Today I'm angry about.....

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18436
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:56 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:18 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:49 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:32 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:30 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:26 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:25 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:58 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:24 pm
Jesus H Christ...

BBC News - Fund to boost female and black physicist numbers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47612806

Quote: Currently, 22% of the cohort studying physics to A Level are girls. (In contrast, 63% of the biology entrants are female).

So. Only 37% of the cohort studying biology are boys. :hang: but nobody gives a fxck about that, especially if they're white!
I see Jon Snow of Channel 4 News made some vacuous comment about the Brexit march and having never seen so many white people in one place.

Are opinions no longer relevant if we don't have a token black? Will Scientific American/Nature start to refuse to publish papers unless they are jointly authored by non whites? Will the population of Codnor be forcibly split up and transported to Tottenham?
What is it about anti-racists that they are so racist, anti-fascists that they are so fxcking fascist?
What is racist about saying "never seen so many white people in one place"? Probably inaccurate unless Jon Snow has never been to a premiership football match - but I digress.
Because it's irrelevant to the observation unless you intended it to mean something by stating the fact.
That's why it becomes racist.
If that's the logic chain you apply to statements then you've spent a hell of a lot of time arguing with me about what is/isn't racist about things that under that same definition are clearly racist.

Its racist if Snow was inferring that being on a Brexit march was a negative thing and that being white meant you were more inclined to indulge in such behaviour. I'm unconvinced he was doing either. But if he was then I'm with you.
Well, I'm saying he was doing both! He was stating being on a Brexit march was a negative thing (I've listened to him too many times not to catch the biased sarcasm), and he definitely implied that whites tended to these bad things - the sneer was enough to convey the message.

[And I'll still argue with you that Islamophobia isn't racist].
It doesn't matter what you define it as. Whether you are discriminating against people because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple.
No it's not so fxcking pure and simple. If you wish to discriminate against a Society Of Mass Murderers, I'd back you up that it would be legitimate to do so... How do you feel about paedophiles for example? Do you feel that if I discriminate against paedophiles it is wrong, pure and simple?
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:56 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:18 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:49 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:32 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:30 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:26 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:25 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:58 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:24 pm
Jesus H Christ...

BBC News - Fund to boost female and black physicist numbers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47612806

Quote: Currently, 22% of the cohort studying physics to A Level are girls. (In contrast, 63% of the biology entrants are female).

So. Only 37% of the cohort studying biology are boys. :hang: but nobody gives a fxck about that, especially if they're white!
I see Jon Snow of Channel 4 News made some vacuous comment about the Brexit march and having never seen so many white people in one place.

Are opinions no longer relevant if we don't have a token black? Will Scientific American/Nature start to refuse to publish papers unless they are jointly authored by non whites? Will the population of Codnor be forcibly split up and transported to Tottenham?
What is it about anti-racists that they are so racist, anti-fascists that they are so fxcking fascist?
What is racist about saying "never seen so many white people in one place"? Probably inaccurate unless Jon Snow has never been to a premiership football match - but I digress.
Because it's irrelevant to the observation unless you intended it to mean something by stating the fact.
That's why it becomes racist.
If that's the logic chain you apply to statements then you've spent a hell of a lot of time arguing with me about what is/isn't racist about things that under that same definition are clearly racist.

Its racist if Snow was inferring that being on a Brexit march was a negative thing and that being white meant you were more inclined to indulge in such behaviour. I'm unconvinced he was doing either. But if he was then I'm with you.
Well, I'm saying he was doing both! He was stating being on a Brexit march was a negative thing (I've listened to him too many times not to catch the biased sarcasm), and he definitely implied that whites tended to these bad things - the sneer was enough to convey the message.

[And I'll still argue with you that Islamophobia isn't racist].
It doesn't matter what you define it as. Whether you are discriminating against people because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple.
No it's not so fxcking pure and simple. If you wish to discriminate against a Society Of Mass Murderers, I'd back you up that it would be legitimate to do so... How do you feel about paedophiles for example? Do you feel that if I discriminate against paedophiles it is wrong, pure and simple?
What protected characteristic would a society of mass murderers share?

Or paedophiles for that matter.

Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. And in no way equates to saying ‘paedophiles are horrible’. Because simply, you are taking a group of people who have broken the law. Rather than for examplesaying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38683
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by TANGODANCER » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18436
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:44 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:56 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:18 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:49 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:32 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:30 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:26 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:25 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:58 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:24 pm
Jesus H Christ...

BBC News - Fund to boost female and black physicist numbers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47612806

Quote: Currently, 22% of the cohort studying physics to A Level are girls. (In contrast, 63% of the biology entrants are female).

So. Only 37% of the cohort studying biology are boys. :hang: but nobody gives a fxck about that, especially if they're white!
I see Jon Snow of Channel 4 News made some vacuous comment about the Brexit march and having never seen so many white people in one place.

Are opinions no longer relevant if we don't have a token black? Will Scientific American/Nature start to refuse to publish papers unless they are jointly authored by non whites? Will the population of Codnor be forcibly split up and transported to Tottenham?
What is it about anti-racists that they are so racist, anti-fascists that they are so fxcking fascist?
What is racist about saying "never seen so many white people in one place"? Probably inaccurate unless Jon Snow has never been to a premiership football match - but I digress.
Because it's irrelevant to the observation unless you intended it to mean something by stating the fact.
That's why it becomes racist.
If that's the logic chain you apply to statements then you've spent a hell of a lot of time arguing with me about what is/isn't racist about things that under that same definition are clearly racist.

Its racist if Snow was inferring that being on a Brexit march was a negative thing and that being white meant you were more inclined to indulge in such behaviour. I'm unconvinced he was doing either. But if he was then I'm with you.
Well, I'm saying he was doing both! He was stating being on a Brexit march was a negative thing (I've listened to him too many times not to catch the biased sarcasm), and he definitely implied that whites tended to these bad things - the sneer was enough to convey the message.

[And I'll still argue with you that Islamophobia isn't racist].
It doesn't matter what you define it as. Whether you are discriminating against people because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple.
No it's not so fxcking pure and simple. If you wish to discriminate against a Society Of Mass Murderers, I'd back you up that it would be legitimate to do so... How do you feel about paedophiles for example? Do you feel that if I discriminate against paedophiles it is wrong, pure and simple?
What protected characteristic would a society of mass murderers share?

Or paedophiles for that matter.

Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. And in no way equates to saying ‘paedophiles are horrible’. Because simply, you are taking a group of people who have broken the law. Rather than for examplesaying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You quite clearly are not cut out for this debate.
What difference is there between homosexuals and paedophiles, except in your head?
Both are communities that have been outlawed and persecuted. Both are communities that were tolerated in Athenian society....
I happen to be anti one (paedophile) and indifferent to the other (homosexual).
You are anti one (paedophile) but denying they are a community, whilst being pro the other (homosexual).
You need to drill down to the nub to understand why it is that communities can be abhorrent to non members of a community...
If you think about it properly, you are as biased as I am against paedophiles. How does that sit with your stupid unthought out statement that prejudice against people because of their sex, race, colour, religion, or any other characteristic is wrong!?
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:59 pm

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:44 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:56 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:18 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:49 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:32 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:30 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:26 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 1:25 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:58 pm
[quote="Lost Leopard Spot" post_id=1071133 time=1553873057 user_id=4530]
Jesus H Christ...

BBC News - Fund to boost female and black physicist numbers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47612806

Quote: Currently, 22% of the cohort studying physics to A Level are girls. (In contrast, 63% of the biology entrants are female).

So. Only 37% of the cohort studying biology are boys. :hang: but nobody gives a fxck about that, especially if they're white!
I see Jon Snow of Channel 4 News made some vacuous comment about the Brexit march and having never seen so many white people in one place.

Are opinions no longer relevant if we don't have a token black? Will Scientific American/Nature start to refuse to publish papers unless they are jointly authored by non whites? Will the population of Codnor be forcibly split up and transported to Tottenham?
What is it about anti-racists that they are so racist, anti-fascists that they are so fxcking fascist?
What is racist about saying "never seen so many white people in one place"? Probably inaccurate unless Jon Snow has never been to a premiership football match - but I digress.
Because it's irrelevant to the observation unless you intended it to mean something by stating the fact.
That's why it becomes racist.
If that's the logic chain you apply to statements then you've spent a hell of a lot of time arguing with me about what is/isn't racist about things that under that same definition are clearly racist.

