ukip (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 matt_himself  Matataland 29 Apr 15 6.19pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.49pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 5.40pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.29pm
Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm
Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously. Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)
However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'. Why? But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?
Deflection. You spineless rat. You come across as having no scruples. Pathetic. I pity you.
One can only assume that you cannot back up your flimsy 'ideology'.
"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 6.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm
Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously. Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)
However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'. Why? But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?
You know this. The above makes no sense. Please, explain yourself in a cogent fashion or f*** off. I don't care which.
"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 |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Apr 15 6.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 6.19pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.49pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 5.40pm
Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.29pm
Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm
Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously. Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)
However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'. Why? But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?
Deflection. You spineless rat. You come across as having no scruples. Pathetic. I pity you.
One can only assume that you cannot back up your flimsy 'ideology'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | TheJudge 29 Apr 15 6.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 4.41pm
Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 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. 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 2.10pm) 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. I accept all of that but we are not talking about the majority who may well, as you say, interpret their faith in a way that suits them rather than the other way around, we are talking about a minority who use a version of their belief to essentially control others and another group who might actually be stupid enough to believe that rhetoric. Me too, and the best way of dealing with that is to focus on those who cause harm, rather than alienating whole swarths of a community. Same as we would do with any criminal or criminal network. I'm not sure that the whole regarding all muslims as suspects doesn't end up alienating people within those communities, resulting in them becoming radicalised. Groups like the EDL do more damage by their actions, because it causes conflict between a radical group (white far right t***s) and the muslim community, ultimately such confrontations and aggression result in people wanting to get their own back, which invariably puts them into more 'radical circles'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 29 Apr 15 6.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 6.21pm
Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm
Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm
Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously. Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)
However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'. Why? But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?
You know this. The above makes no sense. Please, explain yourself in a cogent fashion or f*** off. I don't care which.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 29 Apr 15 6.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 4.41pm
Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 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. 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 2.10pm) 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. I accept all of that but we are not talking about the majority who may well, as you say, interpret their faith in a way that suits them rather than the other way around, we are talking about a minority who use a version of their belief to essentially control others and another group who might actually be stupid enough to believe that rhetoric. Me too, and the best way of dealing with that is to focus on those who cause harm, rather than alienating whole swarths of a community. Same as we would do with any criminal or criminal network. I'm not sure that the whole regarding all muslims as suspects doesn't end up alienating people within those communities, resulting in them becoming radicalised. Groups like the EDL do more damage by their actions, because it causes conflict between a radical group (white far right t***s) and the muslim community, ultimately such confrontations and aggression result in people wanting to get their own back, which invariably puts them into more 'radical circles'. This is good news; all we have to do to stop terrorism associated with Islam is to ban organisations like the EDL. Why hasn't the government realised and acted on this before instead of trying to ban the terrorists?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 29 Apr 15 7.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2014 10.33pm
We need another argument type thread. Edited by nickgusset (29 Apr 2014 10.42pm)
ps. How's about an effort all round (including me) not to post stuff including numerous prior posts?As another poster (perhaps the OP,can't remember) put it on another thread a day or two ago,it almost begins to get near psychedelic at times...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 29 Apr 15 8.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 9.34am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Apr 2015 12.02am
So you interpret my words in a way that suits your agenda and then construct a very biased argument in response. I never said Labour engineered immigration for electoral reasons but you were obviously very sensitive about that notion. I suppose you think that migration has no effect on the political or economic landscape as people on your side of the fence normally do. How is life in La La land. ? Forgive me for misunderstanding you when you posted as below.As for the rest of the post,see your first paragraph above...pot,kettle...shoelace "The Judge at 28 Apr 2015 7.04pm Labour were hoping that the endless stream of immigrants would mean that they would win the election for ever more" Edited by legaleagle (29 Apr 2015 8.06pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
?| TheJudge 29 Apr 15 8.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Repeating what I said doesn't alter the meaning.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 29 Apr 15 8.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 8.11pm
Repeating what I said doesn't alter the meaning.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 29 Apr 15 8.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 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. I personally don't fancy it but they're finding it pretty easy to add to their ranks from the innocent Muslims of Britain.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| gerry theagle newbury 29 Apr 15 10.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Haven't you lot got anything better to do.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.