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.
Sam Adams rank	Wed May 13 01:56:31 "Therefore, the statement in inverted commas can't be the tribunal finding." Of course it could be, antisemite retard. One would have to have to read the article to be sure, but there are so many muslim rape cases in your shithole I can't find it for all the other ones. I love the basic affirmations of this thread. You are still so retarded you cannot understand basic human speech or logic. You will do anything to avoid the main point, that you import rapists. London is such a pile of shit that you can't research particular muslim rape cases, because there are so many to search through.
Seb rank	Wed May 13 07:48:16 NaMBLA: No it can't. It would then be an objective fact that the reason he couldn't be returned due to fear of persecution and the inverted commas wouldn't be needed and would not make sense.
Seb rank	Wed May 13 07:50:09 Congratulations on continuing to admit you don't understand how news media works. It explains a lot.
Seb rank	Wed May 13 08:17:13 "but there are so many muslim rape cases" ...that you had to go looking for one from 3 years ago?
Seb rank	Wed May 13 08:23:34 Well actually, technically 25 years ago really. It looks to me that the actual issue here is you are stewing in an information environment that intentionally regurgitates selective and highly manipulated stories and you lack the literacy to spot the signposted dishonesty. This is giving you a very distorted reference frame which further exacerbates the problem as you reject things that don't fit the pattern you have unquestioningly allowed allowed you information environment (and those you've ceded editorialship of it it to) to acculturate you to expect. In short, you are what they call a "low information voter".
Sam Adams rank	Wed May 13 08:50:16 Seb will neglect yet another muslim rape but will have an autistic spazzout over "inverted commas". Lol.
Paramount rank	Wed May 13 12:58:40 In Sad Madams home country, Israel, rape of prisoners and hostages is allowed. Sam’s people gets really angry and riot if they are not allowed to rape men.
Seb rank	Wed May 13 17:31:51 "Another" being an incident a quarter of a century ago?
williamthebastard rank	Wed May 13 17:49:44 I wonder which I'd find most intellectually interesting: trying to have an intelligent, adult debate according to socratic norms with csam adams or jabbing a fork into my eyes repeatedly? Oh, decisions, decisions
Sam Adams rank	Thu May 14 01:01:53 "a quarter of a century ago?" You think this is a good thing? You let an imported serial rapist roam your country and collect welfare for 25 years. This is a good thing in your mind? Amazing. All the men of Europe died in the world wars. This is what's left.
Seb rank	Thu May 14 07:28:02 NaMBLA: Well no, he was in prison for 7 years of that so not roaming anywhere, and as an immigrant he's no recourse to public funds so this idea has collecting welfare seems the usual lies we have come to expect from you. But also the point is you keep posting these stories as though they are highly frequent and representative. But they aren't, you frequently resort to decades old cases in news stories themselves that are years old precisely because they are not that common. There's getting on 70m people in this country and crime does happen, obviously. But if it was as common as you maintain, you wouldn't be committing journalistic necrophilia by digging up long dead stories to wank over.
Sam Adams rank	Thu May 14 08:50:00 "of people who receive Universal Credit, nearly 1.5 million are migrants" -BBC "as an immigrant he's no recourse to public funds" -Retarded antisemite. Lol For your next challenge, can you make it past your first sentence without being caught in an obvious and retarded lie?
Forwyn rank	Thu May 14 16:19:19 So Seb's hyped defense is that the man made a bureaucratic claim based on being a political dissident, and this was upheld, separately from his crime. That's actually even worse, as all it takes to remain is to make a post on Twitter talking shit about the regime. And he treated this as a slam dunk. LOL
Seb rank	Fri May 15 00:39:21 Sam: Ok, let me be more specific. Immigrants with indefinite leave to remain (in the US, this is roughly equivalent to green card holders) can claim benefits. This guy does not have ILR as he has committed a crime.
Seb rank	Fri May 15 00:41:18 Forwyn: What is a "bureaucratic claim" exactly? This seems a very strange formulation. If you mean "this man, despite being a criminal, is still afforded right to life which is protected in law" yes, that's true. But it's like describing the fact that police can't just walk into your house, kill you and rape your wife as "a bureaucratic nicity".
Seb rank	Fri May 15 00:43:30 "all it takes to remain is to make a post on Twitter talking shit about the regime." No, that's not how courts work. They would and have rejected confected attempts to manipulate the system in this kind of way. People aren't generally as stupid as you are, and certainly not judges.
Seb rank	Fri May 15 00:49:34 I see we have moved onto the "just make shit up without checking basic facts" stage of the debate. We will shortly move onto the "ok but it was eventually reasonable for me to make ridiculous assumptions because it correlated with the opinion of your country i have formed based on dishonest daily mail headlines I didn't properly understand and my own by fevered imagination, so obviously it was plausible to my mind" stage. Or, as I like to think of it "I'm mad at you because of something you said to me in my dream" phase.
