|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 8:19:32 GMT
I disagree. I did explain this earlier but perhaps with the impediment of your improper schooling you don’t get it. Homophobic becaviour is typified by discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is what is supported by the judgement. If you support some discriminatory attitude, behaviour or position the only feasible explanation is that you agree with the sentiment and thus you yourself are (in this case) homophobic. By definition, the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that such a stance was not homophobic. Of course they did. But they were wrong. Don’t tell me you think that every judgement handed down by a foreign court is perfect and definitive, especially when it comes from a bible thumping country like the USA? Next you’ll be telling me that the USA’s gun laws are clearly the best since sliced bread because the courts approve and support them!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 8:20:15 GMT
I disagree. I did explain this earlier but perhaps with the impediment of your improper schooling you don’t get it. Homophobic becaviour is typified by discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is what is supported by the judgement. If you support some discriminatory attitude, behaviour or position the only feasible explanation is that you agree with the sentiment and thus you yourself are (in this case) homophobic. You could for example vigorously defend and support the right of old men in raincoats to bugger babies until they burst whilst vociferously stating that you weren’t a paedophile. But nobody would believe you. If I remember rightly you are the one who was arguing in support of paedophilier. Yet another accasion when you made your self look silly on the forum so went of in a huff and didn't post for a while. You remember wrongly.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jun 19, 2018 8:23:19 GMT
If I remember rightly you are the one who was arguing in support of paedophilier. Yet another accasion when you made your self look silly on the forum so went of in a huff and didn't post for a while. You remember wrongly. I don't think so, I remember quite clearly, it was one of those times you made a stupid of the cuff comment just to be controversial, when people questioned you about the comment. You dug yourself a bigger hole, then disappeared for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 8:28:15 GMT
I don't think so, I remember quite clearly, it was one of those times you made a stupid of the cuff comment just to be controversial, when people questioned you about the comment. You dug yourself a bigger hole, then disappeared for a while. Photos or it didn’t happen - as they say. If I take a day off the forum because I’m busy, according to you it’s because I’m away sulking. You’ve said it many times. When in reality, sometimes I remember I have a life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 8:36:01 GMT
Forums rely on everyone being open to the views of others, but labelling individuals without sufficient evidence can get us into trouble under the defamation Act. Anyway, as you know, I hate labels and attempts to place people in boxes. We are all a complex mix of thoughts, emotions and personal history. It’s a shame when people try to shut others up, how else are we all going to learn from each other. Jenlyn is welcome to sue me for defamation. It would be a right laugh to countersue - I have so much material! Referring to your last sentence, I have at no point called for Jenlyn to shut up. There would be no point as I have no power to do so. I have merely stated the obvious so that there is no doubt what the consequence of his views are. In the same way that if someone started banging on about how the darkies should all be sent back to where they came from, I would call them out for being racist. ...but IF the main aim is to educate people, then using labels to pigeonhole them isn’t likely to help the flow. All it does is get their backs up, which often results in a pointless slanging match and might make them even more resolute about their existing views. Look at the damage labels do in politics and religion. “Sticks and stones...”, I reckon the use of labelling has killed more people in this world than anything else (sorry, I digress.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 8:36:29 GMT
I don't think so, I remember quite clearly, it was one of those times you made a stupid of the cuff comment just to be controversial, when people questioned you about the comment. You dug yourself a bigger hole, then disappeared for a while. Photos or it didn’t happen - as they say. If I take a day off the forum because I’m busy, according to you it’s because I’m away sulking. You’ve said it many times. When in reality, sometimes I remember I have a life. You lie confidently. Your let down by the fact that when you run off skulking from here, you are within minutes posting on cwdf. (Where you are also classed as a bit of a pillock).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 8:41:08 GMT
By definition, the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that such a stance was not homophobic. Of course they did. But they were wrong. Don’t tell me you think that every judgement handed down by a foreign court is perfect and definitive, especially when it comes from a bible thumping country like the USA? Next you’ll be telling me that the USA’s gun laws are clearly the best since sliced bread because the courts approve and support them! I thought you were a big defender of law Nick. Mind you, we are taking about the USA I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by bills on Jun 19, 2018 8:54:15 GMT
I don't think so, I remember quite clearly, it was one of those times you made a stupid of the cuff comment just to be controversial, when people questioned you about the comment. You dug yourself a bigger hole, then disappeared for a while. That could be what happened in Blackburn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 9:37:18 GMT
No wonder nobody moors there!
