over the years about various crimes that have allegedly been committed and the suspect ends up not facing a court because the CPS doesn't feel there's sufficient evidence to convict. I read somewhere that only 4% of rapes result in a conviction. That seems low but thinking about it you'd think that as it's the sort of crime that happens behind closed doors it's likely to be one person's word against another which is why I assumed many wouldn't make it to court. Of course no one should get away with sexual assault of any kind but you've got to be sure you've got the right person and that a crime has taken place before it reaches court. In my opinion the system is weak at this point. 


It is very common to engage a reflection strategy, to simply throw back an argument (or an insult) in the face of your accuser, particularly when exhausted and having run out of credible arguments. It's what weak people do;

I did NOT deny any possibility. You on the other hand did: -

It is poetic that you then go on to prove your inability to embrace possibilities with your closing statement: -

Karma as a concept is widely misunderstood and it has many different meanings. Just because you don't believe in the concept - you are probably an ignorant atheist too? - doesn't mean that Chinese philosophy over millennia is completely without merit and that the doctrine of Yin and Yang does not exist. Your failure to embrace the possibility doesn't mean that the other billions who follow Hinduism are misguided. The Bhagavad Gita isn't nonsense just because you say it is. The three gunas of nature embraced by Yogi cultures and practised in Yoga might be beyond your limited imagination but that doesn't mean it does not exist.

You should seek understanding before seeking confrontation for the sake of it.

By the way, Salmond hasn't got "so much to lose" in terms of his "career". That is already spent. It's his reputation that is at stake here, plus his liberty.

Whilst I would never profess to be all-knowing when it comes to Karma I believe it's a belief system based on the mindset of "You reap what you sow". If that's not right please enlighten me.

Ironic that you use the word "ignorant" when talking about atheism. Atheism is the future. Religion stems from fear and a lack of scientific understanding. Ancient Chinese philosophy may not be entirely without merit, it would be ignorant to make such a sweeping generalisation, but much of it will stem from ignorance. People use religion to shirk responsibility. Atheists don't. That is slowly turning the other way and not a moment too soon.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2019, 04:24:45 PM »
I do understand your point, Rocket. There's nothing complicated about it. But I don't agree that in a legal system apparently worth writing home that a person should lose his or her liberty because one person lies.

At least your tone is less confrontational now and you have desisted from your insulting rhetoric. It was you who introduced "naive" to the debate in an attempt to back up your point which has since been proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) to be a confused one.

I would argue that it is incredibly naive to fail to understand that people do lie but to hold up the legal system as somehow being to blame for that. Your "apparently worth writing about" was noted for what it was and as Marcellus Wallace said "that's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride" Instead of seeking confrontation all the time or attempting to portray yourself as being the only man on the planet who doesn't make mistakes, get some humility.


Whilst I would never profess to be all-knowing when it comes to Karma I believe it's a belief system based on the mindset of "You reap what you sow". If that's not right please enlighten me.

If you admit that you're not all-knowing about karma, what did you mean when you tried to insult me? What did you interpret by my use of that term in other threads and why did it weaken any points that I had made when using it?

As for enlightening you, there are no short cuts in life. You either study a subject or you choose not to.

Ironic that you use the word "ignorant" when talking about atheism. Atheism is the future. Religion stems from fear and a lack of scientific understanding. Ancient Chinese philosophy may not be entirely without merit, it would be ignorant to make such a sweeping generalisation, but much of it will stem from ignorance. People use religion to shirk responsibility. Atheists don't. That is slowly turning the other way and not a moment too soon.

Atheists are as arrogant (and as ignorant, close-minded and imaginationless) as the pious, for a very simple reason. They have decided that there is no God just like the religious have decided that there is a God (or Gods). Agnosticism is the future, the ability to say "I don't know", which requires humility of course. As an agnostic myself, we can reject all world religions too.

Philosophy and religion need to be recognised as totally different subjects. Ancient philosophies do not stem from ignorance. On the contrary many of the truths in this world have been articulated before and many of them are to be found within ancient texts. By reading many of these texts, we find that the same truths are expressed in different ways and in different contexts.

Never confuse science and religion too. That's as stupid as people who decry art because they don't understand it. I was at Tate Britain and Tate Modern at the weekend and I guarantee that most of us (particularly on the south bank and definitely including me) didn't have even an entry point at which to attempt to understand the subjects and themes of many of the exhibits, far less interpret them for our own learning let alone interpret them for others. It doesn't make life any less enjoyable however, not knowing. It's only the really ignorant cunts who need to be proved right all the time, particularly on a forum such as this where it enters patheticism (a word made up by Rico on this thread rather than me, who invents words all the time to fit a debate).

