oh so you're only arguing the semantics of the sign?


WOW LOOK AT YOU YOU'RE SO FUCKING SMART I NEVER NOTICED THAT YES THEY REALLY MUST BE MORE SPECIFIC ON SIGNS OR PEOPLE WON'T UNDERSTAND AND THEY'LL ALL JUST BE STANDING AROUND WONDERING HOW IT WILL WORK.

jesus. that's all this was about? get a fucking life, really.

__________________
you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thinking

this will cease discussion:

if you buy clothing that was made by a company that employs children workers in a sweat shop, are you supporting sweatshops?

of course not. you are merely purchasing clothing.

if you purchased a volkswagon in the 30s/40s, did you support Nazism?

of course not. you merely purchased an automobile.

if you donated money to the BATF, then did you have a hand in the death of the Branch Davidians?

of course not. you merely donated money.

much in the same way, if you donate clothing, you are not stopping children from being beat. you are merely donating clothing.

Oh, I see. It has to LITERALLY stop children from being beaten instantly or it isn't valid.

How very deep of you.

Now go drop your entire "wardrobe" into one of those bins and TRY to be a help to someone on this planet...

Clearly you don't.

Nice to notice that you've changed arguement halfway through. Again.

Really? You have evidence that the charity is ineffectual at stopping child abuse?

Post it.

And if you are donating clothing that will be sold to fund an anti-abuse program that is actually effective in reducing child abuse...then you will be donating clothing that will be used to combat child abuse.

Come on dimbulb, it really isn't that hard to understand. There's no way should any person of standard intellect be having as much trouble understanding this as you are.

Well there's the problem. You're assuming his intellect isn't subpar and I can't imagine why. Or you're assuming that he wrote that post because he actually intends to learn something when clearly that wasn't his purpose.

actually, I try to be careful where I spend my money for exactly reasons like these. Just because you're not personally supervising the children in sweatshops doesn't mean you didn't have a hand in them being there.

well not donating clothing doesn't help abused children either, so like I said from the start donate your clothes or don't. Either way, STFU.

I'm not assuming. I know his intellect is sub-par, the comment was intended to imply that. He has proven time and time again that the reason he fails to understand simple things such as this is because he takes one look, can't see the point and therefore assumes that there isn't one. The concept of being wrong is one he does not have the faculties to grasp.

Regardless of wheter or not luftwaffle intends to be serious or intends to stir shit, his attempts are so laughably incompetant either way that replying to him is an amusing way to while away 5mins or so during quiet bits.

I changed nothing.

i said dontaing clothing will not stop children from being beat.

it won't.

nobody who is putting clothing into that bin is stopping a child from being beat.

the way to stop a child from being beat is to physically stop the agressor or to physically remove the child. nothing of those is accomplished by putting clothes into a receptacle....

Hang on, no, that's bollocks. It may not prevent them from being beaten, but it can lead to them no longer being a position where they are beaten.

I know what you're trying to argue at this point, but I can't work out why you're trying to argue it. I mean, you could argue that eating food doesn't sustain you, because the digestion process does that, not the act of eating itself. But - and I realise I'm making a massive assumption here for which I am deeply, truly sorry - from the enraged and frustrated tone of your initial post, it would be reasonable for a reader to believe that you were arguing over something more than a semantic matter that no-one other than you particularly regards as significant.

Yes you did.

In your opening post, you criticised the entire process, not just the phyisical act of depositing clothes.

When you were shown to be ill informed you reduced your arguement to just the direct results of the physical act. It's a stupid arguement anyway, it's equivilant to saying that getting out bread, butter and some ham will not help in the making of a sandwich. Utterly stupid, especially as you have a history of arguing that people should be resonsible for the results of thier actions. If you don;t see how you've just contradicted yourself, then that makes it worse.

The fact remains that you are a sad sack trying to score some points by reducing your arguement to the direct instant effect of the act of depositing. It should have been quite clear to you that the advert carried implied undertones about what would be done to the clothes.

You are criticising an arguement that has never been put forward. Try joining us in reality next time.

Wheter or not you wish to admit it, you got owned in this thread.

Just to end this stupid 'I haven't changed my arguement' lie.

Less than two pages and he's already indirectly disagreed with himself. How low can this idiot go?

Don't even bother to lie your way out of this one. You've failed to provide anything over than a pedantic semantic arguement barely worthy of a snotty twelve year old. Grow up ffs.

Just had a look at your first post, by the way:

So in other words: no, you don't. They sell it to raise money, they don't just stick it in a big pile.

Can you elaborate on this? Maybe offer an example of what is covered by "all other instances", indicating why it would be somehow facetious to apply the same logic (whatever that logic is).

the money raised from thift shops should go towards putting muzzles on annoying fucking kids in supermarkets and other public places

Thereby removing the reason to beat on them in the first place.

'All other instances' would have to include making posts. By luftwaffes logic, it is logically impossible to make a post.

Typing 'Hello, my name is luft, I am an idiot' is not making a post, it is merely typing ' Hello, my name is luft, I am an idiot'.

Clicking 'Submit Reply' is not making a post, it is merely clicking 'Submit Reply'.

Making a post includes the typing and the submitting, yet luftwaffe's reductionist logic does not allow actions to be affiliated with their subsequent actions and results.

Yeah, listen, I know you're trying to help and everything, but I was kind of asking him.

EDIT: oh fucksticks, I said "listen" when clearly you can't listen a post made on a forum.

EDIT: oh double fucksticks, tecnically you can listen to a post made on a forum, you just wouldn't hear anything useful in interpretting it.

I'm not trying to help, I'm poking fun at luft's stupidity/attempt at exploiting us for his own mirth. I seriously doubt luft has carried his logic all the way through, given his past history of never doing so, thus , I doubt you'd get any meaningful answer from him.

Fact is, luft lost all credibility here years ago, we know he is here to rile us up. Many of us use that to laugh at him by playing along/using him as an outlet. His exploitation of us is itself the means of our exploitation of him.

Like I said, he's very careful with what he posts. He always leaves himself an exit. In this case, he's quite happy to claim that he made a completely meaningless and banale opening post if it means not saying he didn't know what a charity shop was. And quite possibly he really did only mean to pick up on the semantics of it. But that's irrelevant: if that was the idea, it's a pointlessly banale thread.

the return of luft and googly, as usual, marks a swift downturn in the post rate of anyone with anything to say about news or politics. do tell when you've resolved the key international q