On 26/08/11 11:19, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 10:13, d wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

Who gives a flying **** what you personally think about veiled women? Do
you have the same antipathy to veiled nuns, or is it the potential
presence of a non-white face which rings your bells?

or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all 24/7?).

Unlike those religions which have drinking alcohol as a central part of
their rituals?

What do white heterosexuals do which annoys you? Anything?

Ian

On Aug 26, 3:19*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:56:06 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:

On 26/08/11 10:13, wrote:
So whats your solution then? Swing the pendulum so far the other way that
it alienates white heterosexuals?

You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)
or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all 24/7?).


In my professional life I have observed less qualified women promoted,
rather than better qualified men. That particular form of
"affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:46:33 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:17, d wrote:
No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong.

But that's not what he's saying.

Really? Well we'll have to agree to differ unless you can borrow a tardis to
go back and ask him.

B2003

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:56:50 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:01, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Except the minor point of there only being 1 victim in this case. Not quite
the same as blowing up a tube train.

B2003

On 26/08/11 12:11, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:46:33 +0100
The Real wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:17, d wrote:
No , not whoosh and point not proved. Common sense is something you aquire
as you get older. Him trying to equate it with something being fixed when
young is plain wrong.

But that's not what he's saying.

Really? Well we'll have to agree to differ unless you can borrow a tardis to
go back and ask him.

Nah, I'll stick to "Reading and understanding the words".

Ian

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:58:48 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
You got any evidence that white heterosexuals as a group feel alienated
by tolerance of others?

When that tolerance swings to positive discrimination then yes. And also
when that tolerance goes against the public good - ie I have zero tolerance
of the muslim women who cover their faces (france had the right idea there)

Who gives a flying **** what you personally think about veiled women? Do
you have the same antipathy to veiled nuns, or is it the potential
presence of a non-white face which rings your bells?

Oh dear, you're losing the argument so you're using the tried and tested
right-on debating technique of going off on one.

Obviously you're a bit hard of thinking but i'll explain - you asked about
white heterosexuals being alienated by tolerance - i'm white and straight.
And I feel alienated in some parts of london. So what I think does matter
a flying fsck in this case.

And why bring skin colour into it other than a hackneyed straw man argument
which you have learnt verbatim from the Big Bumper Book of Politically Correct
Debating Techniques?

or rastas who say that smoking canabis is part of their "religion" (what
religion would that be - the one where you laze around and do bugger all
24/7?).

Unlike those religions which have drinking alcohol as a central part of
their rituals?

What , a sip of wine is the same as getting completely stoned?

What do white heterosexuals do which annoys you? Anything?

Plenty. But nothing to do with them being normal.

B2003

On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:17:41 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:
Really? Well we'll have to agree to differ unless you can borrow a tardis to
go back and ask him.

Nah, I'll stick to "Reading and understanding the words".

Pity you didn't apply that rule in this case.

B2003

On 26/08/11 12:14, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:56:50 +0100
The Real wrote:

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

If they had done it to intimidate all blue shirt wearers then yes,
undoubtedly an additional crime. We have that sort of problem up here in
Bonny Scotland, where beating people up for wearing orange or green is
likely to result in a more severe punishment than doing it on an
individually determined basis.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Except the minor point of there only being 1 victim in this case. Not quite
the same as blowing up a tube train.

You misunderstand. The other victims are the people who are put in a
state of fear by the original crime. If a drug dealer in Possilpark
chibs once of his late paying clients, well, that's all very unfortunate
for the victim and his family, but has no particular wider concerns. If,
on the other hand, a gay man is stabbed for no reason other than being a
gay man, other gay men will be put in a state of alarm.

Don't think of it as "hate crimes". Think of it as terrorism.

Ian

On Aug 26, 4:14*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:56:50 +0100
The Real Doctor wrote:





On 26/08/11 11:01, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
*wrote:
But, why, I ask was the guys horrible death worse because he was
homosexual? *Would you or I not have felt the blows just as much?

For some people it seems that suffering for what you are is a worse fate than
suffering for what you have. Presumably because you can change the latter
but not the former. Personally I think its a just a convenient soapbox for
self styled activists (ie people who make a lot of noise) who get off on self
righteous indignation to jump up and down and bang their drum.

If Mr Shepherd had been killed by a couple of thugs who didn't like him,
or his clothes, that would have been dreadful but individual. By killing
him for what he was, they were also threatening other gay men, and it's
that threat which merited further punishment.

So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

It's precisely the reason why terrorist murders - which are intended to
put non-victims in a state of fear and distress - are generally punished
more harshly than non-terrorist ones. More victims.

Except the minor point of there only being 1 victim in this case. Not quite
the same as blowing up a tube train.

Moreover terrorism is an act of war which demands a swift, firm,
military response. Describing it as a crime and involving the courts
is a big mistake. IMHO we have spent the past ten years being far too
soft in this regard.

Don't these pernickety, politically correct, lefties get to be
irritating? I am about ready to kill file the doc. Debating him is
like nailing jelly to a tree.

On 26/08/11 12:28, 1506 wrote:
Moreover terrorism is an act of war which demands a swift, firm,
military response. Describing it as a crime and involving the courts
is a big mistake. IMHO we have spent the past ten years being far too
soft in this regard.

Yeah, it worked sooooo well in Norn Iron, didn't it?

Don't these pernickety, politically correct, lefties get to be
irritating? I am about ready to kill file the doc. Debating him is
like nailing jelly to a tree.

Diddums.

Ian