to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

A lot of us know exactly what Elegran was saying, and meant. Very well described, actually. Of course you will refuse to see that, granjura!

Why are you all so happy to defend such things because it's 'free speech'
I am not defending any publication, rather pointing out the hypocrisy of Lego and the double standards applied.
Duplicitous, yes Ginny42.

Elegran, it's logical to assume that if there is a question mark, I am asking a question, is it not?
Well, of course, djen, you could be using the Australian intonation, where one never knows whether it's a question or a statement and never know whether to answer or not?

"I think you'll find, jalima, that POGS and bags are pastmasters at drawing fine lines between what they say they mean and what some of us think they mean."

I think you will find, durhamjen, that the latest diversion began with that post of yours. I was only here because I found my name mentioned along with those two posters and decided to add my thoughts on understanding/ misconstruing the meaning of posts. I shall leave now and let the discussion return to the point.

Elegran, there has been a lot of diversion on here, which is why I put the above post on, to get back to the subject of hate crime.

Elegran 'No, you are indicating that you are assuming that they mean what you would like them to have meant, despite them having already explained it.' - this is exactly what you are doing now, re what dj meant- can't you see? Oh the irony.

The committee on hate crime is starting to meet today, at the same time as the trial against Jo Cox's murderer is starting.
I assume some of these people will be seen by the hate crime committee, chaired by Yvette Cooper.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/bigots-hate-brexit-migrants-uk-eu-attacks-referendum

Our old friend obieone often said that she didn't understand what a poster meant, and asked for clarification. She usually received a patient explanation from the poster.

But when someone does an extrapolation from a definite opinion and infers something that is very long way from what has been posted (and implies that the poster is somehow very much in the wrong for thinking what is being imputed to them) then that is not asking for an explanation, it is using diversionary tactics to send the debate toward discrediting the poster.

Elegran, it's logical to assume that if there is a question mark, I am asking a question, is it not?

No. I am asking them what they really mean.
I am trying to be logical here as most people understand it, in the linguistic sense, not the mathematical, but you have decided that I am not.
That's your problem.

And DJ you have the habit of picking out one tiny bit of a post and harking on about that, while ignoring the certain premise of a post. In logic an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or propositions) known as the premises along with another declarative sentence known as the conclusion.

This structure forms the basic argumentative structure. This is the basis of logical arguement which bags and POGS and others employ - but you don't

No, you are indicating that you are assuming that they mean what you would like them to have meant, despite them having already explained it.

Elegran if I say "So you are saying Y?" I am asking them to say if they mean what I think they mean. Why is that controversial? All they have to do is explain what they mean.
Simple, really.

By the way, I think this thread is quite political.

Some posters (OK, mostly you, durhamjen, but occasionally others) seem able to take a meaning out of a post which has nothing to do with what was posted, and has more to do with accusing someone of some irrelevant antisocial attitude. Having read "X" the response is "So you are saying Y?" where Y = a completely different and controversial statement.

It has happened to me in the past, and is why I no longer debate ANYTHING on political threads.

So in that respect "POGS and bags are pastmasters at drawing fine lines between what they . . . . mean and what some of us think they mean." is perfectly true. Bags in particular is very good at drawing logical distinctions which appear to be confusing for some readers. A mathematical training is a good basis for logical debate.

Good, because you really need to give examples, so I can use POGS and bags methods of explaining them.

Let's make it quite clear then....no, I don't agree with you, and I happen to think that criticising people for doing something that you have done in the past is the height of hypocrisy. I have to go out now, but will try and get back to this later.

One thing I am not is hypocritical, Ceesnan. I say it how I see it. I don't pretend to have beliefs I do not espouse.
I don't say one thing and then pretend I meant something different. I don't attack a person, then say I didn't mean you, I meant the idea you're talking about.
Just because you do not agree with me does not make me a hypocrite. Although, actually, you haven't said you do not agree with me, have you?

Pot, kettle, black, durhamjen! That is quite breathtaking hypocrisy!

I think you'll find, jalima, that POGS and bags are pastmasters at drawing fine lines between what they say they mean and what some of us think they mean.

'Trying to draw a fine line between calling someone a racist and saying that they appear to you to be a racist deceives no-one in its intent'...if so why is it ok then for newspapers to print lies with racist implications? Why are you all so happy to defend such things because it's 'free speech' and yet turn on someone for giving their opinion on a forum?

I was shocked when I saw the Lego weapons and people with angry snarly faces. My GS engages them in mock fights so I accidentally 'lost' the weapons at my house. We've never bought him guns, but he sometimes picks up a stick and uses it as a gun.

My fear is that children/adults too, may become insensitised to what guns can really do. In a game they just get up and carry on playing and 'dead' doesn't means that their lives are ended.

In short, I agree that Lego are duplicitous; saying one thing and doing something else.

Are you a barrister nelliemoser?
Trying to draw a fine line between calling someone a racist and saying that they appear to you to be a racist deceives no-one in its intent.

I still believe that Lego is hypocritical in its very public disassociation with the DM - trying to say that little boys are aggressive anyway is pandering to and cynically making money from this supposed trait - which surely should be discouraged not nurtured in case it is perpetuated in the playround.

I am astonished that posters one would assume would be against encouraging hatred in children seem to be condoning it and cannot see the double standards operating here.
Apart from one poster who says she refuses to buy warlike toys.

Yes, djen I really do have, especially for spotting lies and bullshit.
POGS and Elegran and thatbags and a few others always post intelligent, calm and reasoned debates on here, so I follow them with interest.

Ironic that you NellieMoser are up in arms about inciting hatred!

You've got an amazing memory, roses.