Labour councillor in FGM row

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 10 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Hrolf The Ganger 02 Aug 17 9.44pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays For a brief time in my twenties I worked in a nightclub as a bouncer. I saw and learnt about much about the darker side of human nature. If we were to seriously take on 'self-gratification at the expense of an innocent victim.' then I think we need to start building a lot more prisons. This isn't me defending pedophilia. I regard it as a dangerous reality that's been with us since humanity began. If someone comes for my children I'll deal with them. But what I've learnt from life is an understanding that this behaviour is natural to some people. I can't imagine a lot of them choose to be attracted to children rather than say Rachel Riley. Regardless...it's a fact that nature cares nothing about what society views as acceptable. So we have to adjust ourselves to reality. I suppose I'm saying that I'm well aware that a percent of people will look at my children in a sexual sense and would like to get at them. I'm aware these people exist. I would still put them down if they came for them....But I don't hate them anymore. I've learnt that for a percentage of them...they were dealt a sh1t-hand. Society needs to protect itself but it also needs to be grown up about the realities of human nature and sexuality. I think most people are well aware of those. There are of course those who 'hate pedos' because they perceive them to be lower on the food chain than themselves and make those people feel better about themselves. There are also those who claim to hate them because it is the accepted response to make yourself look virtuous. For me, these people are a simply a risk to our children and should be treated as such. The fact that they see children as fair game for their self indulgence makes them repugnant by itself for many includinhg myself I have to say.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

02 Aug 17 9.44pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

For a brief time in my twenties I worked in a nightclub as a bouncer. I saw and learnt about much about the darker side of human nature. If we were to seriously take on 'self-gratification at the expense of an innocent victim.' then I think we need to start building a lot more prisons.

This isn't me defending pedophilia. I regard it as a dangerous reality that's been with us since humanity began. If someone comes for my children I'll deal with them. But what I've learnt from life is an understanding that this behaviour is natural to some people. I can't imagine a lot of them choose to be attracted to children rather than say Rachel Riley.

Regardless...it's a fact that nature cares nothing about what society views as acceptable. So we have to adjust ourselves to reality. I suppose I'm saying that I'm well aware that a percent of people will look at my children in a sexual sense and would like to get at them. I'm aware these people exist. I would still put them down if they came for them....But I don't hate them anymore. I've learnt that for a percentage of them...they were dealt a sh1t-hand.

Society needs to protect itself but it also needs to be grown up about the realities of human nature and sexuality.

I think most people are well aware of those.
There are of course those who 'hate pedos' because they perceive them to be lower on the food chain than themselves and make those people feel better about themselves. There are also those who claim to hate them because it is the accepted response to make yourself look virtuous.
For me, these people are a simply a risk to our children and should be treated as such. The fact that they see children as fair game for their self indulgence makes them repugnant by itself for many includinhg myself I have to say.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 9.51pm
If some activist goes into an Islamic bakery and asks them to bake a cake with a message that goes centrally against their belief system do you also support that? Say, they are asked to bake a cake with icing saying, 'Islam is a lie' or 'Mohammad is 'insert insult''...anything that offends them....Is it right that they can't refuse to bake it? I'm with the Muslims with this one. They aren't looking for trouble. They are just turning a job down. If we extend this principle out...how is it ok for a church to refuse a gay marriage? Payment is involved there too. I've thought about this particular case a lot because there are principles I agree with on both sides. I feel that once payment is accepted for the job the job has to be carried out....the bakery should have swallowed it and got someone in if it bothered them so much. However, you should have the right to refuse a job.....But this area is more tricky because there are lots of problem areas with this also.....There's a whole book in it. On the balance of it, I didn't agree with the verdict. But there you go. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.07pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 9.51pm

If some activist goes into an Islamic bakery and asks them to bake a cake with a message that goes centrally against their belief system do you also support that?

Say, they are asked to bake a cake with icing saying, 'Islam is a lie' or 'Mohammad is 'insert insult''...anything that offends them....Is it right that they can't refuse to bake it?

