It could be one possibility, when you consider the entire realm of possibilities, though the simplest answer is that they continue their endeavors because they want to find out what happened to their child and deep down may still have hope of seeing her returned.
Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter Fergies Gum
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
b82REZ
Full Member
Find this extremely condescending and ignorant. Just because a person does not share opinion does not make theirs any less relevant. Forums are meant to offer a place for people to discuss their differing opinions without being dismissed in such a way. Would expect much better from such an experienced poster.I tend not to hold wishy washy opinions. Or if I do I can't be bothered commenting.
Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
He's referring only to his own opinions there, fella, not anyone else's.Find this extremely condescending and ignorant. Just because a person does not share opinion does not make theirs any less relevant. Forums are meant to offer a place for people to discuss their differing opinions without being dismissed in such a way. Would expect much better from such an experienced poster.
When you factor in all the other evidence though, the likelihood that the McCanns are lying about certain occurrences is rather high.It could be one possibility, when you consider the entire realm of possibilities, though the simplest answer is that they continue their endeavors because they want to find out what happened to their child and deep down may still have hope of seeing her returned.
b82REZ
Full Member
Fair enough, but I felt it was implied.He's referring only to his own opinions there, fella, not anyone else's.
There is no evidence to completely support any hypothesis and there seems to a few people that, for lack of a better word, attack anyone's opinion who does fit in with kidnapping idea.
Cry me a river. If you can't defend an opinion then don't have one.Find this extremely condescending and ignorant. Just because a person does not share opinion does not make theirs any less relevant. Forums are meant to offer a place for people to discuss their differing opinions without being dismissed in such a way. Would expect much better from such an experienced poster.
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,329
That doesn't even make sense...
Don't worry DD, as you probably know or guess, I don't give a toss about people not agreeing with me. "Truth" is rarely reached by everyone meekly agreeing.He's referring only to his own opinions there, fella, not anyone else's.
b82REZ
Full Member
Really any need for this childish sort of repsonse?Cry me a river. If you can't defend an opinion then don't have one.
I have expressed my opinions and defended them, but haven't been as arrogant to completely disregard others. Just because you accept she may have been kidnapped does not mean your opinion holds any more weight than those that believe the parents were involved in someway.
Of course it does.That doesn't even make sense...
"Don't be upset because people hold firm views" is an incomplete summary.
Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
Of course, I just thought he misinterpreted your post.Don't worry DD, as you probably know or guess, I don't give a toss about people not agreeing with me. "Truth" is rarely reached by everyone meekly agreeing.
Childish? Arrogant? Because I don't engage in the muddle mind tabloid angry mob mentality?Really any need for this childish sort of repsonse?
I have expressed my opinions and defended them, but haven't been as arrogant to completely disregard others. Just because you accept she may have been kidnapped does not mean your opinion holds any more weight than those that believe the parents were involved in someway.
You plainly haven't ever undergone any sort of academic examination where you have to logically defend your opinions if you think this is arrogant.
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,329
That's two completely different statements Wibs...
Could well be. It amazes me that people get offended by firmly held, well defended views. A meeting of such opposing views is how things are vigorously examined. Otherwise we just all agree with the editorial of the tabloid of our choice.Of course, I just thought he misinterpreted your post.
Not really although it misses out on the "man up" aspects of the original comment. And a bit of "say what you mean rather than complain about what I mean". Although both should be apparent from the original post.That's two completely different statements Wibs...
Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
Yeah, intelligent discourse is much more preferable to everyone agreeing.Could well be. It amazes me that people get offended by firmly held, well defended views. A meeting of such opposing views is how things are vigorously examined. Otherwise we just all agree with the editorial of the tabloid of our choice.
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,329
Defending your own opinion doesn't necessarily mean attacking someone else's opinion though does it... anyway, we all do it, let's not pretend it's conducive to debate though.
b82REZ
Full Member
Tabloid mentality? Seeing as the tabloids are the ones that regularly support the kidnapping hypothesis I would beg to differ.Childish? Arrogant? Because I don't engage in the muddle mind tabloid angry mob mentality?
You plainly haven't ever undergone any sort of academic examination where you have to logically defend your opinions if you think this is arrogant.
Logically defending your opinions is one thing, saying things like "cry me a river" or the plethora of other put downs you have used towards people is arrogance IMO. It's either people agree with you or they are labelled as a tabloid reader or some other witty response.
Really bad form from a mod.
Unless there is total agreement it is the only/best way to examine things. Whishy washy non-debate usually achieves nothing.Defending your own opinion doesn't necessarily mean attacking someone else's opinion though does it... anyway, we all do it, let's not pretend it's conducive to debate though.
The tabloids love any aspect that sells papers but they were the original pushers of the "McCanns are murders" stuff. Didn't they successfully sue some rag?Tabloid mentality? Seeing as the tabloids are the ones that regularly support the kidnapping hypothesis I would beg to differ.
Logically defending your opinions is one thing, saying things like "cry me a river" or the plethora of other put downs you have used towards people is arrogance IMO. It's either people agree with you or they are labelled as a tabloid reader or some other witty response.
Really bad form from a mod.
And I'm an Admin and not a mod. Albeit one who is wondering why he bothers with the demographic that now occupies this place.
Dr. Dwayne
Self proclaimed tagline king.
Attacking the opposing opinion is how debating is done. To prove your point correct you have to poke holes in the opposing view. Attacking the person is poor form, usually, unless their views are abhorrent.Defending your own opinion doesn't necessarily mean attacking someone else's opinion though does it... anyway, we all do it, let's not pretend it's conducive to debate though.
Although when conducted with academically informed aggression better outcomes result.Yeah, intelligent discourse is much more preferable to everyone agreeing.
And unless that person is worthy of attack to the point where being them fundamentally undemines their argument.Attacking the opposing opinion is how debating is done. To prove your point correct you have to poke holes in the opposing view. Attacking the person is poor form, usually, unless their views are abhorrent.
For example, if our Prime Minister says anything that you agree with it is worth reconsidering as the man is the most despicable politician since Thatcher and Regan.
b82REZ
Full Member
Another veiled insult? Is there seriously any need?The tabloids love any aspect that sells papers but they were the original pushers of the "McCanns are murders" stuff. Didn't they successfully sue some rag?
And I'm an Admin and not a mod. Albeit one who is wondering why he bothers with the demographic that now occupies this place.
Irwinwastheking
Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
As is continuously misrepresenting people.Attacking the opposing opinion is how debating is done. To prove your point correct you have to poke holes in the opposing view. Attacking the person is poor form, usually, unless their views are abhorrent.
I've read on multiple occasions now the assertion that; " people seem far angrier about a bit of sub-optimal parenting that they do about a very small kid being kidnapped and possibly raped/murdered." which is complete and utter bollox. Just because the conversation is revolving around the parents involvement or share of the blame doesn't have any impact on how angry they are about the eventual outcome. This kind of misrepresentative debating is pretty low brow and inevitably leads to conflict in the thread.
I could just as easily say that Pop's and Wibble are more angry at people allocating blame on the parents than they are about what actually happened the kid. That too would be bollox but would have as much grounding in fact as the previous statement.
Insult? Where?
Another simple statement of fact. I can't even recognise this place any more. It used to be populated by fun but essentially decent people. Well apart from the cnuts and the death threat issuers.
Another simple statement of fact. I can't even recognise this place any more. It used to be populated by fun but essentially decent people. Well apart from the cnuts and the death threat issuers.
It isn't bollocks because many people keep bashing on about this utter irrelevance. Unless the view is that this bit of sub optimal parenting made them deserving of what happened. If this isn't the case it is irrelevant and doesn't even need to be mentioned. Any more than the dress length of a rape victim needs to be mentioned.As is continuously misrepresenting people.
I've read on multiple occasions now the assertion that; " people seem far angrier about a bit of sub-optimal parenting that they do about a very small kid being kidnapped and possibly raped/murdered." which is complete and utter bollox. Just because the conversation is revolving around the parents involvement or share of the blame doesn't have any impact on how angry they are about the eventual outcome. This kind of misrepresentative debating is pretty low brow and inevitably leads to conflict in the thread.
I could just as easily say that Pop's and Wibble are more angry at people allocating blame on the parents than they are about what actually happened the kid. That too would be bollox but would have as much grounding in fact as the previous statement.
Irwinwastheking
Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
Insult? Where?
Another simple statement of fact. I can't even recognise this place any more. It used to be populated by fun but essentially decent people. Well apart from the cnuts and the death threat issuers.
Wait... what??
We used to get them all the time. I almost miss them.
That and offers to meet up in real life for fights. Which is where the Hull joke comes from.
Irwinwastheking
Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
It isn't bollocks because many people keep bashing on about this utter irrelevance. Unless the view is that this bit of sub optimal parenting made them deserving of what happened. If this isn't the case it is irrelevant and doesn't even need to be mentioned. Any more than the dress length of a rape victim needs to be mentioned.
This is utter bollocks Wibs.
The 'skirt rape' point is totally crap. The parents job in life is to protect their child by reasonable means. They chose to leave their kids night after night for selfish personal reasons. If they didn't do this the child would be OK. A woman could be raped whether she had a burka on or a bikini.
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,329
Attacking the opposing opinion is how debating is done. To prove your point correct you have to poke holes in the opposing view. Attacking the person is poor form, usually, unless their views are abhorrent.
We're talking about holding a firm belief here when in truth there aren't many facts to back up either theory on what happened, so maybe it's based on what you want to believe? based on past experiences, or your perception of human behaviour? I just think at present neither theory (abduction / accidental death) are ridiculous so shouldn't be treated as such. I can understand you disagreeing but telling other posters that they are idiots, lacking empathy, etc or even dictating what should/shouldn't be discussed in this thread is pointless.Unless there is total agreement it is the only/best way to examine things. Whishy washy non-debate usually achieves nothing.
If (as I suspect) some of you have past experience that affects how you see this case I can totally understand though...
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,329
Memories...That and offers to meet up in real life for fights. Which is where the Hull joke comes from.
It is an almost exact analogy as a rape victim could have worn more "modest" dress or been accompanied by a relative or not gone out at all.This is utter bollocks Wibs.
The 'skirt rape' point is totally crap. The parents job in life is to protect their child by reasonable means. They chose to leave their kids night after night for selfish personal reasons. If they didn't do this the child would be OK. A woman could be raped whether she had a burka on or a bikini.
Just as a women wearing a Burka can be raped a kid can be kidnapped from any room particularly in warm climates.
Both are simply blaming the victim.This is utter bollocks Wibs.
The 'skirt rape' point is totally crap. The parents job in life is to protect their child by reasonable means. They chose to leave their kids night after night for selfish personal reasons. If they didn't do this the child would be OK. A woman could be raped whether she had a burka on or a bikini.
Irwinwastheking
Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
It is an almost exact analogy as a rape victim could have worn more "modest" dress or been accompanied by a relative or not gone out at all.
Just as a women wearing a Burka can be raped a kid can be kidnapped from any room particularly in warm climates.
It's utter nonsense and not even a close analogy. If you said they dressed her up like one of those pageant kids then it would be close to the rape/skirt analogy and I would agree that it was an irrelevent point that doesn't bear heavy discussion. But what they did put their child in direct danger. You might not agree, but one of the reasons this thread is going round and round on this point is that you refuse to accept people can have a difference of opinion.
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,329
How much harder does wearing a modest dress make it to be raped? not much... how much harder does accompanying a child make it for the child to be kidnapped? a great deal... enough said.
There is no evidence of the parents having anything to do with it despite a massive investigation and unless both parents and all of their friends are sociopaths it is a ludicrous idea.We're talking about holding a firm belief here when in truth there aren't many facts to back up either theory on what happened, so maybe it's based on what you want to believe? based on past experiences, or your perception of human behaviour? I just think at present neither theory (abduction / accidental death) are ridiculous so shouldn't be treated as such. I can understand you disagreeing but telling other posters that they are idiots, lacking empathy, etc or even dictating what should/shouldn't be discussed in this thread is pointless.
If (as I suspect) some of you have past experience that affects how you see this case I can totally understand though...
Irwinwastheking
Gimpier than Alex and Feeky
Both are simply blaming the victim.
No, I'm not blaming the victim. I'm assigning a small percentage of blame to the victims guardians. Totally different. Since when are the parents the victims? I see the victim here as Madeline McCann.
I think we may have come to the crux of it now. You seem to see the parents as more the victims than the daughter, or at least on the same level. What they are going through is nothing, nothing compared to what happened her.
Both are blaming victims for being victimised.How much harder does wearing a modest dress make it to be raped? not much... how much harder does accompanying a child make it for the child to be kidnapped? a great deal... enough said.