Its racist if Snow was inferring that being on a Brexit march was a negative thing and that being white meant you were more inclined to indulge in such behaviour. I'm unconvinced he was doing either. But if he was then I'm with you.
Well, I'm saying he was doing both! He was stating being on a Brexit march was a negative thing (I've listened to him too many times not to catch the biased sarcasm), and he definitely implied that whites tended to these bad things - the sneer was enough to convey the message.

[And I'll still argue with you that Islamophobia isn't racist].
It doesn't matter what you define it as. Whether you are discriminating against people because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple.
No it's not so fxcking pure and simple. If you wish to discriminate against a Society Of Mass Murderers, I'd back you up that it would be legitimate to do so... How do you feel about paedophiles for example? Do you feel that if I discriminate against paedophiles it is wrong, pure and simple?
What protected characteristic would a society of mass murderers share?

Or paedophiles for that matter.

Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. And in no way equates to saying ‘paedophiles are horrible’. Because simply, you are taking a group of people who have broken the law. Rather than for examplesaying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You quite clearly are not cut out for this debate.
What difference is there between homosexuals and paedophiles, except in your head?
Both are communities that have been outlawed and persecuted. Both are communities that were tolerated in Athenian society....
I happen to be anti one (paedophile) and indifferent to the other (homosexual).
You are anti one (paedophile) but denying they are a community, whilst being pro the other (homosexual).
You need to drill down to the nub to understand why it is that communities can be abhorrent to non members of a community...
If you think about it properly, you are as biased as I am against paedophiles. How does that sit with your stupid unthought out statement that prejudice against people because of their sex, race, colour, religion, or any other characteristic is wrong!?
[/quote]

Paedophilia is illegal, since it is harmful to children who need to be protected by society.

Homosexuality is not illegal since it is not harmful to the individuals involved.

It has nothing to do with bias. Whether paedophilia is a form of sexuality and no more a choice than homosexuality is an entirely different discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with prejudice.

We are talking about prejudice against large groups of people, not small groups of criminals. Ascribing negative characteristics to someone purely because of their country of birth, their race, or their faith is completely and utterly wrong. To try and suggest otherwise is nonsense.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
You mean my example of what is prejudice is actually prejudice? You get that was the point don’t you?

LLS is arguing we should be able to be prejudice against people because of their religion. I am arguing absolutely against that. Perhaps you should take that up with him.

User avatar
OrtonCakeBingoBongo
Hopeful
Hopeful
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 9:30 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by OrtonCakeBingoBongo » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pm

Can I have a mention while I'm stopping by.

Angry today about a number of things, i.e.

1 Lighter evenings, I like the winter and dark early
2 That Brexit nonsense that goes on and on and no resolution
3 Knife crime on the streets and not enough being done
4 Foreign students all over Town
5 Putting your favourite show on at 2.15 in the morning so it's not possible to view it

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4267
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Enoch » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:35 pm

OrtonCakeBingoBongo wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 pm
Can I have a mention while I'm stopping by.

Angry today about a number of things, i.e.

1 Lighter evenings, I like the winter and dark early
2 That Brexit nonsense that goes on and on and no resolution
3 Knife crime on the streets and not enough being done
4 Foreign students all over Town
5 Putting your favourite show on at 2.15 in the morning so it's not possible to view it
Get it all out there, Fella. :)

