Diversity Schmeristy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 19 of 22 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

ghosteagle 31 Jul 15 7.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 7.09pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.36pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.24pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.05pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.58pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.45pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.36pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.20pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.01pm Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.16pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.08pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.50pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.28pm Quote Superfly at 30 Jul 2015 1.52pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm It's not that at all. Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights as straight people, or black people the same as whites. The problem is that this obsession with diversity is going so far that some groups are getting even more rights just because some people-usually of a liberal dis-position -are petrified of being branded sexist, racist, fascist. It's becoming ridiculous now. We got on fine before all this nonsense. The British people are the most tolerant people on this planet. Do you honestly believe that? I must have imagined the late 70s and 80s, and the National Front and **bashing etc. But we're not in the 70's and 80's are we? The nineties and the noughties showed that people are a lot more civilised due to better education and more awareness of what's going on in the world. Your argument is flawed if you think that people nowadays still have the mentality of people in the 70's and 80's. This is pure pie in the sky with nothing to back it up. I don't think anyone is civilized. Both in your humble opinions. What is pie in the sky anyway? I'm pretty sure people are more aware of social issues and attitudes have changed greatly since the 70' and 80's, or are you one of those people who think that every English person is a 'little Englander' and knuckle scraping neanderthal? Don't bother answering, I know the answer. Pie in the sky is a saying that translates roughly as 'complete rubbish' or 'a made up lie'. Again, apart from the reassurance that 'you are sure' you prevent no evidence to back up your views. I do not think that everybody from england is a 'little englander' or the term would have no context. The opinions that i associate with 'little englanders' are those sections of society that think that all problems are generally the fault of 'foreigners' and 'shirkers'. They also neglect to investigate issues and ascertain the facts before making grand statements that leave them open to ridicule. I post my views, I don't feel the need to post stats and articles backing them up because they are my views. It doesn't matter what you post from Wikipedia or some new report doing the rounds, because there's no doubt that there'll be another report to the contrary. Lets take windfarms. For every scientist that says they're great there's a scientist that says they're useless. Posting the latest shiny article from some magazine you've read proves absolutely nothing other than you know how to post a link, spend your time scouring the internet and disagree with what I post, but it doesn't matter to me as my view does not change and my beliefs are still intact. A refreshing honest post. No matter the evidence fed-up will never change his views. Classic! But when the evidence is from left wing rags with an agenda why would I change my views, because ultimately I know the truth. If you want to believe leftist propaganda and not make up your own mind then that's up to you. Ifyou need to read a magazine to form your views on the world then that really says more about you than it does about me That�s just about the most arrogant thing i think you could have said. You also seem to hold a special contempt for people who do research, read and generally try and educate themselves about situations before they form a view. Says it all, and it�s a free world but i'd advise you for your own sake to try some education now and then. I think you're the only arrogant person on here. Nothing wrong with proper education, but propaganda isn't worth the paper it's written on. You get upset and name call anyone who disagrees with you, I'd say that's the most arrogant attitude I've ever encountered. I'm just confident in my views, you are quite immature and insecure, bless. You clearly stated that 'ultimately i know the truth', which is both untrue and hugely conceited. I would ask how one can tell the difference between 'proper education' and propaganda but then i guess that you just 'know the truth'. I have not called you any names and would ask that you refrain from making up lies about posters to detract from your lack of logical reasoning. You are entitled to be confident in your views, but your claims for ownership of truth are misplaced and a little silly. I hope for your sake that you can learn to be a little more open minded and then you might possibly be able to contribute to debates in a meaningful way. What a load of patronising bilge. How do you know I don't know the truth? Are you a higher being? Maybe you're God! I kneel down to you oh great one! What lies have I made up about other posters? 'Lack of logical reasoning'? Well that's your opinion. You really do give off the attitude of someone with a chip on their shoulder. I would suggest you should not be so patronising and dismissive of other people's views just because they don't match yours. I will admit to somewhat winding you up with 'the truth' thing as I knew it would get you going, and sure enough here you are getting all excited and abusive. Hook line and sinker. I will stand by my claim though that no matter what left wing rubbish you type you will not change my mind or my opinions. You can shout until you're blue in the face and type furiously until your fingers bleed, but the fact is you couldn't construct a Lego set let alone a compelling argument that would get me to agree with you or change my views. Firstly, this is an internet forum so i will not be shouting or uttering any verbal pronouncements. I will also not be typing until my 'fingers bleed' as you have already stated that no amount of evidence would convince you to change your views so there seems little point in using evidence and facts when dealing with a person such as yourself. Your lack of logical reasoning is more than my opinion, your views are proclaimed as 'facts' with you even proclaiming that you 'know the truth' and then when it becomes apparent that this has made you look a little silly you try to back out of and claim it was some kind of joke. A more childish ruse i cannot recall. I am patronising and dismissive of your views, but not because i disagree, but because you provide no evidential basis for any of you outlandish pronouncements you have made and then resort to immature name calling and fits of hysteria when challenged upon the thought process upon which your views are based. As you have already stated, you will never change your views, so i fully accept that nobody on earth could change what you have opted to call 'your opinions'. I must say i think this is sad for you and i hope that you can try to open your mind and entertain the idea that other people might have valuable insights into some of the debates that are taking place. Edited by ghosteagle (31 Jul 2015 6.36pm) The whole point of someones view is it's exactly that. It doesn't need to be backed up because it is a view.** If you choose to see it that I have stated it as fact then that is your choice. My mind is perfectly open to sensible views and debate. I would say your mind is the one that is closed as if the view isn't of a left wing variety then it bares no weight with you. Also, I really do not recall name calling you, you really don't rank that highly in my train of thought. I don't think it 'sad' that I don't fall for leftist propaganda like you do. As for proclaiming that I know the truth, well that was simply a rouse to wind you up, but naturally you have chosen to translate it a something completely different, but then that is your right. My views are not based on hysteria, what they are based on is what I read, see on the news and other sources. I find it sad that you will not look at ALL the arguments on a subject before reaching a conclusion. I have been well travelled, served eight years in the British army and feel that I am worldly wise enough to make my own views. I have seen many different cultures at first hand and feel that my views are reasonably well educated, especially on these people who have invaded Calais and intend to invade us. That is all I have to say on this and you should let it rest, instead of parrotting on about it. You open your argument with a misunderstanding about what a forum is for. A forum is for debate. For debate to take place people must have something behind their views rather than just blind prejudice. I'm sorry you feel that your bigotry does not need to be justified, it must colour your view of the world and its people. Your claim to have spent 8 years in the british army is becoming old, and is as irrelevant as the last time you mentioned it. While you feel it may make up for the intellectual deficit and casual racism that you employ, i must disagree and ask you to try and consider that others may find your posts offensive and unwarranted. Your use of the word 'invade' when referring to the migrants in Calais is a thinly veiled attempt to introduce an agenda to the debate and there is no justification for using such a highly emotive word. Although i find it sad that you are determined to cling to your misguided views i hope for your sake that one day you may be able to join with others in debates of an open and free nature. I think that i must end the conversation here as i sense that your mind is closed to concepts of freedom and equality and although i have tried to give you the help you so badly need i don't think you are ready to accept the help of others.
Alert a moderator to this post

