|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 14, 2023 16:02:46 GMT
Yes I realise that you want to divert the threat with straw men but my point was about one subject within the context of the OP. I think it's safe to assume that you don't care about reducing sexual assault numbers. At least, not if that would require infringements on your rights. You know that the sexual assault numbers could be reduced, but you're not prepared to make sacrifices to that end. And why should you? You're not a rapist. Why should your freedoms be curtailed just because a tiny fraction of the male population are. But the same goes for transgender women. Nice bout of verbal diarrhoea with bits of indigested assumptions too. Unfortunately it doesn’t address my initial point and I’m not going to encouraged a thread hijacking. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 14, 2023 16:07:16 GMT
I think it's safe to assume that you don't care about reducing sexual assault numbers. At least, not if that would require infringements on your rights. You know that the sexual assault numbers could be reduced, but you're not prepared to make sacrifices to that end. And why should you? You're not a rapist. Why should your freedoms be curtailed just because a tiny fraction of the male population are. But the same goes for transgender women. Nice bout of verbal diarrhoea with bits of indigested assumptions too. Unfortunately it doesn’t address my initial point and I’m not going to encouraged a thread hijacking. The thread is about arbitrary authoritarianism. What could be more authoritarian than demanding protections against one group, insisting on limitations on that group's freedoms, while ignoring the far, far greater threat from another group? That is the very essence of arbitrary and authoritarian. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 14, 2023 16:08:33 GMT
That's a very good article, it's a shame so few will read it. It's a real warning that free speech, for the majority, is being quietly eroded in the name of diversity and as we all know, diversity is a race to the bottom. This judge Tanveer Ikram character comes across as a racist. Quote: ...At the 2022 New Year Honours he [Ikram] was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) by Boris Johnson for “services to judicial diversity”. And Ikram is among contributors to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, UK judiciary diversity guidance which employs many central tenets of identity politics, like “systemic” or “structural” racism, “unconscious bias,” and “micro-aggressions.” This ideology, which holds that individuals should be favoured or disfavoured according to their immutable characteristics, runs flatly counter to the bedrock legal principle of equal treatment before the law.This man should not be a judge, he is a danger to free speech and common sense. Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 14, 2023 16:09:34 GMT
Nice bout of verbal diarrhoea with bits of indigested assumptions too. Unfortunately it doesn’t address my initial point and I’m not going to encouraged a thread hijacking. The thread is about arbitrary authoritarianism. What could be more authoritarian than demanding protections against one group, insisting on limitations on that group's freedoms, while ignoring the far, far greater threat from another group? That is the very essence of arbitrary and authoritarian. Ask Dave . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 16:10:27 GMT
Maybe another forum will discuss it properly. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 14, 2023 16:10:42 GMT
That's a very good article, it's a shame so few will read it. It's a real warning that free speech, for the majority, is being quietly eroded in the name of diversity and as we all know, diversity is a race to the bottom. This judge Tanveer Ikram character comes across as a racist. Quote: ...At the 2022 New Year Honours he [Ikram] was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) by Boris Johnson for “services to judicial diversity”. And Ikram is among contributors to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, UK judiciary diversity guidance which employs many central tenets of identity politics, like “systemic” or “structural” racism, “unconscious bias,” and “micro-aggressions.” This ideology, which holds that individuals should be favoured or disfavoured according to their immutable characteristics, runs flatly counter to the bedrock legal principle of equal treatment before the law.This man should not be a judge, he is a danger to free speech and common sense. Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? Isn’t the point about being prosecuted for them ? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 14, 2023 16:13:01 GMT
The thread is about arbitrary authoritarianism. What could be more authoritarian than demanding protections against one group, insisting on limitations on that group's freedoms, while ignoring the far, far greater threat from another group? That is the very essence of arbitrary and authoritarian. Ask Dave . Your position is arbitrary and authoritarian. The social group you belong to represents a far greater threat to women than transgender women. I don't agree with male curfews or female-only designated areas. I find it insulting. Why should I suffer because of the threat represented by a minority of men? But the same applies to transgender women. If you were a libertarian, you would have a live-and-let-live philosophy. You don't. You have a bigoted, authoritarian outlook. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 14, 2023 16:20:13 GMT
Your position is arbitrary and authoritarian. The social group you belong to represents a far greater threat to women than transgender women. I don't agree with male curfews or female-only designated areas. I find it insulting. Why should I suffer because the threat represented a minority of men. But the same applies to transgender women. If you were a libertarian, you would have a live-and-let-live philosophy. You don't. You have a bigoted, authoritarian outlook. So you agree the opinion that a’ biological male cannot be defined as a female’ should be able to be freely expressed without fear of prosecution and places reserved for both male and female should be defined by the biological definition .ie biological males should not have access to places reserved for females ? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 14, 2023 16:20:14 GMT