I'm with the Muslims with this one. They aren't looking for trouble. They are just turning a job down.

If we extend this principle out...how is it ok for a church to refuse a gay marriage? Payment is involved there too.

I've thought about this particular case a lot because there are principles I agree with on both sides.

I feel that once payment is accepted for the job the job has to be carried out....the bakery should have swallowed it and got someone in if it bothered them so much.

However, you should have the right to refuse a job.....But this area is more tricky because there are lots of problem areas with this also.....There's a whole book in it. On the balance of it, I didn't agree with the verdict. But there you go.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.07pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Aug 17 9.53pm
Originally posted by legaleagle 1.The court of appeal in Belfast upheld the initial judgement last year that the bakery. had discriminated against a customer on the grounds of sexual orientation.I would respectfully submit that they may know better than you 2.Your factual evidence that the NCCL was in its early days a "CP front"? Its structure meant the NCCL had a strong democratic streak, which permitted widespread affiliations and the input of members and affiliates at annual general meetings. Anyone or any organisation that supported the NCCL could become a member, and the NCCL did not offer support to all these groups.During the 1930s, this position made it possible for the NCCL to include members of the Communist Party of Great Britain while staying ostensibly �non-political�. It was no more a CP front than the Tories were a fascist "front" at around the same time ,viz the Loyalty League,a 1920's group attached to the Conservative Party which promoted fascism. 3. NCCL was wrong to affiliate with PIE,full stop.Pity cause it overshadows a lot of the really good work they were doing in the 70's. Tolerance of paedophilia in the past,decades ago now, is unacceptable.But,it wasn't confined to elements of the "liberal/left" or at least only in the eyes of an extremely blinkered person. In June 2015, documents emerged as a result of a freedom of information request that revealed the then Conservative Home Secretary, Leon Brittan refused to support a bill designed to outlaw PIE because he considered the law on incitement of sexual activities with children to be "not so clear". A Conservative Party Whip from 1970-1973 admitted to covering up problems for MPs, such as "a scandal with small boys", because then the MP would "do what you want forever more" Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2017 9.51pm) The bakery are going to appeal to the Supreme Court - lets hope they know better than you and reverse this perverse ruling. Do you seriously believe that they would have served a heterosexual man wanting the same slogan? I suggest that you Google "NCCL Communist Front" for the many references to it. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Aug 17 9.53pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

1.The court of appeal in Belfast upheld the initial judgement last year that the bakery. had discriminated against a customer on the grounds of sexual orientation.I would respectfully submit that they may know better than you

2.Your factual evidence that the NCCL was in its early days a "CP front"?

Its structure meant the NCCL had a strong democratic streak, which permitted widespread affiliations and the input of members and affiliates at annual general meetings. Anyone or any organisation that supported the NCCL could become a member, and the NCCL did not offer support to all these groups.During the 1930s, this position made it possible for the NCCL to include members of the Communist Party of Great Britain while staying ostensibly �non-political�.

It was no more a CP front than the Tories were a fascist "front" at around the same time ,viz the Loyalty League,a 1920's group attached to the Conservative Party which promoted fascism.

3. NCCL was wrong to affiliate with PIE,full stop.Pity cause it overshadows a lot of the really good work they were doing in the 70's.

Tolerance of paedophilia in the past,decades ago now, is unacceptable.But,it wasn't confined to elements of the "liberal/left" or at least only in the eyes of an extremely blinkered person.

In June 2015, documents emerged as a result of a freedom of information request that revealed the then Conservative Home Secretary, Leon Brittan refused to support a bill designed to outlaw PIE because he considered the law on incitement of sexual activities with children to be "not so clear".

