|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 9, 2024 19:39:14 GMT
I'm not a Labour Party supporter. As I said, your reading leaves a bit to be desired. And I don't care, I merely used it to make a point. What matters is the argument of objectivity as opposed to arrogant subjectivity. I believe this was the argument Sandypine was politely hinting at, where you followed it up with a swift dismissal. Perhaps you need to up your game if you want to be taken seriously. You are the one who keeps referencing me. It's also quite clear that you don't understand my politics at all. Keep walking the plank, my son. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Aug 9, 2024 19:41:39 GMT
He cheerled for Hamas terrorism as it happened. He encouraged mass-murder by doing so and has given his support to Hamas terrorists. He will obviously support the Labour Party Councillors who encourage the mass-murder of British people to support his cause. I believe everything else he says is to this end.
We have been here several times before, and it always ends up with me asking you to provide ANY kind of evidence that I either support Hamas terrorism, have cheered acts of terror by Hamas or that "I encourage mass murder" ? Each time I ask, you can never provide any such evidence, and to date you have not provided any So here's the new question: On what grounds do you believe that I support Ricky Jones call to slit the throats of people. ? On the grounds of you going round the boards shouting 'THE FAR-RIGHT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH QUICKLY AND SWIFTLY AND FEELING THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW' after seeing reports and footage of incidents on Britain's streets. Your coyness and demand for 'wait and see' about cut throat Jones, and your apologistic approach towards the Pakistani's at Manchester airport where both separate instances were captured on video either inciting murder, or assaulting police officers brings a deafening silence to calls for justice. Therefore, it is safe to assume YOU SUPPORT these kind of people. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 9, 2024 19:47:26 GMT
So if I'm not left wing and you're not a racist, does that make us quits for now? However it is clear that accusations of racism against many posters here have been made but the evidence is pretty thin with no actual examples of what constitutes racism, in fact I was accused of being racist by PV. Being racist is a matter of law but the left have managed to also make it a social crime and the left are the ones who get to define what is and is not racist. In order to smash racism by any means necessary we have to have a clear idea of what is and is not racist and that is very dependent on who the left call out. It's seemingly accurate to question why they do this, because it's become obvious to me that it's a classic case of "accusing others of that which you do". |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 9, 2024 19:50:50 GMT
However it is clear that accusations of racism against many posters here have been made but the evidence is pretty thin with no actual examples of what constitutes racism, in fact I was accused of being racist by PV. Being racist is a matter of law but the left have managed to also make it a social crime and the left are the ones who get to define what is and is not racist. In order to smash racism by any means necessary we have to have a clear idea of what is and is not racist and that is very dependent on who the left call out. Blimey,if you're not sure what racism is, I suggest you stay away from political fora. And "the left" is just a catchall to box people. Well no I do not because I see racism, as I understand it, at work every day and it is not only legal but applauded. So it would be helpful with some form of general definition. For example is it assuming an individual should be treated a specific way because of his race. In other words should race play a part in whether he is actually advantaged or disadvantaged in law by those selecting or considering him. Is it believing that races have different attributes and individuals should be considered as part of a group with specific attributes. Is it recognising that races are different, is it recognising that races are not different. Is it purely disliking other races, is it purely discriminating against other races or individuals of a race. I use the left as a catchall because most 'racist' allegations come from the left and seem to be all over the place in terms of equal application yet the very essence of not being racist I would have thought is to treat every individual as a discrete individual and any attributes are measured as his alone and not attached to him presumptively based on his race. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 9, 2024 20:05:45 GMT
Blimey,if you're not sure what racism is, I suggest you stay away from political fora. And "the left" is just a catchall to box people. Well no I do not because I see racism, as I understand it, at work every day and it is not only legal but applauded. So it would be helpful with some form of general definition. For example is it assuming an individual should be treated a specific way because of his race. In other words should race play a part in whether he is actually advantaged or disadvantaged in law by those selecting or considering him. Is it believing that races have different attributes and individuals should be considered as part of a group with specific attributes. Is it recognising that races are different, is it recognising that races are not different. Is it purely disliking other races, is it purely discriminating against other races or individuals of a race. I use the left as a catchall because most 'racist' allegations come from the left and seem to be all over the place in terms of equal application yet the very essence of not being racist I would have thought is to treat every individual as a discrete individual and any attributes are measured as his alone and not attached to him presumptively based on his race. It's hard to know exactly what you're referring to, but I'm guessing positive discrimination? If so, I partially agree, in that people should be judged on their own merits, but I also understand that people are restricted based on ethnicity, gender or religion, so some form of equaliser is required. Do I like it? No, but also understand why it's there. If you are referring to something else, please feel free to explain. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 9, 2024 20:27:30 GMT