ghosteagle

31 Jul 15 7.26pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 7.09pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.24pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.05pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.58pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.45pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.36pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.20pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.01pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.16pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.57pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.28pm

Quote Superfly at 30 Jul 2015 1.52pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm

It's not that at all. Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights as straight people, or black people the same as whites. The problem is that this obsession with diversity is going so far that some groups are getting even more rights just because some people-usually of a liberal dis-position -are petrified of being branded sexist, racist, fascist. It's becoming ridiculous now. We got on fine before all this nonsense. The British people are the most tolerant people on this planet.

Do you honestly believe that?

I must have imagined the late 70s and 80s, and the National Front and ****bashing etc.

But we're not in the 70's and 80's are we? The nineties and the noughties showed that people are a lot more civilised due to better education and more awareness of what's going on in the world. Your argument is flawed if you think that people nowadays still have the mentality of people in the 70's and 80's.

This is pure pie in the sky with nothing to back it up.

I don't think anyone is civilized.

Both in your humble opinions.

What is pie in the sky anyway? I'm pretty sure people are more aware of social issues and attitudes have changed greatly since the 70' and 80's, or are you one of those people who think that every English person is a 'little Englander' and knuckle scraping neanderthal? Don't bother answering, I know the answer.

Pie in the sky is a saying that translates roughly as 'complete rubbish' or 'a made up lie'.
Again, apart from the reassurance that 'you are sure' you prevent no evidence to back up your views.
I do not think that everybody from england is a 'little englander' or the term would have no context. The opinions that i associate with 'little englanders' are those sections of society that think that all problems are generally the fault of 'foreigners' and 'shirkers'. They also neglect to investigate issues and ascertain the facts before making grand statements that leave them open to ridicule.

I post my views, I don't feel the need to post stats and articles backing them up because they are my views. It doesn't matter what you post from Wikipedia or some new report doing the rounds, because there's no doubt that there'll be another report to the contrary. Lets take windfarms. For every scientist that says they're great there's a scientist that says they're useless. Posting the latest shiny article from some magazine you've read proves absolutely nothing other than you know how to post a link, spend your time scouring the internet and disagree with what I post, but it doesn't matter to me as my view does not change and my beliefs are still intact.

A refreshing honest post. No matter the evidence fed-up will never change his views. Classic!

But when the evidence is from left wing rags with an agenda why would I change my views, because ultimately I know the truth. If you want to believe leftist propaganda and not make up your own mind then that's up to you. Ifyou need to read a magazine to form your views on the world then that really says more about you than it does about me

That�s just about the most arrogant thing i think you could have said. You also seem to hold a special contempt for people who do research, read and generally try and educate themselves about situations before they form a view. Says it all, and it�s a free world but i'd advise you for your own sake to try some education now and then.

