Utopia Talk / Politics / Forwyn & NaMBLA remedial media literacy.

Seb rank	Mon May 11 10:56:20 http://www...hread=96031&time=1778486513151 Continuing from here in relation to this post from Sam: https://x.com/SaP011/status/2052416481543999737?s=20 The Daily Mail headline: Iranian man who raped his lodger 'can't be deported in case he is persecuted in his homeland for being convicted racist' - The UK doesn't deport or extradite people if there face death penalty or torture in their home countries - Iran is unlikely to punish the man for a crime committed in the UK, so the tribunal is not concerned about him being persecuted in Iran for committing rape in the UK. So how can these three facts be reconciled? Hints: 1. Daily mail headlines often mislead by omission 2. Note the inverted commas in the headline, what do they mean? Solution to be published tomorrow after 8am UK time. Let's see if NaMBLA and Forwyn can achieve primary school level critical thinking.
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 11 11:10:47 But you know they cant. I promise they will not back down a single second more than Trump when he knows he's wrong, even if you post a million threads on the subject. I promise you that the more you prove them wrong, the more they will refuse to back down, until their dying breath.
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 11 11:57:09 This is going to be exceptionally retarded even by seb standards. Lol.
Seb rank	Mon May 11 11:57:31 WtB oh I know.
Seb rank	Mon May 11 11:58:30 Sam: Nope, it's incredibly simple and you are very dumb to be tricked by a clickbait headline again and again.
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 11 16:44:21 The daily mail headline almost certainly is closer to the truth than whatever babbling bullshit you come up with. History has proven them far more reliable than you(which obviously isn't saying much). Keep in mind you yourself made an impossible set of statements that are mutually contradictory, regardless of the veracity of the original report.
williamthebastard rank	Mon May 11 17:01:23 "d you are very dumb to be tricked by a clickbait headline again and again." Its not about intelligence really, any more than religion is. You can find perfectly intelligent people that believe the most insane religios stuff. Its about Csam only reading stuff by people who say what he emotionally wants to hear, all logic be completely damned. One of the reasons they refuse all serious debate. Their raging emotions shut down all rational considerations.
Forwyn rank	Mon May 11 17:18:56 Seb: ""we don't deport people if they will face death penalty." Forwyn: "Wow that's retarded" Seb: "They wouldn't face the death penalty you need to learn to read reeeeeee" Forwyn: "Okay retard which is it" Seb: "It's both!" Mmk
Seb rank	Mon May 11 17:31:58 Forwyn: Not at all surprising you cannot read a headline when you cannot even follow your own posts correctly. Your suggestion was an immigrant could commit a crime in the UK that would result in a death penalty at home in order to avoid deportation. It is true the we won't deport people to face the death penalty, or torture. It is also true that in this case, or any other I can think of, there was no concern he would face death penalty or persecution in Iran for this or any other UK crime. It is also true that the tribunal ruling did uphold his appeal, and the reasons for doing so involved risk of persecution in Iran. How can both of these be true, asks Forwyn? The answer is simple! All will be revealed tomorrow.
Forwyn rank	Mon May 11 18:11:16 The following two comments were made before I ever interjected: jergul rank Fri May 08 11:08:46 In his country, he would be executed sammy. Seb rank Fri May 08 22:11:28 We don't support death penalty and we don't deport people if they will face death penalty. But thank you for agreeing with me on the point of substance.
Seb rank	Mon May 11 18:47:50 Forwyn: Indeed, we don't support death penalty and don't deport people if they will face it or persecution. And yes, he does risk execution in his country if deported. What's the issue? As for the point of substance: yes, it would be stupid if people could avoid deportation by committing a crime in the UK; but precisely two people are suggesting that, none of them in this conversation, and everyone else agrees that are wrong, and that can be understood instantly by reading the headline so I'm afraid there's no way of pretending the substantive issue is anything other than you and NaMBLA's illiteracy.
Seb rank	Mon May 11 18:50:31 Especially as you and NaMBLA fall for this "one weird headline-writer's trick" every fucking time going on now for at least a decade. I think you just have to face you are very stupid.
Forwyn rank	Mon May 11 18:53:13 "What's the issue?" Agreed, what is the issue? You agree with the fact, the hypothetical is in line with the fact, there is no issue. Unless it's that your eXpErTs say it can't happen, even though it's happening here. If that's the case, continue being retarded at your leisure.
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 11 20:33:01 "And yes, he does risk execution in his country if deported." Lol why do you think he would be executed I wonder? This isn't about anything that the daily mail said, dumbass antisemite. This is about you.
Seb rank	Mon May 11 20:36:38 NaMBLA: Have a think. All will be revealed tomorrow.
jergul rank	Mon May 11 20:40:43 *bates breath* So exciting! I can't wait for the reveal!