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38683
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Lost between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by TANGODANCER » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:40 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
You mean my example of what is prejudice is actually prejudice? You get that was the point don’t you?
Please don't do the smug know-all bit, it's irritating. I get the point that you choose to insensitively use Catholic men (of which I am decidedly one) to put up as an example of your point if they are any different than anyone else; or are paedophiles and rapists in need of further definition than the abuse they inflict on victims? That's the point I get.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12745
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:15 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:40 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
You mean my example of what is prejudice is actually prejudice? You get that was the point don’t you?
Please don't do the smug know-all bit, it's irritating. I get the point that you choose to insensitively use Catholic men (of which I am decidedly one) to put up as an example of your point if they are any different than anyone else; or are paedophiles and rapists in need of further definition than the abuse they inflict on victims? That's the point I get.
I feel a bit sorry for Insano. He wrote "Whether you are discriminating against people [purely] because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple." I added the "purely" for clarity but it is hard to argue against his basic point. He is essentially correct but is getting lambasted for his use of a poor example. If he had said all men should not be condemned because some are rapists, we would all agree. "Catholic" was unfortunate since paedophilia is not limited to Roman Catholics (though we hear a lot about those priests). I know of Spotty's history with some Muslims and sympathize with his view, but it is wrong to condemn all Muslims for what some did to him and continue to do to others. Most Muslims I know find this Jihad stuff abhorrent.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:13 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:40 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
You mean my example of what is prejudice is actually prejudice? You get that was the point don’t you?
Please don't do the smug know-all bit, it's irritating. I get the point that you choose to insensitively use Catholic men (of which I am decidedly one) to put up as an example of your point if they are any different than anyone else; or are paedophiles and rapists in need of further definition than the abuse they inflict on victims? That's the point I get.
That's the point I'm making. And the one LLS is arguing against.

Paedophiles break the law - a law designed to protect children. Whether they are white, brown, yellow, catholic, muslim - it doesn't matter. And that we should not be prejudicial against anyone simply because of their faith or colour, or nationality....simple as that.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:16 am

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:15 am
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:40 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
You mean my example of what is prejudice is actually prejudice? You get that was the point don’t you?
Please don't do the smug know-all bit, it's irritating. I get the point that you choose to insensitively use Catholic men (of which I am decidedly one) to put up as an example of your point if they are any different than anyone else; or are paedophiles and rapists in need of further definition than the abuse they inflict on victims? That's the point I get.
I feel a bit sorry for Insano. He wrote "Whether you are discriminating against people [purely] because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple." I added the "purely" for clarity but it is hard to argue against his basic point. He is essentially correct but is getting lambasted for his use of a poor example. If he had said all men should not be condemned because some are rapists, we would all agree. "Catholic" was unfortunate since paedophilia is not limited to Roman Catholics (though we hear a lot about those priests). I know of Spotty's history with some Muslims and sympathize with his view, but it is wrong to condemn all Muslims for what some did to him and continue to do to others. Most Muslims I know find this Jihad stuff abhorrent.
I was suggesting exactly that. It isn't limited to any race, ethnicity, religion or colour.

So judge paedophiles. Not Catholics, Sikhs, Muslims etc....

The fact TD didn't like that phrase shows why it is wrong. But it is also wrong to label any group of people simply because of their faith. Simple as that. And Islamophobia is wrong. And is in my view (and most scholars in this country too) racism.

Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12900
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Hoboh » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:26 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:16 am
Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:15 am
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:40 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:00 pm
TANGODANCER wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:51 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:12 pm




Prejudice against people purely because of their origin, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc is wrong however you try and cut it. Rather than for example saying ‘all Catholic men should be arrested in case they are paedos’, which is simply wrong.
You choose an example which in itself borders on prejudice. I find your choice unfortunate to say the very least. Badly done Mr Insane, badly done.
You mean my example of what is prejudice is actually prejudice? You get that was the point don’t you?
Please don't do the smug know-all bit, it's irritating. I get the point that you choose to insensitively use Catholic men (of which I am decidedly one) to put up as an example of your point if they are any different than anyone else; or are paedophiles and rapists in need of further definition than the abuse they inflict on victims? That's the point I get.
I feel a bit sorry for Insano. He wrote "Whether you are discriminating against people [purely] because of their sex, race, colour, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic it is wrong, pure and simple." I added the "purely" for clarity but it is hard to argue against his basic point. He is essentially correct but is getting lambasted for his use of a poor example. If he had said all men should not be condemned because some are rapists, we would all agree. "Catholic" was unfortunate since paedophilia is not limited to Roman Catholics (though we hear a lot about those priests). I know of Spotty's history with some Muslims and sympathize with his view, but it is wrong to condemn all Muslims for what some did to him and continue to do to others. Most Muslims I know find this Jihad stuff abhorrent.
I was suggesting exactly that. It isn't limited to any race, ethnicity, religion or colour.