Edit: my mistake, it wasn't an invented word. It is a real one, a word I had never come across before.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 04:29:28 PM by rocket_scientist »
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline Tyrant

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9563
  • Rating: 118
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2019, 02:25:00 PM »
At least your tone is less confrontational now and you have desisted from your insulting rhetoric. It was you who introduced "naive" to the debate in an attempt to back up your point which has since been proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) to be a confused one.

I would argue that it is incredibly naive to fail to understand that people do lie but to hold up the legal system as somehow being to blame for that. Your "apparently worth writing about" was noted for what it was and as Marcellus Wallace said "that's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride" Instead of seeking confrontation all the time or attempting to portray yourself as being the only man on the planet who doesn't make mistakes, get some humility.

Aye. And I appreciate your insulting rhetoric being marginally more subtle this time round!  :thumbsup:


If you admit that you're not all-knowing about karma, what did you mean when you tried to insult me? What did you interpret by my use of that term in other threads and why did it weaken any points that I had made when using it?

As for enlightening you, there are no short cuts in life. You either study a subject or you choose not to.

So I was right? I believe to an extent that you get out of life what you put in but life is influenced by your environment, your mindset and your intelligence (amongst many other things I'm sure) but much is simply down to chance.  The belief that everyone will get what they deserve is a romantic one but not one that I'm likely to ever believe even if it is written on highly regarded ancient books. You might have a completely different take on the definition of Karma but you declined my humble request for enlightenment (which of course you're not obliged to grant).

Atheists are as arrogant (and as ignorant, close-minded and imaginationless) as the pious, for a very simple reason. They have decided that there is no God just like the religious have decided that there is a God (or Gods). Agnosticism is the future, the ability to say "I don't know", which requires humility of course. As an agnostic myself, we can reject all world religions too.

Philosophy and religion need to be recognised as totally different subjects. Ancient philosophies do not stem from ignorance. On the contrary many of the truths in this world have been articulated before and many of them are to be found within ancient texts. By reading many of these texts, we find that the same truths are expressed in different ways and in different contexts.

I don't think it's fair to brand every atheist arrogant. I don't doubt that some are. I can appreciate the point of view of the agnostic (and even the religious if they're not cantankerous cunts) but I don't agree that by saying you don't believe in God(s) you're being arrogant or closed minded. I can't speak for others but I'm willing to immediately change my mind at a split second's notice should a shred of credible evidence appear to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a deity and I will happily admit that I was wrong. In the meantime whether God exists or not I don't believe it so I can't call myself agnostic. I guess you'd accuse those who deny the existence of unicorns arrogant and closed-minded too? After all there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that they now, or ever have existed but you'd refuse to rule out that possibility out of (a misplaced in my opinion) sense of humility and open mindedness? That doesn't make sense to me. It almost sounds like an ultra-liberal type trying to not be politically incorrect.

Never confuse science and religion too. That's as stupid as people who decry art because they don't understand it. I was at Tate Britain and Tate Modern at the weekend and I guarantee that most of us (particularly on the south bank and definitely including me) didn't have even an entry point at which to attempt to understand the subjects and themes of many of the exhibits, far less interpret them for our own learning let alone interpret them for others. It doesn't make life any less enjoyable however, not knowing. It's only the really ignorant cunts who need to be proved right all the time, particularly on a forum such as this where it enters patheticism (a word made up by Rico on this thread rather than me, who invents words all the time to fit a debate).

Edit: my mistake, it wasn't an invented word. It is a real one, a word I had never come across before.

We'll probably never agree on many things, Rocket. Karma and atheism included. But I agree completely with your point on art and dismissing it out of a lack of understanding. Art will resonate with a person (or not) for many different reasons. Also influenced by intelligence and taste I'm sure. What floats one person's boat might not necessarily float another's. Some may see it as rubbish and another as a masterpiece. This seems really obvious to me. It's something that should (but seemingly often doesn't) apply to music too (another form of art of course). I don't understand the appeal of every artist. For example I've never been particularly fond of The Beatles but it would be remiss and arrogant of me to declare that they're shite because I don't feel anything when I hear their songs when there are millions of people who do. I don't understand why some people focus so much on things they don't like. The anti-Coldplay brigade springs to mind. You don't have to listen to them or even like them but some are fucking determined to try and stop others from feeling and enjoying the music. I don't understand why grown adults are like that.

Now I can hear the theists crying out "It's arrogant of you to say The Beatles are shite but not God?" Correct. Because there's clear evidence that The Beatles exist.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2019, 04:36:20 PM »
So I was right?

It depends what you mean? You might have been but until you clarify what it is you're actually saying, we will never know, not that this subject is necessarily definable and therefore easily rejected by the absolutists, those without imagination, the science types who demand answers for everything, even when it is perfectly obvious that not everything is explicable.