I think you're the only arrogant person on here. Nothing wrong with proper education, but propaganda isn't worth the paper it's written on. You get upset and name call anyone who disagrees with you, I'd say that's the most arrogant attitude I've ever encountered. I'm just confident in my views, you are quite immature and insecure, bless.

You clearly stated that 'ultimately i know the truth', which is both untrue and hugely conceited. I would ask how one can tell the difference between 'proper education' and propaganda but then i guess that you just 'know the truth'. I have not called you any names and would ask that you refrain from making up lies about posters to detract from your lack of logical reasoning. You are entitled to be confident in your views, but your claims for ownership of truth are misplaced and a little silly. I hope for your sake that you can learn to be a little more open minded and then you might possibly be able to contribute to debates in a meaningful way.

What a load of patronising bilge. How do you know I don't know the truth? Are you a higher being? Maybe you're God! I kneel down to you oh great one!
What lies have I made up about other posters?
'Lack of logical reasoning'? Well that's your opinion.
You really do give off the attitude of someone with a chip on their shoulder. I would suggest you should not be so patronising and dismissive of other people's views just because they don't match yours. I will admit to somewhat winding you up with 'the truth' thing as I knew it would get you going, and sure enough here you are getting all excited and abusive. Hook line and sinker.
I will stand by my claim though that no matter what left wing rubbish you type you will not change my mind or my opinions. You can shout until you're blue in the face and type furiously until your fingers bleed, but the fact is you couldn't construct a Lego set let alone a compelling argument that would get me to agree with you or change my views.

Firstly, this is an internet forum so i will not be shouting or uttering any verbal pronouncements. I will also not be typing until my 'fingers bleed' as you have already stated that no amount of evidence would convince you to change your views so there seems little point in using evidence and facts when dealing with a person such as yourself.
Your lack of logical reasoning is more than my opinion, your views are proclaimed as 'facts' with you even proclaiming that you 'know the truth' and then when it becomes apparent that this has made you look a little silly you try to back out of and claim it was some kind of joke. A more childish ruse i cannot recall.
I am patronising and dismissive of your views, but not because i disagree, but because you provide no evidential basis for any of you outlandish pronouncements you have made and then resort to immature name calling and fits of hysteria when challenged upon the thought process upon which your views are based.
As you have already stated, you will never change your views, so i fully accept that nobody on earth could change what you have opted to call 'your opinions'. I must say i think this is sad for you and i hope that you can try to open your mind and entertain the idea that other people might have valuable insights into some of the debates that are taking place.

Edited by ghosteagle (31 Jul 2015 6.36pm)

The whole point of someones view is it's exactly that. It doesn't need to be backed up because it is a view. If you choose to see it that I have stated it as fact then that is your choice. My mind is perfectly open to sensible views and debate. I would say your mind is the one that is closed as if the view isn't of a left wing variety then it bares no weight with you.
Also, I really do not recall name calling you, you really don't rank that highly in my train of thought. I don't think it 'sad' that I don't fall for leftist propaganda like you do. As for proclaiming that I know the truth, well that was simply a rouse to wind you up, but naturally you have chosen to translate it a something completely different, but then that is your right.
My views are not based on hysteria, what they are based on is what I read, see on the news and other sources. I find it sad that you will not look at ALL the arguments on a subject before reaching a conclusion. I have been well travelled, served eight years in the British army and feel that I am worldly wise enough to make my own views. I have seen many different cultures at first hand and feel that my views are reasonably well educated, especially on these people who have invaded Calais and intend to invade us. That is all I have to say on this and you should let it rest, instead of parrotting on about it.

You open your argument with a misunderstanding about what a forum is for. A forum is for debate. For debate to take place people must have something behind their views rather than just blind prejudice. I'm sorry you feel that your bigotry does not need to be justified, it must colour your view of the world and its people.
Your claim to have spent 8 years in the british army is becoming old, and is as irrelevant as the last time you mentioned it. While you feel it may make up for the intellectual deficit and casual racism that you employ, i must disagree and ask you to try and consider that others may find your posts offensive and unwarranted.
Your use of the word 'invade' when referring to the migrants in Calais is a thinly veiled attempt to introduce an agenda to the debate and there is no justification for using such a highly emotive word.
Although i find it sad that you are determined to cling to your misguided views i hope for your sake that one day you may be able to join with others in debates of an open and free nature. I think that i must end the conversation here as i sense that your mind is closed to concepts of freedom and equality and although i have tried to give you the help you so badly need i don't think you are ready to accept the help of others.

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 31 Jul 15 7.54pm
Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 7.26pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 7.09pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.36pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.24pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.05pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.58pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.45pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.36pm Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.20pm Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.01pm Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.16pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.08pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.54pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.50pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.28pm Quote Superfly at 30 Jul 2015 1.52pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm It's not that at all. Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights as straight people, or black people the same as whites. The problem is that this obsession with diversity is going so far that some groups are getting even more rights just because some people-usually of a liberal dis-position -are petrified of being branded sexist, racist, fascist. It's becoming ridiculous now. We got on fine before all this nonsense. The British people are the most tolerant people on this planet. Do you honestly believe that? I must have imagined the late 70s and 80s, and the National Front and **bashing etc. But we're not in the 70's and 80's are we? The nineties and the noughties showed that people are a lot more civilised due to better education and more awareness of what's going on in the world. Your argument is flawed if you think that people nowadays still have the mentality of people in the 70's and 80's. This is pure pie in the sky with nothing to back it up. I don't think anyone is civilized. Both in your humble opinions. What is pie in the sky anyway? I'm pretty sure people are more aware of social issues and attitudes have changed greatly since the 70' and 80's, or are you one of those people who think that every English person is a 'little Englander' and knuckle scraping neanderthal? Don't bother answering, I know the answer. Pie in the sky is a saying that translates roughly as 'complete rubbish' or 'a made up lie'. Again, apart from the reassurance that 'you are sure' you prevent no evidence to back up your views. I do not think that everybody from england is a 'little englander' or the term would have no context. The opinions that i associate with 'little englanders' are those sections of society that think that all problems are generally the fault of 'foreigners' and 'shirkers'. They also neglect to investigate issues and ascertain the facts before making grand statements that leave them open to ridicule. I post my views, I don't feel the need to post stats and articles backing them up because they are my views. It doesn't matter what you post from Wikipedia or some new report doing the rounds, because there's no doubt that there'll be another report to the contrary. Lets take windfarms. For every scientist that says they're great there's a scientist that says they're useless. Posting the latest shiny article from some magazine you've read proves absolutely nothing other than you know how to post a link, spend your time scouring the internet and disagree with what I post, but it doesn't matter to me as my view does not change and my beliefs are still intact. A refreshing honest post. No matter the evidence fed-up will never change his views. Classic! But when the evidence is from left wing rags with an agenda why would I change my views, because ultimately I know the truth. If you want to believe leftist propaganda and not make up your own mind then that's up to you. Ifyou need to read a magazine to form your views on the world then that really says more about you than it does about me That�s just about the most arrogant thing i think you could have said. You also seem to hold a special contempt for people who do research, read and generally try and educate themselves about situations before they form a view. Says it all, and it�s a free world but i'd advise you for your own sake to try some education now and then. I think you're the only arrogant person on here. Nothing wrong with proper education, but propaganda isn't worth the paper it's written on. You get upset and name call anyone who disagrees with you, I'd say that's the most arrogant attitude I've ever encountered. I'm just confident in my views, you are quite immature and insecure, bless. You clearly stated that 'ultimately i know the truth', which is both untrue and hugely conceited. I would ask how one can tell the difference between 'proper education' and propaganda but then i guess that you just 'know the truth'. I have not called you any names and would ask that you refrain from making up lies about posters to detract from your lack of logical reasoning. You are entitled to be confident in your views, but your claims for ownership of truth are misplaced and a little silly. I hope for your sake that you can learn to be a little more open minded and then you might possibly be able to contribute to debates in a meaningful way. What a load of patronising bilge. How do you know I don't know the truth? Are you a higher being? Maybe you're God! I kneel down to you oh great one! What lies have I made up about other posters? 'Lack of logical reasoning'? Well that's your opinion. You really do give off the attitude of someone with a chip on their shoulder. I would suggest you should not be so patronising and dismissive of other people's views just because they don't match yours. I will admit to somewhat winding you up with 'the truth' thing as I knew it would get you going, and sure enough here you are getting all excited and abusive. Hook line and sinker. I will stand by my claim though that no matter what left wing rubbish you type you will not change my mind or my opinions. You can shout until you're blue in the face and type furiously until your fingers bleed, but the fact is you couldn't construct a Lego set let alone a compelling argument that would get me to agree with you or change my views. Firstly, this is an internet forum so i will not be shouting or uttering any verbal pronouncements. I will also not be typing until my 'fingers bleed' as you have already stated that no amount of evidence would convince you to change your views so there seems little point in using evidence and facts when dealing with a person such as yourself. Your lack of logical reasoning is more than my opinion, your views are proclaimed as 'facts' with you even proclaiming that you 'know the truth' and then when it becomes apparent that this has made you look a little silly you try to back out of and claim it was some kind of joke. A more childish ruse i cannot recall. I am patronising and dismissive of your views, but not because i disagree, but because you provide no evidential basis for any of you outlandish pronouncements you have made and then resort to immature name calling and fits of hysteria when challenged upon the thought process upon which your views are based. As you have already stated, you will never change your views, so i fully accept that nobody on earth could change what you have opted to call 'your opinions'. I must say i think this is sad for you and i hope that you can try to open your mind and entertain the idea that other people might have valuable insights into some of the debates that are taking place. Edited by ghosteagle (31 Jul 2015 6.36pm) The whole point of someones view is it's exactly that. It doesn't need to be backed up because it is a view.** If you choose to see it that I have stated it as fact then that is your choice. My mind is perfectly open to sensible views and debate. I would say your mind is the one that is closed as if the view isn't of a left wing variety then it bares no weight with you. Also, I really do not recall name calling you, you really don't rank that highly in my train of thought. I don't think it 'sad' that I don't fall for leftist propaganda like you do. As for proclaiming that I know the truth, well that was simply a rouse to wind you up, but naturally you have chosen to translate it a something completely different, but then that is your right. My views are not based on hysteria, what they are based on is what I read, see on the news and other sources. I find it sad that you will not look at ALL the arguments on a subject before reaching a conclusion. I have been well travelled, served eight years in the British army and feel that I am worldly wise enough to make my own views. I have seen many different cultures at first hand and feel that my views are reasonably well educated, especially on these people who have invaded Calais and intend to invade us. That is all I have to say on this and you should let it rest, instead of parrotting on about it. You open your argument with a misunderstanding about what a forum is for. A forum is for debate. For debate to take place people must have something behind their views rather than just blind prejudice. I'm sorry you feel that your bigotry does not need to be justified, it must colour your view of the world and its people. Your claim to have spent 8 years in the british army is becoming old, and is as irrelevant as the last time you mentioned it. While you feel it may make up for the intellectual deficit and casual racism that you employ, i must disagree and ask you to try and consider that others may find your posts offensive and unwarranted. Your use of the word 'invade' when referring to the migrants in Calais is a thinly veiled attempt to introduce an agenda to the debate and there is no justification for using such a highly emotive word. Although i find it sad that you are determined to cling to your misguided views i hope for your sake that one day you may be able to join with others in debates of an open and free nature. I think that i must end the conversation here as i sense that your mind is closed to concepts of freedom and equality and although i have tried to give you the help you so badly need i don't think you are ready to accept the help of others. No, that is your view. People are perfectly entitled to post their views and they don't need a load of statistics to back them up. I refer to my time in the army as you continually go on about me being small minded with no experience of the world, well I beg to differ. I am perfectly able to join in debates right now, and my views are only misguided in YOUR VIEW. That doesn't make it right as you keep telling me about my views. You back your arguments with articles from well known left wing commentators. I don't need help son, I think you are the one who is in desperate need of help as you are totally deluded. Your opinion is no more important than the next person's, and you would do well to remember that before posting anymore sanctimonious platitudes. Now I have better things to do than try and convince your closed mind, like watch the cricket high lights. Seriously, lighten up and for goodness sake, please try and understand that your view is not the only one.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 31 Jul 15 7.54pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 7.26pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 7.09pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.24pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 6.05pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.58pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.45pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.36pm

Quote ghosteagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.20pm

Quote fed up eagle at 31 Jul 2015 5.01pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.16pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 6.08pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.57pm

Quote ghosteagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.54pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 4.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.28pm

Quote Superfly at 30 Jul 2015 1.52pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm

Do you honestly believe that?

I must have imagined the late 70s and 80s, and the National Front and ****bashing etc.

This is pure pie in the sky with nothing to back it up.

I don't think anyone is civilized.

Both in your humble opinions.

A refreshing honest post. No matter the evidence fed-up will never change his views. Classic!

Edited by ghosteagle (31 Jul 2015 6.36pm)

No, that is your view. People are perfectly entitled to post their views and they don't need a load of statistics to back them up.
I refer to my time in the army as you continually go on about me being small minded with no experience of the world, well I beg to differ.
I am perfectly able to join in debates right now, and my views are only misguided in YOUR VIEW. That doesn't make it right as you keep telling me about my views. You back your arguments with articles from well known left wing commentators.
I don't need help son, I think you are the one who is in desperate need of help as you are totally deluded. Your opinion is no more important than the next person's, and you would do well to remember that before posting anymore sanctimonious platitudes. Now I have better things to do than try and convince your closed mind, like watch the cricket high lights. Seriously, lighten up and for goodness sake, please try and understand that your view is not the only one.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 31 Jul 15 9.28pm
Do you think the poster on the BBS on the link recently from the thread on here about that site,might have had a point when saying how on there posts don't have endless repetitions of prior posts within them and as as such are a better read? I'm guilty of it myself at times.Time for a renewed effort not to do it by all? Mods: Can you ask whomever does the technical stuff on HOL if we can reduce it through technical means? Edited by legaleagle (31 Jul 2015 9.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

31 Jul 15 9.28pm

Do you think the poster on the BBS on the link recently from the thread on here about that site,might have had a point when saying how on there posts don't have endless repetitions of prior posts within them and as as such are a better read?

I'm guilty of it myself at times.Time for a renewed effort not to do it by all?

Mods: Can you ask whomever does the technical stuff on HOL if we can reduce it through technical means?

Edited by legaleagle (31 Jul 2015 9.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 03 Aug 15 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 4.36pm Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.56pm Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 3.41pm Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC blst. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm) My main gripe is with the people who go on about diversity. They are usually white left wing/Liberals who take offence on other people's behalf, like people from the Labour party. I think the real racists are the people like Liberals who are obsessed with diversity to the point where I half expect a middle aged white man to come out with dreadlocks singing Bob Marley songs. They are oh so patronising. Most of us get on just fine without these people sticking their ore in. Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong. It's not that at all. Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights as straight people, or black people the same as whites. The problem is that this obsession with diversity is going so far that some groups are getting even more rights just because some people-usually of a liberal dis-position -are petrified of being branded sexist, racist, fascist. It's becoming ridiculous now. We got on fine before all this nonsense. The British people are the most tolerant people on this planet. They don't get 'more' rights but it seems the diversity 'industry' and those who inhabit it don't actually know what the word means. They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism. This is right. There's that couple down in Cornwall who wouldn't let a gay couple share a room at their B&B. They were hounded and hit with massive legal bills not to mention the compensation they had to pay. An elderly couple, I bet the diversity brigade felt really proud of themselves on that one. Disgusting. Never mind the beliefs of the owners of the B&B. This madness is just going too far. You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f* me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time. Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 1.54pm) Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it. But they aren't...to take into account practical, religious and cultural differences and applying them to strike a balance between legality and someone's core belief or to address a huge inequality is hardly creating some huge chasm between 'us' and 'them' now is it ?...and if someone sees themselves as somehow missing out because they have to wear a motorbike helmet and Mr Singh doesn't, well its hardly worthy of a march on Selma is it ? To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm) Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment**. Only in some... Absolutely wheelchair access is about rights - a right, up to very recently that was one that was not generally provided and certainly not legally enforceable to be catered for. So what you are saying that difference and needs should be recognised for minority groups just not all minority groups ?? Who is the arbiter for the deserving and underserving then ? Its is precisely why we have legislation that allows a balanced interpretation of who gets what and why - what's permissible and what's not, what breaks the law, what has a detrimental affect on others etc etc etc Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 4.05pm) You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. Certainly not all minority groups. I Don't see why we have to pander to various religions' superstitions. Similarly I don't see why we have to pander to the sexual mores of various minority groups causing the prosecution of others. I certainly don't think we should turn a blind eye to child rape gangs and inciters of terrorism due to their unofficial 'right' of being able to get away with it because law enforcers are afraid of appearing racist. No you might as well not - if you cant distinguish between someone with a mobility disability having an extra accommodation made for them to enjoy the same right of access to transport and buildings as everyone else and that 'right' becoming statutory and everyone else getting a seat on the 227 or the rather bizarre linking non sequitur of child rape then you really have no hope...... Edited by The Sash (03 Aug 2015 9.32am) As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 03 Aug 15 9.30am

Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 4.36pm

Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.56pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 3.41pm

Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm

Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm

Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm

Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am

Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am

Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm

Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm

For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t.

The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks.

I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do.

Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did.

I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels

Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)

My main gripe is with the people who go on about diversity. They are usually white left wing/Liberals who take offence on other people's behalf, like people from the Labour party. I think the real racists are the people like Liberals who are obsessed with diversity to the point where I half expect a middle aged white man to come out with dreadlocks singing Bob Marley songs. They are oh so patronising. Most of us get on just fine without these people sticking their ore in.

Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am)

My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights.

What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.

It's not that at all. Why shouldn't gay people have the same rights as straight people, or black people the same as whites. The problem is that this obsession with diversity is going so far that some groups are getting even more rights just because some people-usually of a liberal dis-position -are petrified of being branded sexist, racist, fascist. It's becoming ridiculous now. We got on fine before all this nonsense. The British people are the most tolerant people on this planet.

They don't get 'more' rights but it seems the diversity 'industry' and those who inhabit it don't actually know what the word means.

They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion

The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example

Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.

This is right. There's that couple down in Cornwall who wouldn't let a gay couple share a room at their B&B. They were hounded and hit with massive legal bills not to mention the compensation they had to pay. An elderly couple, I bet the diversity brigade felt really proud of themselves on that one. Disgusting. Never mind the beliefs of the owners of the B&B. This madness is just going too far.

You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else.

The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such.

As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence.

A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast.

Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"?

Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs.

So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority.

But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah

How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'?

Couple of things..

Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief.

Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not.

Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.

Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 1.54pm)

Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.

But they aren't...to take into account practical, religious and cultural differences and applying them to strike a balance between legality and someone's core belief or to address a huge inequality is hardly creating some huge chasm between 'us' and 'them' now is it ?...and if someone sees themselves as somehow missing out because they have to wear a motorbike helmet and Mr Singh doesn't, well its hardly worthy of a march on Selma is it ?

To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question....

Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ?

Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence?

They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too...

Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm)

Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment.

Only in some...

Absolutely wheelchair access is about rights - a right, up to very recently that was one that was not generally provided and certainly not legally enforceable to be catered for.

So what you are saying that difference and needs should be recognised for minority groups just not all minority groups ?? Who is the arbiter for the deserving and underserving then ?

Its is precisely why we have legislation that allows a balanced interpretation of who gets what and why - what's permissible and what's not, what breaks the law, what has a detrimental affect on others etc etc etc

Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 4.05pm)

You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. Certainly not all minority groups. I Don't see why we have to pander to various religions' superstitions. Similarly I don't see why we have to pander to the sexual mores of various minority groups causing the prosecution of others. I certainly don't think we should turn a blind eye to child rape gangs and inciters of terrorism due to their unofficial 'right' of being able to get away with it because law enforcers are afraid of appearing racist.

No you might as well not - if you cant distinguish between someone with a mobility disability having an extra accommodation made for them to enjoy the same right of access to transport and buildings as everyone else and that 'right' becoming statutory and everyone else getting a seat on the 227 or the rather bizarre linking non sequitur of child rape then you really have no hope......

Edited by The Sash (03 Aug 2015 9.32am)

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 10 Aug 15 9.21pm
Quote The Sash at 27 Apr 2015 11.44am I saw this little gem at the weekend. Goldsmiths Welfare and Diversity Officer asked white people and men not to attend and anti-racism meeting with the wonderful.... "If you've been invited and you're a man and/or white PLEASE DON'T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only." [Link] Serious question - where do they get people like Bahar Mustafa from and how the f*** do they (those who are in the ever evolving 'diversity industry' function and are even allowed to ? ....and yes I would although being both white and male may limit my chances somewhat - perhaps I should declare my self 'non-binary' Edited by The Sash (27 Apr 2015 11.48am) Sash, they get the likes of Bahar Mustafa from the jobs pages of The Guardian newspaper, where else???
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 10 Aug 15 9.21pm

Quote The Sash at 27 Apr 2015 11.44am

I saw this little gem at the weekend.

Goldsmiths Welfare and Diversity Officer asked white people and men not to attend and anti-racism meeting with the wonderful....

"If you've been invited and you're a man and/or white PLEASE DON'T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only."

[Link]

Serious question - where do they get people like Bahar Mustafa from and how the f*** do they (those who are in the ever evolving 'diversity industry' function and are even allowed to ?

....and yes I would although being both white and male may limit my chances somewhat - perhaps I should declare my self 'non-binary'

Edited by The Sash (27 Apr 2015 11.48am)

Sash, they get the likes of Bahar Mustafa from the jobs pages of The Guardian newspaper, where else???

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Aug 15 9.02am
Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal. They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Presumably if you take an order for something, knowing the message, take a deposit, and then decide that its against your religious beliefs, you clearly don't understand your own beliefs. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 Aug 15 9.02am

Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm

Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal.

They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake

If you open a business you open it to everyone.

Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that?

Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion.

Presumably if you take an order for something, knowing the message, take a deposit, and then decide that its against your religious beliefs, you clearly don't understand your own beliefs.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Aug 15 9.11am
Quote The Sash at 27 Apr 2015 11.44am I saw this little gem at the weekend. Goldsmiths Welfare and Diversity Officer asked white people and men not to attend and anti-racism meeting with the wonderful.... "If you've been invited and you're a man and/or white PLEASE DON'T COME just cos I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to respect this is a BME Women and non-binary event only." [Link] Serious question - where do they get people like Bahar Mustafa from and how the f*** do they (those who are in the ever evolving 'diversity industry' function and are even allowed to ? ....and yes I would although being both white and male may limit my chances somewhat - perhaps I should declare my self 'non-binary' Edited by The Sash (27 Apr 2015 11.48am) Maybe the meeting was to discuss reverse racism? Personally I think diversity and the experience of racism is primarily a problem, for most people, within the general discourse of majority and minority groups. As such, you can't really address issues and discursive racism whilst a power majority in society (White Males) - as that's the group you are predominately trying to engage. Of course it could as well be addressing the problems of racism by introducing a specific group to the experience of exclusion. Just because someone on one side of the fence, claiming to be something, is perhaps something else, doesn't necessarily mean that the oppositional point is correct. Racism is a problem that occurs between groups in society, not because of one group in society. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 11 Aug 15 9.11am

Quote The Sash at 27 Apr 2015 11.44am

I saw this little gem at the weekend.

[Link]

Serious question - where do they get people like Bahar Mustafa from and how the f*** do they (those who are in the ever evolving 'diversity industry' function and are even allowed to ?

....and yes I would although being both white and male may limit my chances somewhat - perhaps I should declare my self 'non-binary'

Edited by The Sash (27 Apr 2015 11.48am)

Maybe the meeting was to discuss reverse racism? Personally I think diversity and the experience of racism is primarily a problem, for most people, within the general discourse of majority and minority groups. As such, you can't really address issues and discursive racism whilst a power majority in society (White Males) - as that's the group you are predominately trying to engage.

Of course it could as well be addressing the problems of racism by introducing a specific group to the experience of exclusion.

Just because someone on one side of the fence, claiming to be something, is perhaps something else, doesn't necessarily mean that the oppositional point is correct.

Racism is a problem that occurs between groups in society, not because of one group in society.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 11 Aug 15 4.10pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal. They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

11 Aug 15 4.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am

Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm

They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake

If you open a business you open it to everyone.

Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that?

Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion.

Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else?

What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers?

Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Aug 15 10.22am
Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal. They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm) Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds). Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract). Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment). Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on. So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events). Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Aug 15 10.22am

Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am

Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm

They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake

If you open a business you open it to everyone.

Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that?

Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion.

Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else?

What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers?

Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm)

Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds).

Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract).

Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment).

Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on.

So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events).

Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity).

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

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 12 Aug 15 10.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal. They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm) Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds). Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract). Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment). Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on. So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events). Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity). Here we go again. The bakery was not prosecuted under contract law. It was prosecuted for discriminating against the buyer because he batted for the other side. This obviously they were not guilty of as they would have refused to put wording on the cake whoever the buyer batted for, or indeed if he had been the umpire. Their appeal is pending - no doubt they will win it easily. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 12 Aug 15 10.34am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am

Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am

Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm

They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake

If you open a business you open it to everyone.

Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that?

Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion.

Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else?

What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers?

Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm)

Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds).

Here we go again. The bakery was not prosecuted under contract law. It was prosecuted for discriminating against the buyer because he batted for the other side. This obviously they were not guilty of as they would have refused to put wording on the cake whoever the buyer batted for, or indeed if he had been the umpire. Their appeal is pending - no doubt they will win it easily.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 12 Aug 15 10.42am
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 10.34am Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal. They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm) Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds). Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract). Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment). Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on. So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events). Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity). Here we go again. The bakery was not prosecuted under contract law. It was prosecuted for discriminating against the buyer because he batted for the other side. This obviously they were not guilty of as they would have refused to put wording on the cake whoever the buyer batted for, or indeed if he had been the umpire. Their appeal is pending - no doubt they will win it easily. Pretty much my opinion - if a straight person and a gay person would be treated in exactly the same way, then there clearly has been no discrimination. I just don't see how you can see it differently (and the contract law thing is just a smokescreen and completely irrelevant to this particular case). Had the bakers said, or implied, "we won't make it for you because of your sexuality, but we would make it for Mr Butch McHetero" then the prosecution would have my full backing, but the fact is it was the slogan that was objected to, not the sexuality of the customer, so no discrimination took place.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 12 Aug 15 10.42am

Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 10.34am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am

Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am

Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm

They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake

If you open a business you open it to everyone.

Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that?

Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion.

Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else?

What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers?

Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm)

Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds).

Pretty much my opinion - if a straight person and a gay person would be treated in exactly the same way, then there clearly has been no discrimination. I just don't see how you can see it differently (and the contract law thing is just a smokescreen and completely irrelevant to this particular case).

Had the bakers said, or implied, "we won't make it for you because of your sexuality, but we would make it for Mr Butch McHetero" then the prosecution would have my full backing, but the fact is it was the slogan that was objected to, not the sexuality of the customer, so no discrimination took place.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Aug 15 10.43am
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 10.34am Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal. They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm) Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds). Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract). Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment). Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on. So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events). Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity). Here we go again. The bakery was not prosecuted under contract law. It was prosecuted for discriminating against the buyer because he batted for the other side. This obviously they were not guilty of as they would have refused to put wording on the cake whoever the buyer batted for, or indeed if he had been the umpire. Their appeal is pending - no doubt they will win it easily. Yes, and to prove discrimination, you have to show sufficient evidence, that you were denied service on the grounds of discrimination i.e. actual evidence. In fact the Judge dismissed their right as Christians to discriminate because their business did not operate as a Christian Business, but as an ordinary bakery. Had they solely functioned as 'Christian Bakery' they'd have been within their rights to discriminate - But they don't, they're a bakery that serves the general public and as such are covered by the same law as every one else. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Aug 15 10.43am

Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 10.34am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am

Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am

Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm

They are not expressing support for anything they are making a cake

If you open a business you open it to everyone.

Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that?

Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion.

Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else?

What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers?

Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm)

Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds).

Yes, and to prove discrimination, you have to show sufficient evidence, that you were denied service on the grounds of discrimination i.e. actual evidence.

In fact the Judge dismissed their right as Christians to discriminate because their business did not operate as a Christian Business, but as an ordinary bakery. Had they solely functioned as 'Christian Bakery' they'd have been within their rights to discriminate - But they don't, they're a bakery that serves the general public and as such are covered by the same law as every one else.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 19 of 22 < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Diversity Schmeristy

Site Map

Sponsors