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 9:55:54 GMT
By definition, the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that such a stance was not homophobic. Of course they did. But they were wrong. Don’t tell me you think that every judgement handed down by a foreign court is perfect and definitive, especially when it comes from a bible thumping country like the USA? It would have been easier to have said "I am a racist".
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jun 19, 2018 10:39:00 GMT
Jenlyn is welcome to sue me for defamation. It would be a right laugh to countersue - I have so much material! Referring to your last sentence, I have at no point called for Jenlyn to shut up. There would be no point as I have no power to do so. I have merely stated the obvious so that there is no doubt what the consequence of his views are. In the same way that if someone started banging on about how the darkies should all be sent back to where they came from, I would call them out for being racist. ...but IF the main aim is to educate people, then using labels to pigeonhole them isn’t likely to help the flow. All it does is get their backs up, which often results in a pointless slanging match and might make them even more resolute about their existing views. Look at the damage labels do in politics and religion. “Sticks and stones...”, I reckon the use of labelling has killed more people in this world than anything else (sorry, I digress.)
I don't think you do ..... I think that was very pertinant
|
|
|
Post by alex on Jun 19, 2018 12:24:39 GMT
The fact that the US Supreme Court made a judgement which went against the party which was homosexual does not make the Supreme Court homophobic. Agreeing with the Supreme Court's decision does not make a third party homophobic. You do the gay rights movement no favours by identifying hatred where no hatred exists. Well of course it depends on what you mean by “homophobic”. If you had been to a proper school you would know that the “phobic” bit means an extreme fear, typically an irrational fear. However when someone displays symptoms of homophobia it is hard to know what is behind it, whether it is a conscious fear, an unconscious fear or something else (that the person themselves may not even know). But what we can do is to define the sort of behaviour typical or homophobes and that is one of discrimination on grounds of non-straight sexual orientation. Refusing to make a cake with a message supporting something to do with homosexuality, for a gay customer, is a decision based on discrimination and thus the act and the perpetrator are homophobic, as is the judgement and as are people who support the judgement. Dislike of something is not the same as fear of something .
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 13:08:46 GMT
Well of course it depends on what you mean by “homophobic”. If you had been to a proper school you would know that the “phobic” bit means an extreme fear, typically an irrational fear. However when someone displays symptoms of homophobia it is hard to know what is behind it, whether it is a conscious fear, an unconscious fear or something else (that the person themselves may not even know). But what we can do is to define the sort of behaviour typical or homophobes and that is one of discrimination on grounds of non-straight sexual orientation. Refusing to make a cake with a message supporting something to do with homosexuality, for a gay customer, is a decision based on discrimination and thus the act and the perpetrator are homophobic, as is the judgement and as are people who support the judgement. Dislike of something is not the same as fear of something . My views are based on neither dislike nor fear. I fully support the baker in the Belfast gay cake row who refused to decorate a cake with the motif "Support gay marriage", in the same way that I would support a Muslim baker who refused to decorate a cake with the legend "The prophet Mohammed did not exist", despite the fact that as a staunch atheist I do not myself believe that the prophet Mohammed existed. It's all about respecting the fact that other people may have strongly held views which do not necessarily agree with mine, and has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's sexual orientation or belief in deities.
|
|
|
Post by bills on Jun 19, 2018 13:10:39 GMT
Well of course it depends on what you mean by “homophobic”. If you had been to a proper school you would know that the “phobic” bit means an extreme fear, typically an irrational fear. However when someone displays symptoms of homophobia it is hard to know what is behind it, whether it is a conscious fear, an unconscious fear or something else (that the person themselves may not even know). But what we can do is to define the sort of behaviour typical or homophobes and that is one of discrimination on grounds of non-straight sexual orientation. Refusing to make a cake with a message supporting something to do with homosexuality, for a gay customer, is a decision based on discrimination and thus the act and the perpetrator are homophobic, as is the judgement and as are people who support the judgement. Dislike of something is not the same as fear of something . Quite. The 'phobic label which is hurled around is a bit strange.
People who dislike Islam are labelled Islamaphobes, but people who dislike Jews are labelled Anti-Semitic, not Semetiphobes. It seems a bit inconsistent. I doubt if many anti-homosexual people are actually irrationally afraid of them
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 13:15:45 GMT
So it is with Jenlyn’s homophobia. All the evidence points to it (including ...hiding under the duvet when a couple of poofs are sauntering along the canal in his general direction? Correct!
|
|