A Conservative Party Whip from 1970-1973 admitted to covering up problems for MPs, such as "a scandal with small boys", because then the MP would "do what you want forever more"

Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2017 9.51pm)

The bakery are going to appeal to the Supreme Court - lets hope they know better than you and reverse this perverse ruling. Do you seriously believe that they would have served a heterosexual man wanting the same slogan?
I suggest that you Google "NCCL Communist Front" for the many references to it.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 10.04pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I think most people are well aware of those. There are of course those who 'hate pedos' because they perceive them to be lower on the food chain than themselves and make those people feel better about themselves. There are also those who claim to hate them because it is the accepted response to make yourself look virtuous. For me, these people are a simply a risk to our children and should be treated as such. The fact that they see children as fair game for their self indulgence makes them repugnant by itself for many includinhg myself I have to say. I think I pretty much agree with most of that. The question of 'how should we feel about very damaging people' is of course not an easy one. I'm not saying that it's easy or even realistic to be objective about people looking to essentially cause harm to others. I agree with fighting them just as fiercely as before....it's just a change in realization of how nature works and that we have to be ever aware. I suppose the final nail in the coffin on this issue for me came with listening to a Sam Harris Youtube video on free will. His description of the Charles Whitman case was a powerful one. [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.05pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 10.04pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I think I pretty much agree with most of that.

The question of 'how should we feel about very damaging people' is of course not an easy one. I'm not saying that it's easy or even realistic to be objective about people looking to essentially cause harm to others. I agree with fighting them just as fiercely as before....it's just a change in realization of how nature works and that we have to be ever aware.

I suppose the final nail in the coffin on this issue for me came with listening to a Sam Harris Youtube video on free will. His description of the Charles Whitman case was a powerful one.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.05pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Aug 17 10.13pm
The thing is that paedophiles and racists are the only groupings that people are allowed unconditionally to hate these days. Most others, not only must you not hate them, for many, you have to 'celebrate' them, or risk the wrath of the peddlers of perceived wisdom. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Aug 17 10.13pm

The thing is that paedophiles and racists are the only groupings that people are allowed unconditionally to hate these days. Most others, not only must you not hate them, for many, you have to 'celebrate' them, or risk the wrath of the peddlers of perceived wisdom.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 10.27pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 The thing is that paedophiles and racists are the only groupings that people are allowed unconditionally to hate these days. Most others, not only must you not hate them, for many, you have to 'celebrate' them, or risk the wrath of the peddlers of perceived wisdom. The old, 'it's ok to punch a Nazi' thing. Basically, it's immaturity. We all do it....I foam at the mouth about Islamic extremism....hey even the EU sometimes...(though I know the EU institutions are full of good people, I just happen to differ a little on what the best way to proceed is). Objectivity isn't easy...pedophiles are potentially highly damaging and their sexuality serves no useful purpose and ruins whole lives permanently. We have to protect our children from them. Outside of that though, we need to recognise that these people were.....in most cases...dealt a sh1thand. Just like people are born into sh1t circumstances all the time. I long for the day that technology can more effectively help us reduce some of the pain that nature inflicts. We have come a long way....we have much much further to go. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.29pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 10.27pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

The old, 'it's ok to punch a Nazi' thing.

Basically, it's immaturity. We all do it....I foam at the mouth about Islamic extremism....hey even the EU sometimes...(though I know the EU institutions are full of good people, I just happen to differ a little on what the best way to proceed is).

Objectivity isn't easy...pedophiles are potentially highly damaging and their sexuality serves no useful purpose and ruins whole lives permanently. We have to protect our children from them.

Outside of that though, we need to recognise that these people were.....in most cases...dealt a sh1thand. Just like people are born into sh1t circumstances all the time.

I long for the day that technology can more effectively help us reduce some of the pain that nature inflicts. We have come a long way....we have much much further to go.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.29pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 10.39pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 The thing is that paedophiles and racists are the only groupings that people are allowed unconditionally to hate these days. Most others, not only must you not hate them, for many, you have to 'celebrate' them, or risk the wrath of the peddlers of perceived wisdom. I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 02 Aug 17 10.39pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 10.54pm
Originally posted by nickgusset I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there. So stop doing it then. (joke) In seriousness...I think the internet has created a whole new avenue for honesty about human nature. In lots of ways human nature isn't constructive or positive. Impressionable immature minds on the Internet are little red riding hood in the Wolf's lair. As before, responsible people need to protect their own. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.54pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 10.54pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there.

So stop doing it then. (joke)

In seriousness...I think the internet has created a whole new avenue for honesty about human nature.

In lots of ways human nature isn't constructive or positive. Impressionable immature minds on the Internet are little red riding hood in the Wolf's lair.

As before, responsible people need to protect their own.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 10.54pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.18am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The law is quite clear that a business has to abide by laws regarding who they serve and cannot discriminate. The law is quite clear that theft is a crime but you think it is ok if the thief considers themselves in 'poverty'. (Yet again - they did not discriminate because the gay trouble maker was gay, they would have refused a straight person who asked for the same slogan.) Edited by hedgehog50 (03 Aug 2017 9.20am) We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.18am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The law is quite clear that a business has to abide by laws regarding who they serve and cannot discriminate.

The law is quite clear that theft is a crime but you think it is ok if the thief considers themselves in 'poverty'. (Yet again - they did not discriminate because the gay trouble maker was gay, they would have refused a straight person who asked for the same slogan.)

Edited by hedgehog50 (03 Aug 2017 9.20am)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 03 Aug 17 9.42am
Originally posted by nickgusset I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there. You are one of them.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

03 Aug 17 9.42am

Originally posted by nickgusset

I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there.

You are one of them.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.55am
Originally posted by nickgusset I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there. Don't think I hate anyone really, dislike yes. Are there 'dislike crimes' these days, are we still allowed to dislike people? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.55am

Originally posted by nickgusset

I'm sure there's a lot of left / right hate going on. The amount of people who think it's acceptable to abuse people online is growing. Lot of hate there.

Don't think I hate anyone really, dislike yes. Are there 'dislike crimes' these days, are we still allowed to dislike people?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Aug 17 10.43am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays From what I remember Bubble wasn't directly doing that. Personally Jamie, I'd regard someone who did that as immature and looking for a rise. Defending free speech does involve defending views you don't like. I believe you also believe that. Of course there are lines. In my view there should be three lines where someone could seek redress....lies or libel and supporting violence against a person or group or inciting for it...and obscenity for things like child p***.graphy. For a long time that's how we operated. The 'hate speech' laws were brought in because of the Islamic problem and I find it very unfortunate that predominantly the left...though not exclusively so...but activists are quite happy to use these dangerous laws and the culture they create to justify closing down 'views' and opinions they don't like. I stand against that. I think that free speech should not be free from consequences and repercussions - Comparing a gay parade to a parade for pedophiles has consequences when you belong to a political party that supports LGBTQA rights, because you represent that party. As such that party is quite within its rights to conduct disciplinary action for statements that don't represent its views - the same as someone who misrepresents a company being held accountable for what they say. Now if it was an individual, yes I'd agree. As its a representative - then there are consequences to the party and its support basis that have to be considered. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 03 Aug 17 10.43am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

From what I remember Bubble wasn't directly doing that.

Personally Jamie, I'd regard someone who did that as immature and looking for a rise.

Defending free speech does involve defending views you don't like. I believe you also believe that. Of course there are lines. In my view there should be three lines where someone could seek redress....lies or libel and supporting violence against a person or group or inciting for it...and obscenity for things like child p***.graphy. For a long time that's how we operated.

The 'hate speech' laws were brought in because of the Islamic problem and I find it very unfortunate that predominantly the left...though not exclusively so...but activists are quite happy to use these dangerous laws and the culture they create to justify closing down 'views' and opinions they don't like.

I stand against that.

I think that free speech should not be free from consequences and repercussions - Comparing a gay parade to a parade for pedophiles has consequences when you belong to a political party that supports LGBTQA rights, because you represent that party.

As such that party is quite within its rights to conduct disciplinary action for statements that don't represent its views - the same as someone who misrepresents a company being held accountable for what they say.

Now if it was an individual, yes I'd agree. As its a representative - then there are consequences to the party and its support basis that have to be considered.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 10 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Labour councillor in FGM row

Site Map

Sponsors