You need to first define what your position is;

Then again every time a grown man who tirelessly tries to portray himself as an intellect mentions "karma" I take him less seriously than I did before.

You attributed an interpretation of "karma" to me, one that you disagreed with. Not that I give a fuck what you think but how can you be right (or wrong) on something if you don't back it up?

What were you meaning by this sleight?
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline Garlogie_Granite

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • Rating: 13
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #50 on: February 09, 2019, 06:37:26 PM »
Interesting discussion that has nothing to do with the topic this has turned into.

As far as religion goes, Tyrant is bob on, we've had thousands of years for there to be any evidence of one of the many hundreds of gods there have supposedly been, yet still not a spec. Saying there is no god(s) isn;t arrogant, it's a factually based statement and absolute common sense.

On art though, blah blah, meanings, etc. Awa min, art should be decorative additions to a home or in a gallery where you can go and gawp. Where it started going wrong was when it moved from that to modern art that had "meaning", and then just any old shite dressed up as "art". Tracy Emin and her like are just the Dom Jolly of the art world, absolutely taking the piss. "Hey, here's a dead cow in a jar, what's that about"? It's about taking the fucking piss that's what.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #51 on: February 09, 2019, 10:40:22 PM »
If it had become an interesting discussion, why not add to it?

Denying the existence of spirituality and exhibiting a failure to understand the whole point of art isn't adding anything. It's doing the complete opposite, sucking the life out of any possible opportunity for growth, learning and development.
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline Garlogie_Granite

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • Rating: 13
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2019, 04:13:12 PM »
How rude  :o

I was contributing. Religion is a pile of made up pish to keep the gullible masses in line. It's a massive power game, as is blatantly obvious to anyone who's ever been to the Vatican, which I assume you have?

As for art, bonny pictures and interesting statues, which is what classical art is, is fine and dandy. The rest, where you're "searching for the meaning" amongst an unmade bed, or a mono coloured sheet of paper. Yer having a laugh, the "artist" is having a laugh, and they know it, but arty farty types can't admit it, so the farce goes on.

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2019, 11:54:03 AM »
I agree that organised religion is a pile of shite, a system designed to exploit and control the masses but no, I've not been to the Vatican. Well I've been to the square and I seen the queues of people waiting to part with their cash but why the fuck would I want to do that?

However, religion tries to explain some of the big questions and whilst I don't accept their answers, this doesn't mean that the questions don't exist. They are still valid questions despite their invalid interpretations. Rejecting an interpretation doesn't mean we should ignore or deny the subject.

As for your looking for "evidence" and "facts" (of a "higher power" or the "divinity of nature" or whatever the subject might be), there might be plenty and in various forms but these could be invisible to many by virtue of their inability to recognise them. It's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it and in order to do that, you need to define the subject properly first. At least I read the bible in full (voluntarily I may add) before rejecting it when I was already a teenage atheist. I was probably an atheist for 20+ years until I hit 30-ish when I started to realise that some of the magic that happens in this world (including to us, directly as individuals) can not be rationally explained, therefore putting some new (and old) questions back on the table.

The problem with your interpretation of modern art is once again of definition. Where do we or where can we draw the lines? I don't see anything in Tracey Emin's work but I like hearing her speak. She's a very intelligent and interesting woman and whilst I can't see any artistic merit that she supposedly has, I'm certain that she's serious about it and is most definitely not "taking the piss". Damien Hirst is another I wouldn't get out of bed to go and see his work but I'm at least closer to recognising something about his output (than I am of Emin) so I recognise that it's my limitation, it's my fault, it's my make up and outlook that makes it invisible to me. It's not the artist taking the piss out of art itself, even though some of the subjects are valid piss-takes on that theme.

Those were the two artists you specifically mentioned but where have you drawn the lines? I don't profess to understand Francis Bacon's paintings but I love them and went to Tate Britain particularly to see his triptych. I consider Hockney as the other great British artist of my lifetime but again, even when I read about others interpretations of the same work that I've seen myself, I don't understand what some are seeing in it but on many other occasions (Picasso's Guernica in Madrid being the most striking example for me), I can only fully appreciate the art after being educated about it, whether how and why it was made or what the constituent parts (or the whole) represents. The iconic Goya and Velasquez works in the Prado weren't works that I understood at first but they grabbed me, big time. I didn't have to know everything about the image I was looking at to recognise the beauty within it.

Abstract Expressionism isn't meant to be understood arguably but it doesn't mean it's "pish" or "shite". I loved seeing Jackson Pollock's stuff in the RA whereas Mark Rothko's work I couldn't see or feel anything in. That was 18 months ago and last weekend I went into a room of his big works at Tate Modern. I had seen a documentary on BBC4 in the intervening period which explained Rothko and the church he was commissioned to do in the US was brilliant, the way he used his art and his distinct uses of colour to create ambience and atmosphere. I therefore changed my view of his work after educating myself about it and whilst I still don't understand the basics of his particular modern art, I can at least feel something of his intent now, without being a full convert. That's Paul Klee in my avatar, who like Cezanne, are artists who have created stuff I would travel to see, which indeed I've done. I went from Aberdeen to London on my own to see Picasso's Picassos aged 16. This has been a lifelong passion for me and so when I hear views like yours, I would want to know that you've invested a minimum amount of time to be qualified to reject it, rather than taking the easy cop-out, which is what the blind and ignorant might do, unable to confront their own lack of comprehension.

Having said that, I was pleased to see Koons getting a pasting last week. His pop art is plain vulgar to me and if ever there was an artist who got incredibly wealthy for reasons I don't see, it's him. I wouldn't describe Warhol as the greatest and most important artist of the 20th century (as some do) but some of his stuff, the soup cans in particular are very clever and deeply thought provoking.

Turner's Snowstorm was incredible in the flesh. I've never liked his paintings before (nor Constable's brand of realism) but it's important to allow the natural changes that occur within us all to allow us to change our outlooks, our reflections and our opinions. The great work done by professor Carol Dweck (of Stanford Uni) on the differences between people of fixed and growth mindsets applies here, particularly on these subjects of religion and art.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 01:15:50 PM by rocket_scientist »
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline RicoS321

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 3237
  • Rating: 74
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2019, 01:31:44 PM »
I just like picters.

Offline Garlogie_Granite

  • First Team Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • Rating: 13
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #55 on: February 11, 2019, 03:03:28 PM »
I agree that organised religion is a pile of shite, a system designed to exploit and control the masses but no, I've not been to the Vatican. Well I've been to the square and I seen the queues of people waiting to part with their cash but why the fuck would I want to do that?
Well, it's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it surely? And it has a lot of bonny picters and steen mannies & wifies.  :dunno:


However, religion tries to explain some of the big questions and whilst I don't accept their answers, this doesn't mean that the questions don't exist. They are still valid questions despite their invalid interpretations. Rejecting an interpretation doesn't mean we should ignore or deny the subject.
Religion exists to enslave the masses, and it mostly does that. Exploration is not something they are interested in, it's doctrine, learn it, repeat it, accept it. Questions are invalid.


I was probably an atheist for 20+ years until I hit 30-ish when I started to realise that some of the magic that happens in this world (including to us, directly as individuals) can not be rationally explained, therefore putting some new (and old) questions back on the table.
  :spaz:



Offline Ten Caat

  • Midfield Maestro
  • ****
  • Posts: 2613
  • Rating: 33
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #56 on: February 11, 2019, 03:14:36 PM »
I neither like picters nor do I like religion particularly. I have been to the Vatican though ( despite nominally being protestant.....family are half protestant half Catholic) and found it a pretty awesome place. Also agree there are some questions that just cannot be answered.....

However I also never realised that Alex Salmond was a world class artist, nor that he was in the running to be next Pope.

Back on topic please fellow dandies......

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #57 on: February 11, 2019, 03:39:22 PM »
Well, it's not a bad idea to fully investigate a subject before rejecting it surely? And it has a lot of bonny picters and steen mannies & wifies.  :dunno:

But I also said it's important to define the subject first, before choosing to investigate or not, before accepting or rejecting.

What is the subject? The Vatican? The catholic church? Religion itself? I think the catholic church is an evil organisation so why would I give money to it? Why would any non-believer give money to see stolen gold? I know what's in there but fucked if I'm paying to see it.
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline rocket_scientist

  • Club Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6441
  • Rating: -192
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #58 on: February 11, 2019, 03:48:20 PM »
However I also never realised that Alex Salmond was a world class artist, nor that he was in the running to be next Pope.

Back on topic please
fellow dandies......

Why? Did we offend you? You didn't have to read it.

If you hadn't found our various discussions so offensive, you might have seen that I was objecting to another poster saying that Salmond wouldn't get a fair trial. He decided to introduce my use of "karma" in another thread (or threads) as an insult and I asked him, fruitlessly thus far, what he meant by this. From that discussion, he asked for "enlightenment" and our discussion went into other fields. The subject of closed minds and lack of imaginations were put on the table in relation to Salmond's upcoming trial, subjects that are equally applicable to religion and art so it wasn't a random diversion, not that there's anything wrong in that. So shut the fuck up you moron.
Ancient Sound, Modern Noise

Offline Ten Caat

  • Midfield Maestro
  • ****
  • Posts: 2613
  • Rating: 33
Re: Alex Salmond
« Reply #59 on: February 11, 2019, 04:31:05 PM »
Have I raised your blood pressure old man?

Job done!

 :rofl: