Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

How can you possibly know the inner working's of someone else's mind?

We all know that the inner workings of your mind are expressing themselves in your posts on this forum, and that this reasonably allows us to deduce that you are, in fact, the original WorstCunt™

At least I excel at something hey :D

This forum like a lot of communities have a problem with "Wrong Think" and this described why

when in reality I think that most people are decent people and will make the right decision given the right facts.

How can you possibly know the inner working's of someone else's mind?

Dude. Pick one.

(Bah - Should be two separate quotes. But my point stands. )

How can you possibly know the inner working's of someone else's mind?

By listening to them. Drivers hate cyclists. A lot of drivers try to hurt cyclists on purpose. The highest-paid TV celebrity in the country talks about killing cyclists. Twitter is full of people posting death threats at cyclists. Comments online compare cyclists to vermin, roadkill, parasites, whatever. The idea that these people suddenly become impartial and open-minded when they're picked for jury service is naive.

I think it is a case of an outspoken minority.

Nothing about the label WorstCunt™ suggests excellence.

However, if you were on a menu for hors d'oevres you would be described as an 'amuse douche' in the sense that you're about as funny as a cold shit on a stale canapé.

Saying that I believe something doesn't mean mean I know the former, as it is a belief.

Don't hold back tell me what you really think.

If you want to satiate your need to be publicly derided then I'd suggest going to an BDSM club and getting pissed on, it's probably more constructive than anything you're contributing here with your constantly shifting goalposts and self-styled trolling that places you in the same category as Jeremy Vine and Katy Hopkins. Or is that just our collective Wrong Think, you poor misunderstood, piss scented little lamb?

Are you finished mate?

'Ha - I was deliberately being a dick to make you act like a dick'

'I'm really saying these things cos I want you to hate me. I'm just a guy who doesn't give a single fuck - impressed?'

'This is all just banter, innit? We're all mates, really, aren't we? Aren't we?'

It's like being on an internet chatroom in 199fucking6.

Nothing about the label WorstCunt™ suggests excellence.

But how do you know the inner workings of his mind, perhaps being ùbérCunt™ is his highest aspiration.

I suspect not.

To answer you fully my dear Jigging Jimmie: a lifetime of lived experience and an aptitude for synthesising likely motivations and possible responses is my point of reference, that is in a comparison of his behaviours against a typology of the people I've known and encountered and then of course, filtering this through my own particular ontological outlook with all it's individual prejudices and preferences.

This in part also answers your question of his aspirations to being an "ùbérCunt" as of course, only someone with my own particular lived experience (expressing itself biologically in the formation of my brain and consciousness) could ever make claim to that title. As such, our poor, dear, piss-scented Lucas would again find himself in an entirely derivative and unsustainable position were he to have such aspirations.

Are you finished yet?

Doubtful so long as you keep spouting rabid pish, but how does the saying go?

bore me once, shame on you, bore me twice, I'll not be very nice...

in reply to @MultiGrooves

Don't you think that guardian articles saying that alludes to them basically being biased in the manner you describe won't reinforce that such rhetoric as "The war on motorists"?>

Just take a look at some the outcomes: Driving whilst banned, under the influence, not indicating or doing so in the wrong way leading to death and much worse. If you don't feel a pain in your heart at these ridiculous verdicts then you're beyond talking to. If your logic doesn't tell you something is systematically wrong, again this is a waste of time.

Okay internet hardman

How can you possibly know the inner working's of someone else's mind?

Various ways. In this case we're inferring from a particular deviation from the actions of an ideal observer.

Your point about "wrong think" (Argumentum ad populum) and internet mobs are really just a massive whinge. People are arguing against you not just because they think you're wrong, but because you maintain a pig-headed insistence on the validity of your views despite having absolutely fuck all to support them, as your recourse to name calling and appeals to ignorance show.

It's pretty clear at this point that you've given up what little substance there was in your arguments and have resorted to whining victimhood to try to prove your point (whatever it was). Anything you had to say that was actually relevant was dealt with a few pages back.

I think if people are driving while banned and/or drunk they should go to prison and if it is that obvious then something probably should change in the legal process for sure.

However lumping every motorist into some sort of cyclist hating fascist is wrong and will cause more hatred and division.

I do think that cyclists in this country should have it drummed into them not to go up the inside of a HGV vehicle even if it seems safe, because it doesn't matter who is in the right or wrong when you get hurt or as in the Young Ladies case deceased.

I also think and this (goes for myself included), that if you want more sympathy / empathy from motorists a lot of cyclists have to behave better towards them and people have to be more responsible e.g. not going out for a load of beers and riding back pissed, riding with no lights on riding on the pavement ... because the first fucking thing people will say is "Well cyclists don't follow the rules either, I saw one doing the other day".

Various ways. In this case we're inferring from a particular deviation from the actions of an ideal observer.

Oh comon, you have no idea what a juror might be thinking that you have never met.

Oh comon, you have no idea what a juror might be thinking that you have never met.

Let me just quote your reply to @dancing james from a page back (my bold)

Let me spell it out for you:

• You said "luke is a cunt like these other fools"
  
• I wound you up until it was you who was saying "why are you aren't listening to me".
  
• I told you why.
  
• You got upset and started throwing more accusations at me
  
• I then said "you don't like it when someone does something similar".
  
• This somehow makes me ignorant.
  

But it's obviously completely impossible to infer what someone else might be thinking.

Because that is what he said in the conversation albeit summarised as I saw it.

You can't possibly know every juror's intentions unless you ask them (I am making the assumption that they will answer truthfully).