Seb rank	Mon May 11 21:27:18 It will be a big disappointment
Sam Adams rank	Mon May 11 23:25:57 It's going to be hilarious to see what retardation seb thinks is actually a big secret gotcha.
Seb rank	Mon May 11 23:36:30 Oh its not secret Sam. It's really very boring and obvious gotcha in the headline itself. I'm mocking you for not seeing it.
williamthebastard rank	Tue May 12 00:11:40 "throughout the process, the man claimed he had worked with the UK’s security service ...reason he gave to stay was that he is openly a critic of the Iranian regime... claimed he was approached by MI5 because he mixed in social circles connected with the Iranian Embassy in London. However, the security services refused to confirm or deny his claim." Hmmm, sounds like he actually was doing something for MI5 since they wont deny it
williamthebastard rank	Tue May 12 00:20:18 I suppose Seb is referring to the quotation marks in the headline, meaning that that's the offender's version of what happened. Cant be bothered to delve deeper into this uninteresting BS
Seb rank	Tue May 12 01:36:16 WtB: That kind of reverse interface is why they don't confirm or deny. And yes, you are 75% of the way to this stunningly elusive (to 7 year olds) riddle. The rest is dotting the i and crossing the t. Will our contenders manage it? Or are they too dumb? Or worse, is their ideological commitment to racism so great that they will continue to pretend to be dumb so they can keep the issue? It's the latter folks, and that's the greatest stupidity of all. It's eluded them for decades but will Forwyn and NaMBLA find intellectual integrity in the next 7.5 hours? Check in for the thrilling denouement.
Seb rank	Tue May 12 01:37:10 *Reverse inference.
Sam Adams rank	Tue May 12 02:20:55 A rapist says something and you immediately believe it. To the rapists benefit? THIS is your mighty secret argument seb?
Seb rank	Tue May 12 07:32:02 NaMBLA: Lol. No. A rapist said something and *you* automatically believed it.
Sam Adams rank	Tue May 12 07:35:58 How are you this retarded?
Seb rank	Tue May 12 07:38:29 NaMBLA: You've got an hour. Maybe you can figure out a simple headline by then.
Seb rank	Tue May 12 08:41:03 If you actually read the story: He came to the UK in 1992 Rape was committed in 2000 He was jailed for 7 years The govt then attempted to deport him after he served his sentence, with several lengthy appeals He won his appeal in 2023 (why NaMBLA is posting about this 3 year old case today is obvious: his SM propaganda feed recycles this stuff relentlessly to create an impression it is frequent). He appealed the deportation on three grounds: 1. That he was an MI5 asset and had been providing intelligence through attending embassy run events 2. That he would receive a death penalty in Iran for this crime in the UK. 3. That as an outspoken critic of the regime, he would be subject to imprisonment, torture and possibly execution. The tribunal upheld his appeal on only the latter point, based on the extensive evidence of his criticism of the regime. There was no evidence he had any connection to MI5 and if he did, they won't help him after he committed rape. There was no good reason to think Iran would seek to punish him for a crime committed in the UK (if there was, we would likely extradite him under a "no death penalty" criteria). The headline uses inverted commas to paraphrase one of the absurd grounds the appellant cited that the tribunal rejected; not to paraphrase the tribunal ruling. This is deliberate and intentional to encourage click-through and also continue the papers political campaign against human rights laws: the public are more likely to oppose the ruling if it appears nonsensical and unjust. Only very stupid people get tricked by this but it has a 100% success rate with Forwyn and NaMBLA who can't even guess that the resolution to the contradiction is that we are talking about two different crimes in two different jurisdictions by the same individual. Further (and worse for Forwyn and NaMBLA) this can easily be deduced from the information available in the headline alone: Inverted commas denote a claim that the paper wishes to attribute to someone else other than the papers substantive factual reporting. So it is clearly a statement the paper is explicitly not presenting as a statement of objective fact. (They'd quite like you to think it is an objective fact, which is why they skip any actual attribution like " rapist pleads') They can only objectively report someone *else* is claiming it. Thus, one thing we can reasonably infer is that it *cannot* be the actual basis of the tribunal ruling, or no such quotes would be necessary: it would be reported as an objective fact without attributing it to someone else. Who else in this process might be making such a claim? Likely the appellant, but since we know that: a. It is in inverted commas, the paper knows that this was *not* the actual reason his deportation was refused. b. the man was not deported; and c. the only real grounds for refusing deportation is if the individual faced significant risk of serious persecution such as death or torture; it then obviously follows there must be some other "crime" the Iranians would persecute him for. And if you do bother to find the original story, you find this is the case. Normal, literate people understand all of that just by reading the headline. That's what literacy looks like. Simple lesson: if a UK tabloid headline is using inverted comma to apparently describe something that ought to be a matter of official record, the description is at odds with what ever actually did happened. This is how they get away with lying, without actually lying. The rely on their readers being naive, gullible, barely literate fools.
