|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 21:43:59 GMT
IMHO History is NEVER irrelevant. then you are just incredibly stupid. How unnecessarily rude! May I ask you what reference points you have upon which to base your current opinions on European affairs?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 21:47:03 GMT
It was one riposte (in that it helps to know history to plan for the future) to your claim of a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source, rather than its current meaning or context. The other is that advantages of the EU I see are not based solely on a history, nor have I claimed it. One shoe does not fit all. Other countries are at war but not in the EU. Your point is? The conditions that led to all those wars between france and germany are not present so knowing history doesnt help you at all here.No but a shoe can fit multiple people. Is there any reason to think it wouldnt fit the UK? ...and just how do you know that without having studied the history of those countries?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 16, 2018 0:15:38 GMT
No it can't. That phrase does not mean "worse than" in any context. You simply projected what you wanted me to say and thought nobody would notice. Like you did with your "2.5% growth rate" crap. And now you continue to lie. Sad. It's like this Thor: it is hard to argue that something can't be read other than in just one way while, at the same time, condemning a person for doing exactly that lol. See how things work? But, don't worry. I still accept your explanation. But time to move on. Best regards, Your Flim Flam xx Well, firstly, I didn't say it "can't be read" I said "does not mean" So once again, you either didn't read what I said, or decided to lie about me again to make a point. Although, I was wrong, sarcasm can be used to make it mean the exact opposite. Secondly, Mr English Degree, use the phrase "X...means nothing to..Y" in a sentence where it means "X...is worse than...Y"
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 16, 2018 1:15:38 GMT
FilmFlaneurSimple question. If an accusation is enough to secure conviction, how do you measure whether a crime actually took place? Oh and nice work of saying "right wing" instead of "conservative" sounds much more sinister and makes Mr Murray much easier to dismiss. Although he is gay and since I perceived that you attempted to slur his character because he is gay, you just did a hate crime. Well if I'd made an argument from authority, you might have a point, Mr English Degree.... You realise that pleading guilty gets you a reduced sentence, right? See the thing is, "hate" doesn't need to be proven. Since there is no burden of proof required, there is no defence. So you can't plead guilty to a crime, but not the hate part, because they don't need to prove that. Thus you either fight the whole case or you don't. I'm not saying there are no crimes committed, you tool. I'm saying that the perceived motivation for that crime is based on feelings not facts, thus any attempt to measure this is a measure of feelings, not facts. There s nothing wrong with a anyone identifying a crime. There is a problem if that claim is simply accepted and not challenged. Should we adopt this strategy with all crime? I can report that you assaulted me and the report is simply accepted and you're off to court? How can you possibly be ok with a system that increases sentencing on the basis of feelings? Yes, because you were legitimately asking if I hated homosexuals...You know the amount of times I've spoken in defence of LGBT rights and you know damn well one of my objections to the increasing levels of Islam in the West is its homophobia. You know how many times I've cited gay men. You can't quote a single instance of me saying something homophobic. Simply sticking a ? on the end doesn't disguise your intent. It simply marks you as a dishonest coward. Really? Riddle me this then In 2018 there are 1000 reported hate crimes. The motivation for the crime is listed as "hate" but this doesn't need to be proven. How many of those crime were actually motivated by hate? In 2019 there are 2000 reported hate crimes. The motivation for the crime is listed as "hate" but this doesn't need to be proven. How many of those crime were actually motivated by hate? Were there more crimes actually motivated by hate in 2018 or 2019? Another lie by you. You were talking about the common sense of the CPS. How has this trial been in the public interest? And good one on insinuation something about Nazis, although nothing I actually said indicates an interest in Nazis. Don't let that stop your stupidity though. Did I dispute it? Ever? So another pathetic attempt to insinuate that I hate foreigners. Whats that now? Foreign people and homosexuals. Seriously, ifmy argument was that weak, I'd just stop. Oh really? So because 2 people can defend the Worlds largest religion, you have no issue with Goz attacking it? I totally believe you mate. No seriously. It not that you think of Muslims as a minority that needs protection, thus that protection should extend to their faith, no matter what that faith claims. No, retard. I don't care that you consider me such. I don't like the term being use, not because it bothers me personally, but because others far more invested than me do not like its use. I thought you lefties were all about listening to minorities and their lived experience? Or does that only apply when convenient? Again, I didn't say you DID score a point I said "... if you think you can use it to point score.." So once again, you either didn't read what I wrote, or you're lying about what I said to rebut a strawman. This is a very common theme with you recently. Its almost like you can't argue the actual point. No mate. You don't get to "whatever" away the point because you're wrong. No religion other than Islam has a specific term for hatred of it. Not one. Oh and by the way, remember you denying you conflate the idea of Islam with Muslims? I draw your attention to this... "..The common currency of 'Islamophobia' just means that Islam is often singled out, and is a more popular hatred, and rather proves the point of standing up for that particular minority over others." Islam is not a minority, Islam is an idea. Muslims are a minority. Attacking Islam is not attacking Muslims. By this logic, when Goz calls out the bullshit in Christianity, she is attacking Christians and if you were consistent in your stance, you would call her out when she claims she isn't attacking all Christians, just the bigots. You won't though, because you rightly view Christians as separate from their faith. You do not see the same distinction between Islam and Muslims. You tried to use a terrorist attack on Muslims as some king of slam dunk that Muslims are victimised. Can I use the many, many more Islamic attacks to say non Muslims are victimised? You've literally just done it two paragraphs ago... You have literally just used Muslims and Islam interchangeably when talking about "Islamophobia" I've followed that account since early 2017. I've spoken about ex Muslims and the persecution they face on the old board. I've spoken to the admin of that page, one of the things he said was "..And 3rd goal is to educate ALL kinds of non-muslims on the importance of supporting our tsunami so that our cause fully enters the public debate." And you're still not listening. Either to me or them. We are not saying that stopping the use of the term "Islamophobia" with stop people hating Muslims. Obviously it won't. The issue the the casual switching of "Muslim" and Islam." Which you yourself just did. They are saying they get accused of "Islamophobia" for speaking out against their former religion, just as Darren Osbourne was labelled the same by the Prime Minister. Bollocks. One doesnt make a point about people not being racist then say "however." If the second point didn't relate to the first you wouldn't have said "however" Seriously, read the next sentece and tell me it doesn't sound racist... "Both Jews and Hindus share many of the same problems with criminality in their communities. That isn't to say they are all criminals, however, both share many of the same social traits and ideas" Because that sounds racist as shi. (insert your own insinuation that I hate Jews and Hindus here" Yeah, you got me alright. Using an example of a minority then claiming I hate that minority by considering them the same as the majority....
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 16, 2018 1:17:25 GMT
The conditions that led to all those wars between france and germany are not present so knowing history doesnt help you at all here.No but a shoe can fit multiple people. Is there any reason to think it wouldnt fit the UK? ...and just how do you know that without having studied the history of those countries? IF you had just beamed onto Earth and looked at the economic and diplomatic ties between France and Germany, would you conclude it likely they would go to war?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 16, 2018 1:18:43 GMT
Oh how witty. You really are a card. Do you know why I said that? The context of the point? Nobody suggested Pakistan WAS in the EU. The suggestion was that Brexit would curb Muslim migration to the UK which it won't.....because.......Well, I'm sure you can figure out why. I'm sure you have a point in there somewhere but I really can't see it. Yes, your hilariously sarcastic attempt to paint me as Captain Obvious falls well short of the mark when my comment is see in context.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 1:23:13 GMT
...and just how do you know that without having studied the history of those countries? IF you had just beamed onto Earth and looked at the economic and diplomatic ties between France and Germany, would you conclude it likely they would go to war? Gosh no, probably not butt how would I know that if I didn't know the history, even the fact that they had been at war previously, and why?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 1:31:09 GMT
FilmFlaneur Simple question. If an accusation is enough to secure conviction, how do you measure whether a crime actually took place? Oh and nice work of saying "right wing" instead of "conservative" sounds much more sinister and makes Mr Murray much easier to dismiss. Although he is gay and since I perceived that you attempted to slur his character because he is gay, you just did a hate crime. Well if I'd made an argument from authority, you might have a point, Mr English Degree.... You realise that pleading guilty gets you a reduced sentence, right? See the thing is, "hate" doesn't need to be proven. Since there is no burden of proof required, there is no defence. So you can't plead guilty to a crime, but not the hate part, because they don't need to prove that. Thus you either fight the whole case or you don't. I'm not saying there are no crimes committed, you tool. I'm saying that the perceived motivation for that crime is based on feelings not facts, thus any attempt to measure this is a measure of feelings, not facts. There s nothing wrong with a anyone identifying a crime. There is a problem if that claim is simply accepted and not challenged. Should we adopt this strategy with all crime? I can report that you assaulted me and the report is simply accepted and you're off to court? How can you possibly be ok with a system that increases sentencing on the basis of feelings? Yes, because you were legitimately asking if I hated homosexuals...You know the amount of times I've spoken in defence of LGBT rights and you know damn well one of my objections to the increasing levels of Islam in the West is its homophobia. You know how many times I've cited gay men. You can't quote a single instance of me saying something homophobic. Simply sticking a ? on the end doesn't disguise your intent. It simply marks you as a dishonest coward. Really? Riddle me this then In 2018 there are 1000 reported hate crimes. The motivation for the crime is listed as "hate" but this doesn't need to be proven. How many of those crime were actually motivated by hate? In 2019 there are 2000 reported hate crimes. The motivation for the crime is listed as "hate" but this doesn't need to be proven. How many of those crime were actually motivated by hate? Were there more crimes actually motivated by hate in 2018 or 2019? Another lie by you. You were talking about the common sense of the CPS. How has this trial been in the public interest? And good one on insinuation something about Nazis, although nothing I actually said indicates an interest in Nazis. Don't let that stop your stupidity though. Did I dispute it? Ever? So another pathetic attempt to insinuate that I hate foreigners. Whats that now? Foreign people and homosexuals. Seriously, ifmy argument was that weak, I'd just stop. Oh really? So because 2 people can defend the Worlds largest religion, you have no issue with Goz attacking it? I totally believe you mate. No seriously. It not that you think of Muslims as a minority that needs protection, thus that protection should extend to their faith, no matter what that faith claims. No, retard. I don't care that you consider me such. I don't like the term being use, not because it bothers me personally, but because others far more invested than me do not like its use. I thought you lefties were all about listening to minorities and their lived experience? Or does that only apply when convenient? Again, I didn't say you DID score a point I said "... if you think you can use it to point score.." So once again, you either didn't read what I wrote, or you're lying about what I said to rebut a strawman. This is a very common theme with you recently. Its almost like you can't argue the actual point. No mate. You don't get to "whatever" away the point because you're wrong. No religion other than Islam has a specific term for hatred of it. Not one. Oh and by the way, remember you denying you conflate the idea of Islam with Muslims? I draw your attention to this... "..The common currency of 'Islamophobia' just means that Islam is often singled out, and is a more popular hatred, and rather proves the point of standing up for that particular minority over others." Islam is not a minority, Islam is an idea. Muslims are a minority. Attacking Islam is not attacking Muslims. By this logic, when Goz calls out the bullshit in Christianity, she is attacking Christians and if you were consistent in your stance, you would call her out when she claims she isn't attacking all Christians, just the bigots. You won't though, because you rightly view Christians as separate from their faith. You do not see the same distinction between Islam and Muslims. You tried to use a terrorist attack on Muslims as some king of slam dunk that Muslims are victimised. Can I use the many, many more Islamic attacks to say non Muslims are victimised? You've literally just done it two paragraphs ago... You have literally just used Muslims and Islam interchangeably when talking about "Islamophobia" I've followed that account since early 2017. I've spoken about ex Muslims and the persecution they face on the old board. I've spoken to the admin of that page, one of the things he said was "..And 3rd goal is to educate ALL kinds of non-muslims on the importance of supporting our tsunami so that our cause fully enters the public debate." And you're still not listening. Either to me or them. We are not saying that stopping the use of the term "Islamophobia" with stop people hating Muslims. Obviously it won't. The issue the the casual switching of "Muslim" and Islam." Which you yourself just did. They are saying they get accused of "Islamophobia" for speaking out against their former religion, just as Darren Osbourne was labelled the same by the Prime Minister. Bollocks. One doesnt make a point about people not being racist then say "however." If the second point didn't relate to the first you wouldn't have said "however" Seriously, read the next sentece and tell me it doesn't sound racist... "Both Jews and Hindus share many of the same problems with criminality in their communities. That isn't to say they are all criminals, however, both share many of the same social traits and ideas" Because that sounds racist as shi. (insert your own insinuation that I hate Jews and Hindus here" Yeah, you got me alright. Using an example of a minority then claiming I hate that minority by considering them the same as the majority....
Islam is not a minority, Islam is an idea. Muslims are a minority.Exactly. So why are your knickers in a knot? What do you mean by saying Islam is not a minority? In my world Christians are a majority and for the most part they are harmless and I don't give them a second thought HOWEVER the fundies evangelists Catholics whose priests abuse children, and extremists who deny rights to women, people wanting contraception, certain races esp in Africa and Sth America and homosexuals are a scourge on this earth.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 16, 2018 10:11:34 GMT
Well, firstly, I didn't say it "can't be read" I said "does not mean" So once again, you either didn't read what I said, or decided to lie about me again to make a point. Although, I was wrong, sarcasm can be used to make it mean the exact opposite. Secondly, Mr English Degree, use the phrase "X...means nothing to..Y" in a sentence where it means "X...is worse than...Y"
Whatever; either way the same point applies. And, as said already, it's really time to move on.
Thanks for the notion that sarcasm can be used to make things mean the exact opposite, btw. Now I know you are clever.
Best regards
Your
Flim Flam BA xx
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 16, 2018 12:21:29 GMT
Simple answer: in the UK at least, convictions (i.e. the verdict that a crime did place) are most often not just gained through unsubstantiated accusations, and I am surprised you would think that. Unless of course suggesting it conveniently supports a view of the way hate crime is measured, of course.
In connection with this, I note there was no answer to my late, obvious, question so I shall repeat it: If you, and yours, were seriously intimidated by someone on the grounds that you were, specifically, say a 'white, racist, [and/or Christian] bigot', threatened in speech on this basis, would you not see it for what it is? Report matters to the police, and then afterwards expect them to recognise your complaint and record it? Take all the time you need.
The Spectator is a right wing journal. I doubt if it anyone there would deny it. And 'Nazi' (for instance) is more sinister, 'right wing' is not. I am sorry you might think so. Well then it's like this: if you are not using Murray as an authority then, like you, he is just some bloke with similarly odd and minority views, is he not? Shall I mention my granny now, who thinks the same about hate crime as I lol? A hate crime is what needs to be proven to secure a conviction. And without the hate, which is seen as a malicious motive, there is no crime to be convicted of. See how the justice system works? Once again you are just being conveniently disingenuous. Quite right, duh. For one thing you can't say this since, for one thing, you are ignorant of the real hate crimes levels either way, as you helpfully admit ... It is worth remembering that the law of slander and libel also initially revolves around the hurt feelings of the victim in regards to reputation, while a feeling of grievance is different from a final conviction for a crime on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. But you have been told this before. It is really time to stop what is in effect negating the very real fear and damage caused by hate crime on victims, my friend; or one might wonder why you need to so downplay the resurgence - as perceived by the government and a whole range of commentators and publications - of such crimes so much. Never heard of victim impact statements then, huh? Please quote where I ask "do you hate homosexuals?", even rhetorically. And even if I had, then the implication would that I did not know. Or even if I thought I know I would presumably then lack confirmation upon your outraged reassurance. But whatever: you do now rather have a thing about this. Oh, I think I know this one: "... and some of my best friends are gay" LOL A question mark is the dividing line between an accusation and a query. Which is why I use such things deliberately. But I think you really know that. But, loveable Thor, you have just earlier expressed entire ignorance in this field, and insist you "don't know" what the hate crime figures can be. So why are you quoting them at me now? How can you imply what I assert is either right or wrong? You can't have it both ways. To everyone else, I would answer that experienced, professional investigators and prosecutors in this area can probably tell what qualifies as a potential hate crime, even if unqualified noticeboard nationalists apparently cannot. And a proven hate crime still implies a conviction. *sigh* Don't let it stop you dragging in non-sequiturs either lol You dispute so much, and with so little change, Thor. As already noted, Christianity has its strident defenders here as well as more empathetic ones. Your threads are often the most Islamophobic, and you don't even find the label irksome. There are no active Muslims on this board. So it can behove me to make a balancing and contextual points balancing out your usual rhetoric and suppositions. And, even if one accepts your tendentious point about where, or where not, I choose to respond, not being consistent does not necessarily make one wrong. Some people like to defend minorities and challenge venting hyperbole where they see it. Get over it. I have an autistic brother. You were not to know that. You do now. QED Your empathy with ex-Muslims, as previously said is remarkable. As is the total lack of 'lefties', the liberal media and so on in respecting this somewhat specious line where you would have thought respecting cultural sensitivities would be strongest. But I have already noted all this as a response, even if you still don't read it. That's why I mentioned you thinking I had, not that you said it lol See the difference? I do. Already covered, my dear chap. Please keep up. Remember what I said about an absence of such a word did not mean the associated form of hatred doesn't exist? Or noting Islamophobia has such wide currency since, arguably, hatred and fear of Islam - such as we see admitted by you - is more common than, say, hated and fear of Hindus? The Islamophobic threads and replies on this board, including those of your good self, would tend to support this wider impression. But I do admire the persistence of your disingenuity. Muslims are the followers of Islam, which is a minority religion in the UK, which the above quote shows I understand. So you are reaching. Again. And indeed, just lately, you talked of those "ex Islam" I note. Perhaps they were Baptists? Meanwhile, as I will quote below Wiki for one source uses Islamophobia as term defined by the hatred and dread against a religion and/or its peoples. So there. Thank you for another diversion. But - whatever. Claiming any hyperbole on my part is ironic lol Whatever. It all seems rather a non sequitur and am not even sure this was meant for me. Who is 'we' then? You and your mum? The issue is more the answering the attacks on minorities, and their religions, with context and balance. As it always has been. And "Islamophobia is an intense fear or hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia So it appears that some conflation is perfectly acceptable. But, go on, it is your latest diversion after all...
As I said, the sentence is clear enough; the terms used after my 'however' were neutral. The problem is with you, dear Thor. Lately you have admitted of late that the Brexiteer camp contains at least some Xenophobes etc - a QED then, which still stands; and which rather answers your own complaint. My statement is not about all who voted to leave, it is about some. I really hope that helps, it ought to as I am bored with pointing things out all the time.
Oh, and learn to use the correct placement and use of 'sic' properly too. Here it reads as if you are noting your own correctly reported mistake as you write.
Since that is a sentence you wrote and not I, I will best leave you to explain it to yourself to your own satisfaction. Er, I think it is you in a knot here since I don't remember writing this, but could be wrong. But whoever said it, it might be observed that, world-wide, Islam is not a minority religion in the sense that it is one of the a smaller ones. And in the UK, Islam is in the minority as a religion as are its adherents. Although apparently they, or the religion are set to take over one day. I wonder who claims that? lol. Kind regards, Your Flim Flam BA xx
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 16, 2018 18:02:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 17, 2018 14:26:15 GMT
Well, firstly, I didn't say it "can't be read" I said "does not mean" So once again, you either didn't read what I said, or decided to lie about me again to make a point. Although, I was wrong, sarcasm can be used to make it mean the exact opposite. Secondly, Mr English Degree, use the phrase "X...means nothing to..Y" in a sentence where it means "X...is worse than...Y"
Whatever; either way the same point applies. And, as said already, it's really time to move on.
Thanks for the notion that sarcasm can be used to make things mean the exact opposite, btw. Now I know you are clever.
Best regards
Your
Flim Flam BA xx Once again. You don't get to whatever away the point when you're wrong. I didn't say what you claimed initially and I didn't say what you claimed I said in your weak attempt to justify your lies.. But its nice you want to "move on" rather than accept your dishonesty and lack of integrity.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 17, 2018 14:48:04 GMT
gozThe KKK are a minority. The Westboro Baptist Church are a Minority. White Supremacists are a minority. The BNP is a minority. In 1936 the Nazis were a minority. ISIS are a minority. Being a minority doesn't mean you are not dangerous, nor does it mean your ideas shouldn't be challenged. And Islam isn't a minority because Islam is an idea. Islam is not a person. So does your criticism of the Christian Fundies become invalid since they themselves are a minority. By your own logic it should. But because they are associated with a larger group they become valid targets for you, right? I don't see that distinction when talking about ideologies. What is important is how harmful that ideology is. Because in Europe, when you are talking about religious fundamentalism, Christianity doesn't even come close to representing the problem Islam does. But again, you are talking about people, not ideas. Muslims are people. People who should be afforded exactly the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other group in the Western World. No person should ever be discriminated against because of their race, religion, sex, sexuality, social status, age, physical status or gender identity. Every person IS an individual and should be judged according to their own worth, ideas and merit. When their ideas are bad, those ideas should be called out. Being brown or female or gay doesn't excuse you this.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 17, 2018 14:58:49 GMT
tpfkar The KKK are a minority. The Westboro Baptist Church are a Minority. White Supremacists are a minority. The BNP is a minority. In 1936 the Nazis were a minority. ISIS are a minority. Being a minority doesn't mean you are not dangerous, nor does it mean your ideas shouldn't be challenged. And Islam isn't a minority because Islam is an idea. Islam is not a person. Right, all those groups are "a person" then. And neither Islam nor Christianity are their "fundies". It'd still be nice if they both faded away and ragers didn't have it in, in general, for members of one or the other. Masculinity was just fine until regressives decided White Straight Men were somewhere between Hitler and fecal matter.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 17, 2018 16:35:00 GMT
FilmFlaneurAgain, for the slow. The "Hate" part doesn't need to be proven. And no, that isn't me saying that, its the police themselves www.report-it.org.uk/files/hate_crime_operational_guidance.pdfTake a look at their examples. Notably example C So a crime happened. We don't know who did it or why they did it.But someone says its a hate crime, so its a hate crime. Yes, I would expect the police to listen. If I was lying about the threat, do you think it justified to use my complaint as a basis to claim anti Christian bigotry? Doesn't matter. I perceived this as an attack on a gay man for being gay. The police could record that as a hate insident. How does it feel to be a homophobe based on my perseption, even though I'm obviously lying? That is the thing you support so own it. If you like. Has she known public views and did I suggest you were the only one who had your views? I didnt say the argument was correct because Murray made it. You have once more incorretly asserted a logical fallacy. Move on. So, you massive tit. Again, look at the example from the police guidance. You can commit a crime, but the motivation for that crime isn't based on anything except feelings. As I pointed out, I could assault a gay bloke, without knowing he was gay and be charged with a hate crime. I would be guilty of assault, but I logically could not be guilty of a hate crime. Your insert is incorrect and shows again how you choose to selectively read what I actually say and quote out of context to support your dishonesty. What I actually said ". I'm not saying there are no crimes committed, you tool. I'm saying that the perceived motivation for that crime is based on feelings not facts, thus any attempt to measure this is a measure of feelings, not facts." I wonder why you inserted your own words into my sentence, then left off the next sentence that qualifies the point? And its also worth remembering that if I accuse a person of libel, I don't win the case. Also worth noting it is covered by Civil Law and not Criminal law, thus it require a lower standard of evidence and does not carry a custodial sentence. Also worth noting that if I sue for libel, I have to prove my case. Yes, ever heard of liars? You're fooling nobody. Anyone reading that knows what you were doing. Stop thinking you are so much cleverer than anyone else. Its embarrassing watching you squirm around to avoid owning your own words. See above. Yes, because there is literally no way a question can be accusatory. Nobody has ever said "Really?" or "Was this you?" as an accusation. Nobody has ever couched an accusation as a question....Your being disingenuous again. But I think everybody knows that. No. I don't know and neither do you. Because even if a conviction is secured, it doesn't prove the motivation, because the motivation doesn't need to be proven or even questioned. Nothing in what I said wasn't logically following my argument. In the case I described in response to your suggestion of the "common sense" of police and CPS, the person in question was given massively more exposure for the crime in question and his social media reach is now significantly larger than it was before the arrest. The Crown as been fighting this case for two years, at taxpayer expense. So the "common sense" of the CPS has lead to global exposure for a man and a message that they believe to be a dangerous anti-Semite. So well done there I guess. So "no" then. Its okay to admit being wrong, Flemmy. Oh, White Saviour it is then. You have no principles, which doesn't surprise me. I'm not even going to attempt to justify myself. You are correct to call me on that, it was wrong, I apologise. There is a definite culture in the media of not wanting to offend minorities. I would draw your attention to Piers Morgan. When interviewing Tommy Robinson on the Qur'an he got all angry and demanded Robinson show respect for other peoples beliefs. When interviewing Tanis Joya, she said the same thing about the Qur'an and he just meekly agreed. The fact that the MSM isn't reporting it isn't really an argument. Maajid Nawaz, Mohammed Tawhidi and Tommy Robinson have all spoken about this. Guess what? Robinson is a "fascist hater" Maajid is "Anti Muslim" according to the SPL and Tawhidi requires 24 hour security. Of course it doesn't. I said there is no word to cover anti Hinduism specifically. Thus there is no way to conflate hatred of Hindus with criticism of Hinduism. I am staggered you can't see the distinction. And once more you are conflating people with ideas, by comparing "hatred and fear of Islam" with "hatred and fear of Hindus" You can say "Islam and Hinduism" or "Muslims and Hindus" Islam and Muslims are not the same thing. Hindus and Hinduism are not the same thing. Yes. Muslims are the followers of an idea. They are not the idea. And I said "Ex Muslims." Meaning they were did follow Islam and now don't and are being persecuted for it. What do Baptists have to do with it, I don't get your point? You are saying the idea of Islam needs defending because Muslims are a minority. That makes no sense. If the ideas of Islam are bad, they should be called out. Nigerian Christians in the UK are still believe children are guilty of witchcraft and possession. Should we not call that out because Nigerians are a minority? This just reeks of moral and cultural relativism. Dude, That would literally support my point. You're claiming you don't conflate race and relgion, whilst using the term Islamophobia, then link to a cote claiming Islamophobia is "the hatred and dread against a religion and/or its peoples." Thank you for making my argument for me. Now go and show me the term for any other religion where the same term can be used for the religion and the people. Its not a diversion in any way. The entire point is whether "Islamophobia" conflates race with religion. Nice deflection. Yes, whatever away the words of an ex Muslim minority because he is contradicting you. Yes, quote me out of context again. That doesn't make you at all dishonest. Again, here is the full point. "And you're still not listening. Either to me or them. We are not saying that stopping the use of the term "Islamophobia" with stop people hating Muslims." With "them" being the ex Muslims we were talking about. But then you knew that. No, conflation isn't acceptable. You have the legal right to criticise religion in the UK. However, if you criticise Christianity or Hinduism, you cannot be labelled as a "Christophobe" or a "Hinduphobe" and that criticism cannot be conflated with racism, as it can with Islamophobia. The Qur'an makes a series of claims that are frankly dumb. If you called that out you get labelled an "Islamophobe" That term ALSO applies to people who hate Muslims. How do you not see the problem? Sorry, yeah that was Goz not you.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 17, 2018 17:00:25 GMT
tpfkar You're reaching Ada levels here Flim Flam Oh the Ada-level self-oblivious irony. Flim Flam LOLLOLOLOL What part of this do you not understand? Oh grow up. <some silliness followed by>.....
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 19, 2018 14:57:47 GMT
You don't get to whatever away the point when you're wrong. I didn't say what you claimed initially and I didn't say what you claimed I said in your weak attempt to justify your lies.. But its nice you want to "move on" rather than accept your dishonesty and lack of integrity. Whatever, lol. I still accept your explanation. So don't you have better things to do? Best regards, Your Flim Flam (BA Hons) xx
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 19, 2018 16:52:23 GMT
In which Thor still thinks the hate crimes can't be shown by victims and, so logically can't be prosecuted for. And that dictionaries are wrong with their definition of Islamophobia. Or something. LOL But we read from your same link: "Hate crimes are more prevalent than official statistics suggest " Which, especially when virtually all commentators have seen an increase in the last few years is, still the point. . I am sorry that you don't think hate as an element of crime cannot be shown or proved. But the legal system begs to differ and there are people who have found to their cost it can. QED. And on the same philosophical basis, presumably one can also argue that crimes of sexual harassment, when the feelings and reckoning of a person towards events are also a trigger, can be done away with, too? Keep going, it all makes sense now... That was not really answering the question. Expect the police to listen, well, yes. But what sort of crime would you want the police to log it as? If you and yours were specifically targeted and seriously intimidated in terms of your religion or race, would you not want the police not to recognise and note this defining detail? Take your time. As already mentioned in this thread, professional investigators are very used to encountering defendant who are liars. And of course, if you lied and so your claim did fall apart on inspection, then a successful prosecution would be unlikely anyway .. Again, you are reaching here. But I can see why you need to. And to imply that hate crimes cannot be taken seriously since someone 'could be lying', if extended to other areas, means that the same doubt can be placed over other types of cases, EG: sexual harassment. And yet hate crimes, sexual harassment etc, are dealt with every day in the courts and there is no sense of 'conviction from the unproveable'. Just because you have philosophical objections and a narrative doesn't make that fact go away. But I can see why, in arguing against the prevalence of hate crime you would also want to argue it away, as much as possible, entirely. But it is really time to move on with your fixation, as you are now just repeating yourself. And I didn't suggest you did. There is a fallacy though, in that you cannot argue that one "doesn't know" the figures of hate crime in this county while at the same time as using them (or what others supposedly say about them) to argue with them against me. See how the logic works? I do. At last, a new insult! I was getting worried you had lost your bile. Indeed; but in court, through various avenues, any successful prosecution would establish likely motivation, beyond reasonable doubt. I hope that helps. Again. After all, in hate crimes (and those of harassment, etc) the defendants usually make their feelings and intentions quite obvious to the victim at the time. To which the reply is the same: your objections are philosophical, rather than legal, since motivations for hate crime and other crimes are successfully proved in court all the time, helping convictions. It really is not a controversial observation. Since I am growing bored with repeating such an obvious fact then in any further exchanges all references will be to this paragraph. Never heard of criminal libel either, too lol? And I am not sure that this changes the point: that, whatever the standard of proof in civil trials, the issue is still on whether the victim's feeling or reckoning of the reputational damage done. (You may also wish to know that the burden of proof falls differs between the UK and the US, for instance) And if I just accuse someone of sexual harassment or a hate crime I don't automatically win my case either, until the accusation carries weight before a judge and/or jury, but thanks for another non-sequitur. QED. So once again then: no substantiating quote lol But, it is like this, see : even if your feelings really were hurt with my references to your two sudden homosexual hate law comments, naturally you can't prove or show it .. so then, er, I wouldn't know if the offence was real, would I? Hey I get the hang of your logic now! And I don't think that I am cleverer than anybody else. Perhaps, though, I am cleverer than some would seem. Well then QED; and so my point stands. A question is just not an "accusation". And your persecution complex is showing again, my friend. Motivations, as has been painfully explained to you before, are what are commonly proved, or established, in court to help prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (and yes they can be questioned too)and to gain convictions, every day. And don't tell me what I don't know. Which is still a non-sequitur since, whilst justice delayed may well be justice denied, the point is irrelevant, unless you are now arguing that all prosecutions are necessarily non-commonsensical judged from this one example. No system is perfect? Well, duh. But keep going with this, you know how I like your extended diversions. Does this mean that because I get one dumb reply on this board they all are? Could be... When that happens clearly, feel free to remind me again. Thank you for not being sarcastic and rude. First apology accepted. (With this you are one up on Midnight who in a similar exchange lately, first claimed 'retard' was not insulting - then said I was a liar about my family!) Why would one want to offend minorities? If you mean that there should always be a right to offend where stupid, illiberal or bad ideas exist generally, then I would agree with you and with free speech when it is not hate speech. There is, after all, no human right not to feel offended. But 'offence' is not the same as intimidation and hate. Please don't. It was bad enough with the Nazis. QED. I can only refer you back to the standard dictionary definitions of Islamophobia as "a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims.", or the OED "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims" or Webster "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam ". You may have philosophical or semantic objections to the conflation, but there is no doubting that it is in common use, combining both a fear and dread of a religion and also of those identified and defined by it. It happens. Get over it. In future should you drag on with this diversion, you will be referred back to this paragraph. Minorities, as history shows with terrible examples, are often those most facing prejudice, rejection, blame and fear. I'd go so far to say that a society can be judged by the way it treats its minorities. That alone is not the only reason to defend them, of course. But fair play is important, as well as social justice, concern for the underdog and all that sort of thing. There are, it hardly needs to be said, good and bad people in every minority. But, as a white nationalist, not apparently bothered by the label of Islamophobe, who told me once that "diversity is not good for anything" or something, you are saying just what I might expect. This is something we can agree on. As an atheist I find plenty to call them out on, such as their treatment of women etc. But not all Muslims are terrorists and the way to confront the worst aspects is not through hyperbole, dread, fear and hate, which is -always- the point. I am saying that it is yes, probably easier, and more logical to keep them apart - but that the term can be an umbrella one as the dictionaries and public displays of such a thing show. However, since you 'don't find it irksome' to be considered an Islamophobe, then either way, why would it worry you? This difficulty just emphasises the much more common and pernicious growth of Islamophobia over the hate to religions expressed elsewhere. There is no common term for the fear and hatred of paedophiles either, does that mean the current moral panic over child abuse is not based around a real phenomenon? Already answered above. To the some, the two are often the same and they have the dictionaries on their side. A charge of religious hate does not depend on the use of the descriptive noun, Thor. But I think you really know that. I don't why you consider such a minor point so critical, as if it at all affects the phenomenon of racial hatred overall. As I have already said, the prevalence of 'islamophobia' probably just reflect a more common, world-wide phenomenon, and see also my point about child abuse, above. Yes: the problem is that you are back in hyperbole land again. Although it is possible to call every criticism of Islam "Islamophobia!" it is an exaggeration to suggest it always happens, is useful, accurate or sensible - let alone the fact debate about that faith exists within it. But I think you really know all this. Sorry, yeah that was Goz not you. Second apology accepted. Kind regards Film Flam BA (hons) xx [/quote]
|
|