Lilly Allen Branded an Ill Informed Virtue Signaller By Decorated Veteran.

You what always amuses me in a sad way?

The supposedly enlightened/intellectually superior morality police being so intellectually stunted they cannot manage to separate the actions of these soldier in an impossible situation from the politics of the time.

I mean there are only a handful of fight that I can think of off the top of my head, Russians spec ops holding a hill in Afghanistan against insane numbers, and a group of Sikh's last stand in Pakistan as a couple of examples of such insane bravery.

The majority of these men had no care for the politics they were there because the govt told them to, cause this was the job they had, and they did their duty despite the odds.

yet this twaffle wants to try and show she is better than them, yet I imagine if she ever has to fish or cut bait I know where she will be..

She got a sex tape yet?

Two seperate issues. Those British solders fought bravely and deserved those crosses.

Second issues is...it was an invading force Britain attacking South Africa. Obviously in the wrong.

You have to be able to see the difference. Soldiers do what their told, go where their told to go and fight for each other. Politicians make the really bad decisions and start all the wars.

originally posted by: Theprodicalson

originally posted by: aethertek

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Trust me I'm being kind to her. Popstars with opinions are annoying enough, but when they are of very limited intelligence and shoot their mouths of about subjects they clearly know nothing about, it brings out the sociopathic murderer in me.
a reply to: face23785

No wonder you wish to honor thieves & rapists as war heroes.
If these British solders had not invaded & enslaved a foreign people maybe no one would be trying to kill them.

K~

You obviously know nothing about the Zulu war.

They invaded British territory and did the raping and massacres.
Britain only invaded to stop the raids and attacks on it border.

And you obviously dont know anything about how the British came to be there in the first place. "Britain only invaded to stop blah blah blah". is akin to getting caught by the police after a murder and saying, it wasn't me who murdered him, I only kicked him a wee bit, other big boys kicked harder than i did. ffs,

a reply to: amazing

At that level, and at that time, they certainly did. Or bad things happened.

originally posted by: Lysergic
She got a sex tape yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she has a third nipple.
That would sell.
Looks more like a mole.

originally posted by: seagull
Her opinion matters why, exactly?

It changes nothing of the acts at Rourkes Drift by the soldiers.

For those interested, these are the men who earned the Victoria Cross at Rourke's Drift.

Awarded the Victoria Cross:[47]

Lieutenant John Rouse Merriott Chard, 5th Field Coy, Royal Engineers

Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Corporal William Wilson Allen; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Private Frederick Hitch; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Private Alfred Henry Hook; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Private Robert Jones; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Private William Jones; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Private John Williams; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot

Surgeon James Henry Reynolds; Army Medical Department

Acting Assistant Commissary James Langley Dalton; Commissariat and Transport Department
Corporal Christian Ferdinand Schiess; 2nd/3rd Natal Native Contingent

...and a bit of an overview of the fight.

The odds that these gentlemen faced were extreme. But as the saying went "Martini-Henry rifles and a little guts" saw them through.

The Zulu look to be magnificent warriors even as the Brits pulled off an epic last stand.

No it isn't. It is a differing opinion and not anything close to bias.
a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: daskakik
There is a good dose of virtue signaling in pointing out someone is a "Decorated Veteran".

It's just a different set of morals.

One is a veteran talking about veterans.
One is a rich white English woman talking about poor black Zulus.

Completely the same.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

It is differing opinion and that usually makes a person bias towards things that back up that opinion.

We all like to think we are immune to it but we are all affected by it to some degree. Those less affected are those with no skin in the game and in this thread I would fall in that category.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
One is a veteran talking about veterans.
One is a rich white English woman talking about poor black Zulus.

Completely the same.

I never said they were the same type of person. I said that both (Allen and the author of the article) are guilty of moralistic fallacy (aka virtue signalling).

That reasoning unseats your proposition of your own non-bias, as you have offered an opinion on the nature of bias. We can keep circling back around like this if you like, but I wouldn't see the point.
a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
One is a veteran talking about veterans.
One is a rich white English woman talking about poor black Zulus.

Completely the same.

I never said they were the same type of person. I said that both (Allen and the author of the article) are guilty of moralistic fallacy (aka virtue signalling).

I don't think the poster intended to argue that the two people were of the same type. It looks as though you have intentionally missed the point.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

That is not an opinion on the nature of bias. It is fact.

I actually don't see much point to the thread except to point a finger at someone and then point at a vet and say I agree with this morally upright person, not like that other person. Guess what that is called?

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I don't think the poster intended to argue that the two people were of the same type. It looks as though you have intentionally missed the point.

And I never compared the actions of the two either. I compared the actions of Allen to the author of the article and those saying "me too". So, it seems, they missed my point.

Holding your opinions in high regard does not make them facts.
a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I don't think the poster intended to argue that the two people were of the same type. It looks as though you have intentionally missed the point.

And I never compared the actions of the two either. I compared the actions of Allen to the author of the article and those saying "me too". So, it seems, they missed my point.

That was not what I stated. It seems you have missed the point again, deliberately or not.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Opposing them doesn't make them untrue either.

That was not what I stated.

It is what the article stated. You agreed so, yeah, you said "me too".

Yawn.
a reply to: daskakik