Sam Adams rank	Tue May 12 10:34:04 "Rape was committed in 2000 He was jailed for 7 years The govt then attempted to deport him after he served his sentence, with several lengthy appeals" Lmfao we knew you were going to be retarded but this is a new level. You are bragging about the failure to deport a rapist over 19 years, and that you only sentenced him to 7 years. You think this is mitigating evidence for your country? This was your gotcha? Hahahahahahahaha. Not to mention I'm sure his "anti-regime statements" came out of after the rapes. How convient. And to mention more you seem to be neglecting the multiple other rapes. Lol dunce.
Seb rank	Tue May 12 11:36:16 NaMBLA: And yet you thought initially that he was not deported because he would be punished for his rape. Even though this is obviously not the case from simply reading the headline. Too dumb to read the daily mail is a pretty damning indictment. "Not to mention I'm sure his "anti-regime statements" They didn't.
jergul rank	Tue May 12 20:09:20 I am stunned! What an amazing turn of events!
Seb rank	Tue May 12 20:51:26 Incroyable
Sam Adams rank	Tue May 12 22:21:30 "And yet you thought initially that he was not deported because he would be punished for his rape." You did too lol. And it still might be the case. I can't verify the details personally since a Google of recent Iranian London rape deportation cases produces a huge list of possible events... I can't even find this one amongst all the others in the brief search that you rate. Haha that's a lol@rape-central-london in its own right. So we have the daily mail vs you, and the daily mail is obviously the more reliable source. And what's more. We have this constant stream of Muslim rape and you being soft on crime from 19,000 different sources. And here you are ignoring all that and arguing retarded minutae.
Seb rank	Tue May 12 23:38:43 NaMBLA: No, I did not. Because that would be ridiculous, and the headline put the assertion in inverted commas which instantly tells you it is not actually true. I immediately supposed that it was because *separately* he faced some form of atrocity for other reasons in Iran. I then googled the case immediately and read it. Hence my first words "typical daily mail headline" and accused you of being dumb, dishonest or both. It initially didn't even occur to me that you actually took the mail headline in the dumb-dumb way that they wanted you to. After all, you said "serial rapist" and he's only been found guilty for one here, so I assumed *you* understood that it would need to be fear of death of persecution for an entirely different crime in Iran to justify such a ruling. It was only when Forwyn chimed in and you responded: >Sun May 10 11:00:50 >"and a crime committed here wouldn't result in a >death penalty in their home country." >Either this is a lie or you imported a serial >rapist. Lol moron that I realised you are both particularly stupid. Please, for the love of god, learn how to do basic reading comprehension, and stop regurgitating your propaganda feed that's digging up stories from years ago, and if you must at least actually check the primary source. It's frankly embarrassing to have to educate you like a primary school kid. You can actually see the cognitive decline over the last few years. Do a digital detox or something.
Seb rank	Tue May 12 23:43:13 And by the way, it's no use contrasting the daily mail with me in terms of reliability, I've only actually used information from the daily mail (though actually it's ripping off the evening standard). Everything I've said about the case comes from the actual mail article. The difference is you only looked at the headline and didn't understand its clear meaning because you don't understand what inverted commas mean; and you didn't think "oh, that sounds unlikely, I'd better check the full article". Faced it NaMBLA, you are just illiterate, gullible and not very clever.
Sam Adams rank	Tue May 12 23:54:29 "inverted commas means something is fake." -seb, as retarded at English as he is in math and science. What it actually means is a quote within a quote. Or a paraphrase. Lmfao retarded antisemite how are you this wrong about everything. Bottom line. You imported yet another rapist. And then are trying to cover that up by arguing about quotes.
Seb rank	Wed May 13 00:07:32 See, still to fucking stupid to understand context. No, it's not fake. It's about attribution, which is only necessary if the fact can't be substantiated, but by definition a tribunal decision is a matter of public record. Therefore, the statement in inverted commas can't be the tribunal finding. Contextually, it's obviously what his lawyers were claiming, but also clear the tribunal didn't agree otherwise it would be a matter of public record. Simples,dumb dumb illiterate child. Did nobody teach you critical thinking or are you just going slowly senile doomscrolling storefront feeds?
Seb rank	Wed May 13 00:09:09 Tl;Dr It's not fake, it's an entirely accurate and truthful paraphrase of an argument the tribunal rejected and that's transparently clear to anyone who can actually read at the level expected of a grown adult. Which you evidently can't.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: