Topic

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 273 of 311 < 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 >

Topic Locked

TheJudge 29 Apr 15 12.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Apr 2015 11.43am Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.36am Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Apr 2015 11.03am Quote Seth at 28 Apr 2015 5.30pm Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Apr 2015 4.56pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Apr 2015 4.19pm Its almost as if it sells newspapers and content, to print only the 'inflamtory' side of stories. I mean you hear a lot about crazy Muslims, but you don't actually ever seem to see or met them. [Link] I'll bet Lee Rigby's family wished he hadn't seen or met crazy Muslims Jamie. Lee Rigby's family have also made it very clear they don't want his murder to be used a political football or a stick to beat Muslims in general with. I wasn't using it for that purpose Seth but as a retort to the ridiculous statement that you don't see or meet crazy Muslims FFS You don't in general, because they're a minority within a minority, probably just about on a par with crazy white folks with strange ideas that lead to them killing people. Sad fact of society, they're are always going to be 'crazy' f**ktards who think violence is its own solution. You keep believing that whilst the news shows us pictures of beheadings of hostages on a fairly regular basis now. See, the difference here, is that I prefer to judge people primarily either on the actions of the majority, who aren't murdering people, and on the individual experience of having known quite a few muslims now who all seem to be equally horrified by such actions. The fact that most of those being murdered by groups like IS, Al-Queda and their affiliates are Muslims themselves seems to be lost on people, who just see it as an excuse to denigrate whole swarths of a population. In fact most of those who have actually been engaged against Islamist terror are other Muslims (Kurds for example are about 80% Muslim). By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed. This really is a tiresome argument. Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ? The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result. It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country. I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality. In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ?
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

29 Apr 15 12.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Apr 2015 11.43am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.36am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 29 Apr 2015 11.03am

Quote Seth at 28 Apr 2015 5.30pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 28 Apr 2015 4.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Apr 2015 4.19pm

Its almost as if it sells newspapers and content, to print only the 'inflamtory' side of stories. I mean you hear a lot about crazy Muslims, but you don't actually ever seem to see or met them.

[Link]

I'll bet Lee Rigby's family wished he hadn't seen or met crazy Muslims Jamie.

Lee Rigby's family have also made it very clear they don't want his murder to be used a political football or a stick to beat Muslims in general with.

I wasn't using it for that purpose Seth but as a retort to the ridiculous statement that you don't see or meet crazy Muslims FFS

You don't in general, because they're a minority within a minority, probably just about on a par with crazy white folks with strange ideas that lead to them killing people.

Sad fact of society, they're are always going to be 'crazy' f**ktards who think violence is its own solution.

You keep believing that whilst the news shows us pictures of beheadings of hostages on a fairly regular basis now.

See, the difference here, is that I prefer to judge people primarily either on the actions of the majority, who aren't murdering people, and on the individual experience of having known quite a few muslims now who all seem to be equally horrified by such actions.

The fact that most of those being murdered by groups like IS, Al-Queda and their affiliates are Muslims themselves seems to be lost on people, who just see it as an excuse to denigrate whole swarths of a population. In fact most of those who have actually been engaged against Islamist terror are other Muslims (Kurds for example are about 80% Muslim).

By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed.

This really is a tiresome argument.
Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ?
The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result.
It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country.
I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality.
In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ?

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Apr 15 12.38pm
Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm This really is a tiresome argument. Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ? The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result. It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country. I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality. In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ? So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Apr 15 12.38pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm

So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 29 Apr 15 1.01pm
Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter. You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what. We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'? Simple question - would you use the 'n' word? You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words. With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found. Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it. Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting. Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'. It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense. Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm) "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 29 Apr 15 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'?

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found.

Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.

Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting.

Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'.

It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense.

Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 29 Apr 15 1.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am The fact that most of those being murdered by groups like IS, Al-Queda and their affiliates are Muslims themselves seems to be lost on people, who just see it as an excuse to denigrate whole swarths of a population. In fact most of those who have actually been engaged against Islamist terror are other Muslims (Kurds for example are about 80% Muslim). By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed. At the end of the day they're killing people because they're not the same as them. Not sure how I'm meant to take comfort from that or reevaluate their motives.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

29 Apr 15 1.03pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am

By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed.

At the end of the day they're killing people because they're not the same as them. Not sure how I'm meant to take comfort from that or reevaluate their motives.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 29 Apr 15 1.27pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter. You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what. We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'? Simple question - would you use the 'n' word? You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words. With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found. Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it. Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting. Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'. It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense. Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm) That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere? It has to be more than just because 'you say so'. A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 29 Apr 15 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.

It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense.

Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)

That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere?

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 29 Apr 15 2.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 12.38pm Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm This really is a tiresome argument. Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ? The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result. It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country. I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality. In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ? So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result. I think it is you that doesn't understand reality. Religion is a divisive mechanism and it will succeed in doing what it sets out to do. I do not put any faith in people of faith to do what is rational. If you can base your life around what you think God wants, then I cannot trust you be rational in the real world. Simple as that. Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.09pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.11pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.12pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

29 Apr 15 2.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 12.38pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm

So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result.

I think it is you that doesn't understand reality.

Religion is a divisive mechanism and it will succeed in doing what it sets out to do. I do not put any faith in people of faith to do what is rational. If you can base your life around what you think God wants, then I cannot trust you be rational in the real world. Simple as that.

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.09pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.11pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.12pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Apr 15 2.18pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter. You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what. We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'? Simple question - would you use the 'n' word? You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words. With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found. Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it. Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting. Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'. It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense. Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm) I read this as Blah blah bulls**tnonsese argument in reduction blah rhetorical cockwash blah blah you should be blah hypocrite blah.. but no actual point. As if that was an argument that justified referring to gay people on facebook as arse bandits. And then seem to imply that's somehow the same as banter among friends. Please reply when you can actually defend your point, rather than resorting to strawman arguments aimed at the poster, rather than the issue. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Apr 15 2.18pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.

Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)

I read this as

Blah blah bulls**tnonsese argument in reduction blah rhetorical cockwash blah blah you should be blah hypocrite blah.. but no actual point.

As if that was an argument that justified referring to gay people on facebook as arse bandits. And then seem to imply that's somehow the same as banter among friends.

Please reply when you can actually defend your point, rather than resorting to strawman arguments aimed at the poster, rather than the issue.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Apr 15 2.19pm
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Apr 2015 1.03pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am The fact that most of those being murdered by groups like IS, Al-Queda and their affiliates are Muslims themselves seems to be lost on people, who just see it as an excuse to denigrate whole swarths of a population. In fact most of those who have actually been engaged against Islamist terror are other Muslims (Kurds for example are about 80% Muslim). By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed. At the end of the day they're killing people because they're not the same as them. Not sure how I'm meant to take comfort from that or reevaluate their motives. Usually by separating out the people who are responsible for the crimes and autrocity, from those who aren't. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Apr 15 2.19pm

Quote johnfirewall at 29 Apr 2015 1.03pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am

By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed.

At the end of the day they're killing people because they're not the same as them. Not sure how I'm meant to take comfort from that or reevaluate their motives.

Usually by separating out the people who are responsible for the crimes and autrocity, from those who aren't.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Apr 15 2.23pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter. You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what. We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'? Simple question - would you use the 'n' word? You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words. With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found. Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it. Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting. Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'. It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense. Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm) I'd argue that its unacceptable, irrespective of being part of UKIP, to call people you don't know offensive names, because of their sexuality. Especially politicians and would be MP's as it talks to their character. They're in the public eye and for that they are held accountable for their ideas and beliefs they profess. What people talk about in their private lives and beliefs they hold is up to them to agree and live with. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Apr 15 2.23pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.

Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)

I'd argue that its unacceptable, irrespective of being part of UKIP, to call people you don't know offensive names, because of their sexuality.

Especially politicians and would be MP's as it talks to their character. They're in the public eye and for that they are held accountable for their ideas and beliefs they profess.

What people talk about in their private lives and beliefs they hold is up to them to agree and live with.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 29 Apr 15 2.37pm
Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter. You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what. We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'? Simple question - would you use the 'n' word? You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words. With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found. Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it. Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting. Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'. It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense. Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm) That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere? It has to be more than just because 'you say so'. A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange. You can't have it both ways and retain credibility. If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite. You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 29 Apr 15 2.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.

Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

You can't have it both ways and retain credibility.

If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite.

You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 29 Apr 15 2.44pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.37pm Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter. You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what. We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'? Simple question - would you use the 'n' word? You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words. With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found. Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it. Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting. Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'. It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense. Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm) That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere? It has to be more than just because 'you say so'. A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange. You can't have it both ways and retain credibility. If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite. You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael. In that case , I'd better start using the words'fvck' 'cvnt' and 'sh1t' in front of my lovely old mum so I can't be accused of even more (false) hypocrisy. Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously. Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 29 Apr 15 2.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.

Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

You can't have it both ways and retain credibility.

You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael.

In that case , I'd better start using the words'fvck' 'cvnt' and 'sh1t' in front of my lovely old mum so I can't be accused of even more (false) hypocrisy.

Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously.

Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Apr 15 2.58pm
Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 2.09pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 12.38pm Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm This really is a tiresome argument. Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ? The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result. It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country. I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality. In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ? So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result. I think it is you that doesn't understand reality. Religion is a divisive mechanism and it will succeed in doing what it sets out to do. I do not put any faith in people of faith to do what is rational. If you can base your life around what you think God wants, then I cannot trust you be rational in the real world. Simple as that. Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.09pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.11pm) Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.12pm) I don't generally think its rational to assume things about individuals, based on wildly distorted images in the media. As such I expect Muslims to be like the ones I've met and known, rather than the tabloid report. I generally reject hyperbole, hysteria and sweeping generalisations, it would be irrational to do otherwise. I also think most people who are religious, don't actually base their life around what 'god' wants anyhow, whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu (presumably more complex, if your god in question is a Monkey god). Usually people justify what they want by using religion, rather than being devout. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Apr 15 2.58pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 2.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 12.38pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm

I think it is you that doesn't understand reality.

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.09pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.11pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.12pm)

I don't generally think its rational to assume things about individuals, based on wildly distorted images in the media. As such I expect Muslims to be like the ones I've met and known, rather than the tabloid report.

I generally reject hyperbole, hysteria and sweeping generalisations, it would be irrational to do otherwise.

I also think most people who are religious, don't actually base their life around what 'god' wants anyhow, whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu (presumably more complex, if your god in question is a Monkey god).

Usually people justify what they want by using religion, rather than being devout.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 273 of 311 < 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

ukip (LOCKED)

Site Map

Sponsors