So judge paedophiles. Not Catholics, Sikhs, Muslims etc....

The fact TD didn't like that phrase shows why it is wrong. But it is also wrong to label any group of people simply because of their faith. Simple as that. And Islamophobia is wrong. And is in my view (and most scholars in this country too) racism.
Given there are large numbers of Muslims that are quick to revert to ancient thoughts and ways are you really surprised?
And before you start, walk into a village most places in Pakistan and pass any Christian or other view, good luck with that.
You are very correct to state that all Muslims are not involved nor approve of what goes on across the world and the same generally applies to other parts of society but surely you realise that the actions of some promote fear and anger in other parts of society?

Anyway, welcome to the fall foul by upsetting someone liberal PC world you admire so much :D

Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36462
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Bruce Rioja » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:52 am

You can say what you want about Catholics, but at least they drive slowly through school zones. :)
May the bridges I burn light your way

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:57 am

Hoboh wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:26 am


Given there are large numbers of Muslims that are quick to revert to ancient thoughts and ways are you really surprised?
And before you start, walk into a village most places in Pakistan and pass any Christian or other view, good luck with that.
You are very correct to state that all Muslims are not involved nor approve of what goes on across the world and the same generally applies to other parts of society but surely you realise that the actions of some promote fear and anger in other parts of society?

Anyway, welcome to the fall foul by upsetting someone liberal PC world you admire so much :D
But there are many white men who are violent nazis - should we therefore fear all white men?

Also - it isn't only Muslim countries that sometimes are not tolerant of outside views, practices or faiths.

My point is that it is wrong to selectively justify "fear of Islam" - and makes absolutely no sense. Condemn Saudi Arabia for their appalling human rights. Absolutely. Just in the same way I'd support criticism of Israel sometimes but not accept that same criticism being applied to "Jewish people".

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18436
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:03 pm

So you bang on about illegality and condemn paedophiles because they can be brown white or black, but all of them are illegal whilst supporting homosexuals because they are not illegal.
So theoretically then you would have condemned Oscar Wilde to prison and would support the Sultan of Brunei in stoning homosexuals to death, and if you'd been in Raqqa in 2016 would have applauded the throwing of homosexuals off of buildings, but if you'd been born 340 BC you'd be supporting the rights of paedophiles: and all because of legality!?

FFS just because all Muslims don't stone or defenestrate all homosexuals doesn't make the Islamic injunction to do so correct.

So you see, we are back where we started. It isn't as cut and dried as you like to think.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:15 pm

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:03 pm
So you bang on about illegality and condemn paedophiles because they can be brown white or black, but all of them are illegal whilst supporting homosexuals because they are not illegal.
So theoretically then you would have condemned Oscar Wilde to prison and would support the Sultan of Brunei in stoning homosexuals to death, and if you'd been in Raqqa in 2016 would have applauded the throwing of homosexuals off of buildings, but if you'd been born 340 BC you'd be supporting the rights of paedophiles: and all because of legality!?

FFS just because all Muslims don't stone or defenestrate all homosexuals doesn't make the Islamic injunction to do so correct.

So you see, we are back where we started. It isn't as cut and dried as you like to think.
It isn't purely about legality. And you've misrepresented my point. I would expect I'd have been fully against wife beating, even when it was legal, as I was opposed to for example, beating of children in schools even when that was legal.

But pedophilia is illegal because it is harmful in the extreme to children. The law and the reasoning behind it, is something the vast majority of right minded people accept.

Just because Israel kills Palestinian Children it doesn't mean all Jews are child killers. That is my point.

Because some countries that are Muslim are archaic does not apply to the Muslim people are a whole.

In the same way that some Southern states in the USA still use Christianity as an excuse to beat their children - it doesn't mean Christians are child beaters.