Well no I do not because I see racism, as I understand it, at work every day and it is not only legal but applauded. So it would be helpful with some form of general definition. For example is it assuming an individual should be treated a specific way because of his race. In other words should race play a part in whether he is actually advantaged or disadvantaged in law by those selecting or considering him. Is it believing that races have different attributes and individuals should be considered as part of a group with specific attributes. Is it recognising that races are different, is it recognising that races are not different. Is it purely disliking other races, is it purely discriminating against other races or individuals of a race. I use the left as a catchall because most 'racist' allegations come from the left and seem to be all over the place in terms of equal application yet the very essence of not being racist I would have thought is to treat every individual as a discrete individual and any attributes are measured as his alone and not attached to him presumptively based on his race. It's hard to know exactly what you're referring to, but I'm guessing positive discrimination? If so, I partially agree, in that people should be judged on their own merits, but I also understand that people are restricted based on ethnicity, gender or religion, so some form of equaliser is required. Do I like it? No, but also understand why it's there. If you are referring to something else, please feel free to explain. I am asking what is racism. I gave examples of what it could be but in order not to be racist one has to know what one is not meant to be. So is it a moral consideration and if it is moral why is it allowed at all? So if it is allowed then it is not a moral argument and it is based on subjective views. We know that human rights states clearly one should not be discriminated on the basis of race, but we do, therefore it is not a human right. You have given a reason why racism is acceptable yet it is still racism so racism is not a moral imperative it can only be something outlined in law and it is yet from the left we hear smash racism by any means necessary. What is it they are going to smash? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 9, 2024 20:30:54 GMT
It's hard to know exactly what you're referring to, but I'm guessing positive discrimination? If so, I partially agree, in that people should be judged on their own merits, but I also understand that people are restricted based on ethnicity, gender or religion, so some form of equaliser is required. Do I like it? No, but also understand why it's there. If you are referring to something else, please feel free to explain. I am asking what is racism. I gave examples of what it could be but in order not to be racist one has to know what one is not meant to be. So is it a moral consideration and if it is moral why is it allowed at all? So if it is allowed then it is not a moral argument and it is based on subjective views. We know that human rights states clearly one should not be discriminated on the basis of race, but we do, therefore it is not a human right. You have given a reason why racism is acceptable yet it is still racism so racism is not a moral imperative it can only be something outlined in law and it is yet from the left we hear smash racism by any means necessary. What is it they are going to smash? OK, I get your point. So rather than starting from what's acceptable, let's start from what's not acceptable. What is your view on Dan's Euros thread? Acceptable or unacceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 9, 2024 20:46:08 GMT
I am asking what is racism. I gave examples of what it could be but in order not to be racist one has to know what one is not meant to be. So is it a moral consideration and if it is moral why is it allowed at all? So if it is allowed then it is not a moral argument and it is based on subjective views. We know that human rights states clearly one should not be discriminated on the basis of race, but we do, therefore it is not a human right. You have given a reason why racism is acceptable yet it is still racism so racism is not a moral imperative it can only be something outlined in law and it is yet from the left we hear smash racism by any means necessary. What is it they are going to smash? OK, I get your point. So rather than starting from what's acceptable, let's start from what's not acceptable. What is your view on Dan's Euros thread? Acceptable or unacceptable? Not sure which one you are referring to, is that the mass immigration thread. Perhaps I have not made myself clear you are asking my subjective opinion on what is acceptable but in the UK a person's only obligation is to the law. The law is clear on racism and clear on what can be done in what is clearly a racist way yet that does not appear to be enough and accusations of racism are thrown around with gay abandon which are not against the law but the left say it has to be smashed anyway. What is it that is being done or said that is racist and must be smashed? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 9, 2024 21:16:22 GMT
However it is clear that accusations of racism against many posters here have been made but the evidence is pretty thin with no actual examples of what constitutes racism, in fact I was accused of being racist by PV. Being racist is a matter of law but the left have managed to also make it a social crime and the left are the ones who get to define what is and is not racist. In order to smash racism by any means necessary we have to have a clear idea of what is and is not racist and that is very dependent on who the left call out. Blimey,if you're not sure what racism is, I suggest you stay away from political fora. And "the left" is just a catchall to box people. What, like the 'far right'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 9, 2024 21:21:00 GMT
Blimey,if you're not sure what racism is, I suggest you stay away from political fora. And "the left" is just a catchall to box people. What, like the 'far right'? Yes, if you like. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 10, 2024 11:18:50 GMT
OK, I get your point. So rather than starting from what's acceptable, let's start from what's not acceptable. What is your view on Dan's Euros thread? Acceptable or unacceptable? Perhaps you ought to stay away from my threads since they seem to cause an attack of the vapours. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 10, 2024 20:19:31 GMT
OK, I get your point. So rather than starting from what's acceptable, let's start from what's not acceptable. What is your view on Dan's Euros thread? Acceptable or unacceptable? Perhaps you ought to stay away from my threads since they seem to cause an attack of the vapours. So it's the reader's fault? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 6:58:18 GMT
Perhaps you ought to stay away from my threads since they seem to cause an attack of the vapours. So it's the reader's fault? 🤔 It could be because it is not clear what upsets you. You shout that things are not acceptable well what are they and why are they not acceptable and why this determination to rail against and smash that which you say others have but cannot say what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Aug 11, 2024 7:33:02 GMT
Blimey,if you're not sure what racism is, I suggest you stay away from political fora. And "the left" is just a catchall to box people. What, like the 'far right'? Nope, the Far-Right is specific, the left is a lazy term used as a catch all for anyone who isn't a Rightist. Used without any definition of Center-Left, Hard-Left or Far-Left. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 11, 2024 7:40:01 GMT
What, like the 'far right'? Nope, the Far-Right is specific, the left is a lazy term used as a catch all for anyone who isn't a Rightist. Used without any definition of Center-Left, Hard-Left or Far-Left. Really? - 'far-right' has been used to describe everything from Tommy Robinson through Nigel Farage to Priti Patel. Seems to encompass anyone and everything which the poster disagrees with. |
|