That's a very good article, it's a shame so few will read it. It's a real warning that free speech, for the majority, is being quietly eroded in the name of diversity and as we all know, diversity is a race to the bottom. This judge Tanveer Ikram character comes across as a racist. Quote: ...At the 2022 New Year Honours he [Ikram] was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) by Boris Johnson for “services to judicial diversity”. And Ikram is among contributors to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, UK judiciary diversity guidance which employs many central tenets of identity politics, like “systemic” or “structural” racism, “unconscious bias,” and “micro-aggressions.” This ideology, which holds that individuals should be favoured or disfavoured according to their immutable characteristics, runs flatly counter to the bedrock legal principle of equal treatment before the law.This man should not be a judge, he is a danger to free speech and common sense. Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? Is there such a petition or is it to stop him freely exercising those rights whilst being employed at what amounts to public expense. There are rules if one is employed by anyone especially if one is a celebrity. Not making your statements from the platform is neither here nor there it is the platform that gives you prominence. To be clear I think he can make whatever statements he likes outside of his platform duties. All I ask is that if one accepts that premise it applies to everyone and on the left they do tend to like to seek to cancel people and their employment as a regular occurrence even when those comments are not from the platform that gives them prominence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 16:20:54 GMT
Did you sign the petition to remove Gary Lineker's free speech rights? Isn’t the point about being prosecuted for them ? It was a dumb question that wasn't worth entertaining. One is employed by the BBC to campaign for the far-left, the rest are being prosecuted by people who infer something that doesn't actually exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 14, 2023 16:26:15 GMT
Isn’t the point about being prosecuted for them ? It was a dumb question that wasn't worth entertaining. One is employed by the BBC to campaign for the far-left, the rest are being prosecuted by people who infer something that doesn't actually exist. Indeed. It’s a completely different argument . There is no suggestion that Lineker could have would be prosecuted . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 14, 2023 16:28:32 GMT
Maybe another forum will discuss it properly. Yes, I was just thinking the same.
Shame, but anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 14, 2023 16:28:50 GMT
Your position is arbitrary and authoritarian. The social group you belong to represents a far greater threat to women than transgender women. I don't agree with male curfews or female-only designated areas. I find it insulting. Why should I suffer because the threat represented a minority of men. But the same applies to transgender women. If you were a libertarian, you would have a live-and-let-live philosophy. You don't. You have a bigoted, authoritarian outlook. So you agree the opinion that a’ biological male cannot be defined as a female’ should be able to be freely expressed without fear of prosecution and places reserved for both male and female should be defined by the biological definition .ie biological males should not have access to places reserved for females ? Yes, I agree that you are entitled to your opinion on the transgender issue. Yes, I think that there are places that should be reserved for females (but there are different definitions of the word female). I also think that you don't particularly care about the issues you say are at the heart of your concerns. For instance, I don't think that the reduction of sexual assault is the reason you don't want transgender women in female prisons. After all, it has been shown that conjugal visits dramatically reduce prison rapes, but you're not in favour of that. Nor do I believe that you think that transgender women in female toilets is a threat. Pacifico raised the same concern, but when asked to provide a real-life example, he could only find one case of a 'male' presenting as a female who had committed a sexual assault in a toilet. And that was several years ago and literally thousands of miles away (in the US). In short, I don't think you are a libertarian. I don't think Squeaky is, either. I think you would be more than happy to shut down free speech if it furthered your agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 14, 2023 16:43:39 GMT
So you agree the opinion that a’ biological male cannot be defined as a female’ should be able to be freely expressed without fear of prosecution and places reserved for both male and female should be defined by the biological definition .ie biological males should not have access to places reserved for females ? Yes, I agree that you are entitled to your opinion on the transgender issue. Yes, I think that there are places that should be reserved for females (but there are different definitions of the word female). I also think that you don't particularly care about the issues you say are at the heart of your concerns. For instance, I don't think that the reduction of sexual assault is the reason you don't want transgender women in female prisons. After all, it has been shown that conjugal visits dramatically reduce prison rapes, but you're not in favour of that. Nor do I believe that you think that transgender women in female toilets is a threat. Pacifico raised the same concern, but when asked to provide a real-life example, he could only find one case of a 'male' presenting as a female who had committed a sexual assault in a toilet. And that was several years ago and literally thousands of miles away (in the US). In short, I don't think you are a libertarian. I don't think Squeaky is, either. I think you would be more than happy to shut down free speech if it furthered your agenda. I’ll take that as a no then . Which makes you the authoritarian and your position arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 14, 2023 16:50:50 GMT
Yes, I agree that you are entitled to your opinion on the transgender issue. Yes, I think that there are places that should be reserved for females (but there are different definitions of the word female). I also think that you don't particularly care about the issues you say are at the heart of your concerns. For instance, I don't think that the reduction of sexual assault is the reason you don't want transgender women in female prisons. After all, it has been shown that conjugal visits dramatically reduce prison rapes, but you're not in favour of that. Nor do I believe that you think that transgender women in female toilets is a threat. Pacifico raised the same concern, but when asked to provide a real-life example, he could only find one case of a 'male' presenting as a female who had committed a sexual assault in a toilet. And that was several years ago and literally thousands of miles away (in the US). In short, I don't think you are a libertarian. I don't think Squeaky is, either. I think you would be more than happy to shut down free speech if it furthered your agenda. I’ll take that as a no then . Which makes you the authoritarian and your position arbitrary. I responded yes. By all means, treat that as a no if you think it helps. |
|