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18436
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:23 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:15 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:03 pm
So you bang on about illegality and condemn paedophiles because they can be brown white or black, but all of them are illegal whilst supporting homosexuals because they are not illegal.
So theoretically then you would have condemned Oscar Wilde to prison and would support the Sultan of Brunei in stoning homosexuals to death, and if you'd been in Raqqa in 2016 would have applauded the throwing of homosexuals off of buildings, but if you'd been born 340 BC you'd be supporting the rights of paedophiles: and all because of legality!?

FFS just because all Muslims don't stone or defenestrate all homosexuals doesn't make the Islamic injunction to do so correct.

So you see, we are back where we started. It isn't as cut and dried as you like to think.
It isn't purely about legality. And you've misrepresented my point. I would expect I'd have been fully against wife beating, even when it was legal, as I was opposed to for example, beating of children in schools even when that was legal.

But pedophilia is illegal because it is harmful in the extreme to children. The law and the reasoning behind it, is something the vast majority of right minded people accept.

Just because Israel kills Palestinian Children it doesn't mean all Jews are child killers. That is my point.

Because some countries that are Muslim are archaic does not apply to the Muslim people are a whole.

In the same way that some Southern states in the USA still use Christianity as an excuse to beat their children - it doesn't mean Christians are child beaters.
So there are nuances, then?
So you can accept that some communities are not acceptable even if they are legal?
Which brings us back, brings us aaaaaallllll back, to what it is that 'you' think is acceptable.
You think one thing, I think another.
When enough of us in one society thinks one thing it becomes legal, when an equal majority in another society thinks the opposite it becomes illegal!

So far, in the society I live in, it is legal for me to express a view that Religious beliefs are Nonsense. I am legally allowed to express "dislike" and "antipathy" to faith.
Blasphemy is not a crime. Free speech is upheld in law.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

User avatar
Lost Leopard Spot
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 18436
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by Lost Leopard Spot » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:29 pm

By the way, you asked earlier: what characteristic would a society of mass murderers share?

Well, one historic example would be to be an Indian in India in 1812

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 27083
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Today I'm angry about.....

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:04 am

Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:23 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:15 pm
Lost Leopard Spot wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:03 pm
So you bang on about illegality and condemn paedophiles because they can be brown white or black, but all of them are illegal whilst supporting homosexuals because they are not illegal.
So theoretically then you would have condemned Oscar Wilde to prison and would support the Sultan of Brunei in stoning homosexuals to death, and if you'd been in Raqqa in 2016 would have applauded the throwing of homosexuals off of buildings, but if you'd been born 340 BC you'd be supporting the rights of paedophiles: and all because of legality!?

FFS just because all Muslims don't stone or defenestrate all homosexuals doesn't make the Islamic injunction to do so correct.

So you see, we are back where we started. It isn't as cut and dried as you like to think.
It isn't purely about legality. And you've misrepresented my point. I would expect I'd have been fully against wife beating, even when it was legal, as I was opposed to for example, beating of children in schools even when that was legal.

But pedophilia is illegal because it is harmful in the extreme to children. The law and the reasoning behind it, is something the vast majority of right minded people accept.

Just because Israel kills Palestinian Children it doesn't mean all Jews are child killers. That is my point.

Because some countries that are Muslim are archaic does not apply to the Muslim people are a whole.

In the same way that some Southern states in the USA still use Christianity as an excuse to beat their children - it doesn't mean Christians are child beaters.
So there are nuances, then?
So you can accept that some communities are not acceptable even if they are legal?
Which brings us back, brings us aaaaaallllll back, to what it is that 'you' think is acceptable.
You think one thing, I think another.
When enough of us in one society thinks one thing it becomes legal, when an equal majority in another society thinks the opposite it becomes illegal!

So far, in the society I live in, it is legal for me to express a view that Religious beliefs are Nonsense. I am legally allowed to express "dislike" and "antipathy" to faith.
Blasphemy is not a crime. Free speech is upheld in law.
I share that bold part belief with you.

But what you're confusing is groups of people who do nasty things with who faiths, religions or ethnicities. And the use of the word "communities" is not appropriate.

There aren't generally communities of murderers or rapists or whatever. And fundamentally you can be a horrible person regardless of where you are born, what your faith is, what colour you are etc....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KeyserSoze, TANGODANCER and 24 guests