Seb rank	Fri May 15 00:53:36 I find it amusing that NaMBLA can't figure out that deportation is something you wouldn't be and to do without *first* removing ILR status.
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 01:10:41 "This would never happen because we're super smart and can tell when people are disingenuous" *judges, bureaucrats* lmfao
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 01:10:54 "certainly not judges." hahahahahahahahaha
Seb rank	Fri May 15 01:20:11 Yes forwyn, criminals always get acquittals by simply lying to the court. Nobody is ever convicted. If only we could figure out a method based on, perhaps, adversarial argument and evidence.
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 01:37:11 "Judge John Keith ruled he could remain on human rights grounds in part due to the concern around his being persecuted for his crime. The judge also said there was evidence XX had been a critic of the Iranian regime." Seb thinks that his judges could mindread and tell if social media posts were made in earnest or not lol
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 01:37:48 "criminals always get acquittals" The hilarious red herring while his foreign rapist is free and will avoid deportation
Seb rank	Fri May 15 10:22:55 Forwyn: The defendant lays out evidence, the govt lays out evidence; and yes the process would look at whether they are likely to be sincere or a confection to try and game the rules. Like they do for marriages. When we applied for a spousal visa for my wife, I had to present two ring binders of evidence to substantiate a relationship - and that was just for the issuing of the visa. The onus will be very much on him to make the case he faces a threat on return, with a substantial amount of evidence. It will be the same here: it's not just "here's a tweet I sent yesterday"; they will be looking for a long history of being a critic, evidence that the nature of the criticism would result in action by the regime, that it was high profile enough, that his views were sincerely held. They probably went to see evidence that he attended specific protests at the embassy etc. This is in part why these cases drag on for so long. This is literally the entire point of immigration tribunals. It's what they are set up to do. The idea that can't possibly tell and would need to mind read demonstrates how little you understand all of this, and who has the burden of proof, and instead are just railing against an entirely imaginary scenario you have conceived in your head. The government wins the vast majority of these tribunals, if it was easy as you imagine to game, this would not be the case.
Sam Adams rank	Fri May 15 12:46:53 Sebs a mudshark?
Seb rank	Fri May 15 13:34:16 NaMBLA: I don't think I even want to know what that term means, but white foreigners go through the same process; the fact you leaped to what is obviously a racist epithet shows exactly the problem. You are obsessed with brown people.
jergul rank	Fri May 15 13:38:25 Seb's wife is from the Americas if memory serves. I want to say Brazil. Make fun of Brazilian women dummy. I dare you.
jergul rank	Fri May 15 13:41:16 Countries in the malaria zone are representative of what the US would have looked like without genocide. Not that genocides did not take place further south, but diseases also pruned down the European population at a rate that gave some degree of genetic balance.
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 15:22:51 "genocide" "diseases also pruned" lol
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 15:25:22 Lol @ Seb and his worthless rant. This rapist hasn't been in Iran for two decades, therefore his status as a political dissident is either: -social media -testimony of his life before immigration And since his testimony has been proven in other instances to be pure fabrication...
Seb rank	Fri May 15 15:48:59 I literally just listed the kind of evidence a tribunal would seek other than testimony. * Evidence of attending protests at the embassy (photos, phone location data, testimony from others who attended, travel tickets) * Evidence that the criticism of the state was sustained and high profile (they'd be looking for hundreds of tweets over a sustained period) * Evidence that the regime had or would likely to take notice (examples of other similar cases where people had been persecuted etc.) Failure to provide compelling evidence, you'll likely get deported. Sure social media can be evidence. A few tweets would not convince the court that it wasn't a transparent ploy to game the courts.
Seb rank	Fri May 15 15:52:18 "And since his testimony has been proven in other instances to be pure fabrication" Has it? Again I think you are making assumptions. At have no details at all of his first trial. He may have in fact pled guilty for all we know, he may not have given any evidence at all. His testimony isn't going to matter much, tribunals look at evidence, but it's worth raising the issue to highlight just how much you are constructing imaginary scenarios in you own mind.
Forwyn rank	Fri May 15 16:21:16 "Has it?" Yes. He claimed to work for MI5. "the kind of evidence" "SEE? They would have to also attend protests at an embassy during their free time between rapes!"
williamthebastard rank	Fri May 15 17:01:32 H probably became an MI5 asset the same way Lying Pedophile became a pilot and a meterologist. He once described a shop lifter at Tescos to the mall guard and that blossomed in his mind until he was a secret MI6 agent.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: