Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? " Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry. Just for balance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry. Just for balance." Trying to deflect much?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry. Just for balance. Trying to deflect much? "Isn’t that what both sides are doing ? As someone with no political alligences it seems we use the *race* card to bounce from tory bashing to labour bashing. Neither side seems to hold its hands up. Both seem to play whataboutary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry. Just for balance. Trying to deflect much?
Isn’t that what both sides are doing ?
As someone with no political alligences it seems we use the *race* card to bounce from tory bashing to labour bashing. Neither side seems to hold its hands up. Both seem to play whataboutary. "I am political and, if anything, more sympathetic to the one nation Conservative ideal but I totally agree with what you say here.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Emily Thornberry. Just for balance. Trying to deflect much?
Isn’t that what both sides are doing ?
As someone with no political alligences it seems we use the *race* card to bounce from tory bashing to labour bashing. Neither side seems to hold its hands up. Both seem to play whataboutary. "I don't think so, Labour had an outsider thoroughly investigate the party and published the findings as well as adopting an internationally recognised definition (If not examples) of anti semitism. The Tories on the other hand are having an internal disciplinary hearing, and are bitching internally with the person who said Boris was islamaphobic then being attacked as anti-Semitic for an event he attended years ago. If it was anto-semitic then why didn't the party take action at the time? Why only the calls after he spoke out against Boris? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think the Boris reaction would have been the same if there wasn’t an anti Semite story going on ? I think this, plus brexit, made it a bigger reaction for his article. " Probably not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think the Boris reaction would have been the same if there wasn’t an anti Semite story going on ? I think this, plus brexit, made it a bigger reaction for his article. " I agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think the Boris reaction would have been the same if there wasn’t an anti Semite story going on ? I think this, plus brexit, made it a bigger reaction for his article. " I would hope islsmsphobia would be called out regardless of the political climate. Are we saying we only call it out to make political gain and sweep hate and racism under the carpet at all other times ?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think the Boris reaction would have been the same if there wasn’t an anti Semite story going on ? I think this, plus brexit, made it a bigger reaction for his article. I would hope islsmsphobia would be called out regardless of the political climate. Are we saying we only call it out to make political gain and sweep hate and racism under the carpet at all other times ? "Pretty much | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think the Boris reaction would have been the same if there wasn’t an anti Semite story going on ? I think this, plus brexit, made it a bigger reaction for his article. I would hope islsmsphobia would be called out regardless of the political climate. Are we saying we only call it out to make political gain and sweep hate and racism under the carpet at all other times ? "I’m sayin the extent of the reaction is used for political gains. It was a case of very poor taste in humour (imo at least) yet is still going strong. I get the impression the news (and sonthe polictal agenda) is fanning the flames here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think the Boris reaction would have been the same if there wasn’t an anti Semite story going on ? I think this, plus brexit, made it a bigger reaction for his article. I would hope islsmsphobia would be called out regardless of the political climate. Are we saying we only call it out to make political gain and sweep hate and racism under the carpet at all other times ?
I’m sayin the extent of the reaction is used for political gains. It was a case of very poor taste in humour (imo at least) yet is still going strong. I get the impression the news (and sonthe polictal agenda) is fanning the flames here. "It's more the straw that broke the camels back. There's no room left under the carpet to sweep that shit.A little spring cleaning is needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No such thing as islamophobia. Im from a Muslim background. All religions should be up front scrutiny." How about anti Semitism is that imaginary .? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No such thing as islamophobia. Im from a Muslim background. All religions should be up front scrutiny. How about anti Semitism is that imaginary .?" Not sure how you made the link. They have nothing to do with each other. Anti semitism is very real. It's not enough for Corbyn to be non anti semitic (which he isn't anyway), he needs to be and shoe himself to be actively anti anti-Semitism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No such thing as islamophobia. Im from a Muslim background. All religions should be up front scrutiny. How about anti Semitism is that imaginary .? Not sure how you made the link. They have nothing to do with each other. Anti semitism is very real. It's not enough for Corbyn to be non anti semitic (which he isn't anyway), he needs to be and shoe himself to be actively anti anti-Semitism." Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally. Anti Semitism.is hostility or prejudice, and discrimination against Jews. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No such thing as islamophobia. Im from a Muslim background. All religions should be up front scrutiny. How about anti Semitism is that imaginary .? Not sure how you made the link. They have nothing to do with each other. Anti semitism is very real. It's not enough for Corbyn to be non anti semitic (which he isn't anyway), he needs to be and shoe himself to be actively anti anti-Semitism. Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally. Anti Semitism.is hostility or prejudice, and discrimination against Jews. "Did I ask for your definitions? Another mansplainer... And again no such thing as islamophobia. You can't be prejudice against an idea. If you want to talk about being anti Muslim go ahead. In any case it's just the new racism. Brown people are hated by white people regardless of religion. All the label islamophobia does is give more reason to hate brown people while trampling over the racism experienced by non Muslim brown people. And then within the Muslim community words like islamophobia are used against non conformist Muslims and ex muslims. Islamophobia as a label is at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous and racist itself. By your definition one is islamophobic if they hate Isis. Well I hate Isis and if that makes me islamophobic then so be it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No such thing as islamophobia. Im from a Muslim background. All religions should be up front scrutiny. How about anti Semitism is that imaginary .? Not sure how you made the link. They have nothing to do with each other. Anti semitism is very real. It's not enough for Corbyn to be non anti semitic (which he isn't anyway), he needs to be and shoe himself to be actively anti anti-Semitism. Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally. Anti Semitism.is hostility or prejudice, and discrimination against Jews. "Anti semitism is what the internationally recognised definition of the word says it is, not what Jeremy Corbyn makes up in his own head. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone has a right to hate, be fearful of or reject/criticise any religion. Otherwise what differentiates democracy and any religious theocracy?" Yeah all religions are silly. But people have the right to believe anything they want, so long as it’s not used for making any decisions that effect the lives of others. So should be kept well away from politics and state. The problem is the “hate” part as that often manifests in hating on the people, as is evident in the rise in race hate crime in the uk at the moment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that . "I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference."Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone has a right to hate, be fearful of or reject/criticise any religion. Otherwise what differentiates democracy and any religious theocracy? Yeah all religions are silly. But people have the right to believe anything they want, so long as it’s not used for making any decisions that effect the lives of others. So should be kept well away from politics and state. The problem is the “hate” part as that often manifests in hating on the people, as is evident in the rise in race hate crime in the uk at the moment." Most people who hate non white people would do it with or without a religion present. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No such thing as islamophobia. Im from a Muslim background. All religions should be up front scrutiny. How about anti Semitism is that imaginary .? Not sure how you made the link. They have nothing to do with each other. Anti semitism is very real. It's not enough for Corbyn to be non anti semitic (which he isn't anyway), he needs to be and shoe himself to be actively anti anti-Semitism. Islamophobia is the fear, hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims generally. Anti Semitism.is hostility or prejudice, and discrimination against Jews.
Anti semitism is what the internationally recognised definition of the word says it is, not what Jeremy Corbyn makes up in his own head. "The internationally recognised definition is and should be open to criticism. Have you read it? Some of it is bonkers. And how come all of a sudden you’re against this kind of thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?"There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are. "Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 .  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are.
Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing."Neo cons have made the word liberal a dirty word . It's part of their alt right agenda just ask those in the forum who supported the KKK marching in Charlottesville and called them good decent people . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are.
Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing.
Neo cons have made the word liberal a dirty word . It's part of their alt right agenda just ask those in the forum who supported the KKK marching in Charlottesville and called them good decent people . "I encounter more race hate enthusiasts here on Fab than in real life by a large factor. Something about this site that attracts them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are.
Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing.
Neo cons have made the word liberal a dirty word . It's part of their alt right agenda just ask those in the forum who supported the KKK marching in Charlottesville and called them good decent people .
I encounter more race hate enthusiasts here on Fab than in real life by a large factor. Something about this site that attracts them."Oh yes. Plenty of racism on this site. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?"I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. This is racism in a nutshell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
"Excuse me there are plenty of us non conformist and ex muslims who fear Islam because of the reality we face. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
Excuse me there are plenty of us non conformist and ex muslims who fear Islam because of the reality we face."Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right." You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"BoJo is from Muslim stock. Really just look up his paternal great grandpa. A Turk with an Islamic name. On another forum some time ago, I said I thought he would be a good pm, and the old left footers were shouting it from the rooftops. Funny how people are so economical with the truth..." So you think that because his grandparent had an islamic name, that makes him not an islamaphobe? Is that what they refer to as a grandfather clause? pmsl. I think BJ is am opportunist, but his comments are a reflection of the people which support him. Which is way worst than the stupid comments he said. Boris exposes the nasty, vile and repugnant underbelly of the majority of tory grassroot supporters. The problem is can right wing politics remove the discrimination and appeal to the masses. This is the reason why they will never get landslides victories, because they are seriously un appealling to the masses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
"Sounds like a Yoda STAR WARS quote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
Sounds like a Yoda STAR WARS quote. "Cenny, did not know you were a fan. Come on empire or rebels | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
Sounds like a Yoda STAR WARS quote.
Cenny, did not know you were a fan. Come on empire or rebels "I've got a photo on my public pics here wearing a pair of STAR WARS boxer shorts, so i'd say that proves i'm a fan. In answer to your question, watch this video...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvmZm587ew4 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
Sounds like a Yoda STAR WARS quote.
Cenny, did not know you were a fan. Come on empire or rebels
I've got a photo on my public pics here wearing a pair of STAR WARS boxer shorts, so i'd say that proves i'm a fan.
In answer to your question, watch this video...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvmZm587ew4"Ah a big fan of google gotcha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
I'm an atheists all religion is nonsense for me .I am against hatred against religons and those who believe it.Critism is fine but hate leads to violence .
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
This is racism in a nutshell.
Sounds like a Yoda STAR WARS quote.
Cenny, did not know you were a fan. Come on empire or rebels
I've got a photo on my public pics here wearing a pair of STAR WARS boxer shorts, so i'd say that proves i'm a fan.
In answer to your question, watch this video...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvmZm587ew4
Ah a big fan of google gotcha "No wrong guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both." Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it." Well said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All religion is superstition. A religion is just a cult, with the benefit of tenure. People are free to believe whatever mumbo jumbo floats their ark, but the notion that religions are entitled to respect or special status is just ludicrous." How about sexual orientation? Is that entitled to respect or special status? Race? Trade union membership? Gender? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. This is racism in a nutshell. " I posted that on another thread about 2 days ago | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? " Questioning the wearing of the niqab or burqua is not Islamabpobia. Mocking the women whos rights you claim to be defending rather than the men is not Islamaphobia. It's nasty bullying and is taking the opportunity to gain support from people with a deep mistrust of anyone who does not look like themselves. It slips onto Islamaphobia because it inevitably leads to all Muslims being labelled as mysogynists with a medieval view on women's rights. So in this case, and in many cases, a definition of Islamiphobia is irrelevant because all Muslims are tarred by association to a tiny minority who's views are geographically not religiously defined. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it." Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. " Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? Questioning the wearing of the niqab or burqua is not Islamabpobia. Mocking the women whos rights you claim to be defending rather than the men is not Islamaphobia. It's nasty bullying and is taking the opportunity to gain support from people with a deep mistrust of anyone who does not look like themselves. It slips onto Islamaphobia because it inevitably leads to all Muslims being labelled as mysogynists with a medieval view on women's rights. So in this case, and in many cases, a definition of Islamiphobia is irrelevant because all Muslims are tarred by association to a tiny minority who's views are geographically not religiously defined." Totally agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? " A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28%" So? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime." And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28%" So for him to apologise its 51%?, a larger proportion of the public? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? " Do you hate them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them?" Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them? Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic." Do you hate all non white people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them? Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic. Do you hate all non white people?" No, never have, never will. I like all people, all walks of life, getting to talk to them, finding out about them, the greatest thing about living in the UK is it has brought diversity. Its a facinating thing. Life is for living, life is too short for hate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them? Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic. Do you hate all non white people? No, never have, never will. I like all people, all walks of life, getting to talk to them, finding out about them, the greatest thing about living in the UK is it has brought diversity. Its a facinating thing. Life is for living, life is too short for hate. "These were rhetorical questions. I don't care who you hate until your actions affect me. Likewise I don't need you to like me. I just need you treat me with respect. You seem to be a liberal or a left winger, am I right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them? Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic. Do you hate all non white people? No, never have, never will. I like all people, all walks of life, getting to talk to them, finding out about them, the greatest thing about living in the UK is it has brought diversity. Its a facinating thing. Life is for living, life is too short for hate.
These were rhetorical questions. I don't care who you hate until your actions affect me. Likewise I don't need you to like me. I just need you treat me with respect. You seem to be a liberal or a left winger, am I right? "And likewise if your hate affects others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them? Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic. Do you hate all non white people? No, never have, never will. I like all people, all walks of life, getting to talk to them, finding out about them, the greatest thing about living in the UK is it has brought diversity. Its a facinating thing. Life is for living, life is too short for hate. "Very true. hate eats people from the inside .Its a cancer the poisons you. It's not pleasant as can be seen it's scars individuals forever. Hate cannot drive out hate only love can do that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hey I can hate whatever (and actually whoever, not that I do hate people because for me that's way too much energy for me) i like. That's my right. You can and people do but if you hate people because of their race or religion you'll get called out on it and of course hate speech can get you into trouble.Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden under UK law ,regardless of a belief that it is your right. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Wrong. I said I can hate what And who I like. You wouldn't even know. So unless we have thought police scanning our brains I can carry on hating as I please. And....even if I express I hate islam, you cannot do a thing about it. Actually, there are several laws The public order act 1986 part 3 section 18 The criminal justice and public order act 1994 section 4a The Racial and religious act 2006 part 3A The Criminal Justice And immigration Act 2008 addtional amendments to 3A. You can hate all you like, but there are penalties. Nope. Literally me saying here that i hate Islam is not a crime. And the adherents to Islam, do you hate them also? Do you hate them? Can you please all the things And people you hate as this is your logic. Do you hate all non white people? No, never have, never will. I like all people, all walks of life, getting to talk to them, finding out about them, the greatest thing about living in the UK is it has brought diversity. Its a facinating thing. Life is for living, life is too short for hate.
These were rhetorical questions. I don't care who you hate until your actions affect me. Likewise I don't need you to like me. I just need you treat me with respect. You seem to be a liberal or a left winger, am I right?
And likewise if your hate affects others."Firstly, Respect has to be earned, demanding it, is not cool, especially with strangers. As to my politics, I am British, I can choose which parts of the political spectrum I agree with. As to who I vote for that between me and the ballot box  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are.
Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing.
Neo cons have made the word liberal a dirty word . It's part of their alt right agenda just ask those in the forum who supported the KKK marching in Charlottesville and called them good decent people .
I encounter more race hate enthusiasts here on Fab than in real life by a large factor. Something about this site that attracts them."Try going on the Britain First or EDL sites. You'll find a few more there than here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's interesting that this narcissistic specimen of sleaze very carefully chooses his words, stirring negativity against Muslims, because his party and members finds this appealing. He's calculating, scheming for his future power grab, without hesitation for the fallout. Very sad that a sizeable number of that patty has this destructive hate basis to them." In all honesty, I think the problem runs far deeper than just the Conservative party. I'd even go further and say that pretending the problem of islamophobia is a problem exclusively of the right is probably one of the main reasons why we've been so unsuccessful in combating it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are.
Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing.
Neo cons have made the word liberal a dirty word . It's part of their alt right agenda just ask those in the forum who supported the KKK marching in Charlottesville and called them good decent people .
I encounter more race hate enthusiasts here on Fab than in real life by a large factor. Something about this site that attracts them.
Try going on the Britain First or EDL sites. You'll find a few more there than here."Plenty of BF and EDL leaning types on here already thanks, no need to go looking for them! Haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28%" Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then?" No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. " So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. " You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. " 48% in the sky poll said he should not apologies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. 48% in the sky poll said he should not apologies. " Which still puts me in the majority as only 45% said he should apologise in the sky poll. 60% said his remarks were not racist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. 48% in the sky poll said he should not apologies. Which still puts me in the majority as only 45% said he should apologise in the sky poll. 60% said his remarks were not racist. " given the self selection of the nature of the poll, and the sample size, I’d not be as confident as you. The meta analysis also suggests minority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. " You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd." You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You obviously needed a definition other than the one you pulled out your arse. Much like corbyn trying to redefine anti Semitism . Also a right to hate isn't free speech it's hate speech .We have laws against this . You obviously want a new definition of freedom of Speech also to contain the right to hate other races cultures and religions .Good luck with that .
I have not mentioned speech. I mentioned fear and hate. You can do those without speech? or actions. I don't like islam. I think it's bs. I don't use it against anyone. that's the difference.
Freedom of speech means I'm allowed to say religion is bs. Are you against that freedom?
There are quite a few so called liberals on here who don't like freedom of speech. Just read the info wars thread to see who the usual suspects are.
Liberals have ruined liberalism. They have more in common with right than left wing."Liberalism is, and always has been a centre right ideology. It is only in the USA that it is used to describe "the left" ("left wing" American politicians are pretty right wing by European standards). The left describe themselves as such here. Socialist, Social Democrat etc etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All religion is superstition. A religion is just a cult, with the benefit of tenure. People are free to believe whatever mumbo jumbo floats their ark, but the notion that religions are entitled to respect or special status is just ludicrous." I agree, were it purely intellectual, but the problem is, it isn't. The right constantly strive to racialise religious identity so that persecution of a particular culture can be justified. I'm an antitheistic atheist and it pains me to constantly have to defend people who follow religions I abhor because they are being scapegoated by the right. I can differentiate between the political organisation of any given religion (eg the church) from it's followers (eg Christians), who may do so for any number of cultural reasons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. " What's odd, to me, is that you quoted a poll in which the minority agreed with your position. That is odd, isn't it? The second poll does not back-up the first one. It draws a different conclusion. It also creates states that 45% think he should apologise and 48% think he shouldn't although 60% think that his comment wasn't racist. How does that work? There's a demographic divergence again too: 18 to 34-year-olds think Mr Johnson should apologise by 58% to 37%, while those aged 55 and older think he should not by 58% to 31%. Incidentally, I have no problem discussing the wearing of full face veils. I find it discourteous and a barrier to communication. I certainly disagree if it is imposed on women. If women choose to wear it that's up to them. I think that it's completely inappropriate to mock women who may be forced to where these garments and implicitly approving of them being bullied or assaulted on public. You seem indifferent or even gleeful at that prospect. I find that odd. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All religion is superstition. A religion is just a cult, with the benefit of tenure. People are free to believe whatever mumbo jumbo floats their ark, but the notion that religions are entitled to respect or special status is just ludicrous. I agree, were it purely intellectual, but the problem is, it isn't. The right constantly strive to racialise religious identity so that persecution of a particular culture can be justified. I'm an antitheistic atheist and it pains me to constantly have to defend people who follow religions I abhor because they are being scapegoated by the right. I can differentiate between the political organisation of any given religion (eg the church) from it's followers (eg Christians), who may do so for any number of cultural reasons. " It's almost like you're treating them like actual people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. What's odd, to me, is that you quoted a poll in which the minority agreed with your position. That is odd, isn't it? The second poll does not back-up the first one. It draws a different conclusion. It also creates states that 45% think he should apologise and 48% think he shouldn't although 60% think that his comment wasn't racist. How does that work? There's a demographic divergence again too: 18 to 34-year-olds think Mr Johnson should apologise by 58% to 37%, while those aged 55 and older think he should not by 58% to 31%. Incidentally, I have no problem discussing the wearing of full face veils. I find it discourteous and a barrier to communication. I certainly disagree if it is imposed on women. If women choose to wear it that's up to them. I think that it's completely inappropriate to mock women who may be forced to where these garments and implicitly approving of them being bullied or assaulted on public. You seem indifferent or even gleeful at that prospect. I find that odd." What is odd is that you seem to think 36% is lower than 23% or 28%. There were 3 options in the poll not 2 so it's unreasonable to combine the 23 with the 28, therefore the option with 36% is the highest. The 2nd poll does back up the first poll as 48% is higher than the 45%. The 60% statistic gives a huge majority even when you factor in a big margin of error. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. What's odd, to me, is that you quoted a poll in which the minority agreed with your position. That is odd, isn't it? The second poll does not back-up the first one. It draws a different conclusion. It also creates states that 45% think he should apologise and 48% think he shouldn't although 60% think that his comment wasn't racist. How does that work? There's a demographic divergence again too: 18 to 34-year-olds think Mr Johnson should apologise by 58% to 37%, while those aged 55 and older think he should not by 58% to 31%. Incidentally, I have no problem discussing the wearing of full face veils. I find it discourteous and a barrier to communication. I certainly disagree if it is imposed on women. If women choose to wear it that's up to them. I think that it's completely inappropriate to mock women who may be forced to where these garments and implicitly approving of them being bullied or assaulted on public. You seem indifferent or even gleeful at that prospect. I find that odd. What is odd is that you seem to think 36% is lower than 23% or 28%. There were 3 options in the poll not 2 so it's unreasonable to combine the 23 with the 28, therefore the option with 36% is the highest. The 2nd poll does back up the first poll as 48% is higher than the 45%. The 60% statistic gives a huge majority even when you factor in a big margin of error. " We will step through slowly: 23+28=51% who think that he should apologise in the first poll. Not your position. This poll asked if he was right to bring up the topic of face veils. 60% think he did not say something racist but 45% think that he should apologise. That means that 12% think that he was not being racist but should apologise, which is odd no? Any opinion on the demographic breakdown? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. What's odd, to me, is that you quoted a poll in which the minority agreed with your position. That is odd, isn't it? The second poll does not back-up the first one. It draws a different conclusion. It also creates states that 45% think he should apologise and 48% think he shouldn't although 60% think that his comment wasn't racist. How does that work? There's a demographic divergence again too: 18 to 34-year-olds think Mr Johnson should apologise by 58% to 37%, while those aged 55 and older think he should not by 58% to 31%. Incidentally, I have no problem discussing the wearing of full face veils. I find it discourteous and a barrier to communication. I certainly disagree if it is imposed on women. If women choose to wear it that's up to them. I think that it's completely inappropriate to mock women who may be forced to where these garments and implicitly approving of them being bullied or assaulted on public. You seem indifferent or even gleeful at that prospect. I find that odd. What is odd is that you seem to think 36% is lower than 23% or 28%. There were 3 options in the poll not 2 so it's unreasonable to combine the 23 with the 28, therefore the option with 36% is the highest. The 2nd poll does back up the first poll as 48% is higher than the 45%. The 60% statistic gives a huge majority even when you factor in a big margin of error. We will step through slowly: 23+28=51% who think that he should apologise in the first poll. Not your position. This poll asked if he was right to bring up the topic of face veils. 60% think he did not say something racist but 45% think that he should apologise. That means that 12% think that he was not being racist but should apologise, which is odd no? Any opinion on the demographic breakdown?" As already pointed out the 23% and the 28% were two separate options so it's unreasonable to add them together. You seem to be a very unreasonable person though so I'm not at all surprised that's exactly what you've just done. When taken as 3 separate options as the poll shows the 36% is the highest. 2nd poll.... A majority 48% think he should not apologise. A lower 45% think he should apologise. A massive 60% think what he said wasn't racist. There is nothing odd about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. What's odd, to me, is that you quoted a poll in which the minority agreed with your position. That is odd, isn't it? The second poll does not back-up the first one. It draws a different conclusion. It also creates states that 45% think he should apologise and 48% think he shouldn't although 60% think that his comment wasn't racist. How does that work? There's a demographic divergence again too: 18 to 34-year-olds think Mr Johnson should apologise by 58% to 37%, while those aged 55 and older think he should not by 58% to 31%. Incidentally, I have no problem discussing the wearing of full face veils. I find it discourteous and a barrier to communication. I certainly disagree if it is imposed on women. If women choose to wear it that's up to them. I think that it's completely inappropriate to mock women who may be forced to where these garments and implicitly approving of them being bullied or assaulted on public. You seem indifferent or even gleeful at that prospect. I find that odd. What is odd is that you seem to think 36% is lower than 23% or 28%. There were 3 options in the poll not 2 so it's unreasonable to combine the 23 with the 28, therefore the option with 36% is the highest. The 2nd poll does back up the first poll as 48% is higher than the 45%. The 60% statistic gives a huge majority even when you factor in a big margin of error. We will step through slowly: 23+28=51% who think that he should apologise in the first poll. Not your position. This poll asked if he was right to bring up the topic of face veils. 60% think he did not say something racist but 45% think that he should apologise. That means that 12% think that he was not being racist but should apologise, which is odd no? Any opinion on the demographic breakdown? As already pointed out the 23% and the 28% were two separate options so it's unreasonable to add them together. You seem to be a very unreasonable person though so I'm not at all surprised that's exactly what you've just done. When taken as 3 separate options as the poll shows the 36% is the highest. 2nd poll.... A majority 48% think he should not apologise. A lower 45% think he should apologise. A massive 60% think what he said wasn't racist. There is nothing odd about it. " This is the Deltapoll question and responses from their website: You may have seen or heard that Boris Johnson recently spoke about Muslim women wearing burkas "look like letter boxes" and comparing them to "bank robbers". Which one of the following do you most agree with? Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Don't know = 12% You still think that it's unreasonable to conclude that 51% think that he should apologise? You feel that this supports your view that he should not apologise? For me, that is odd. You don't think so. I'm not debating the results of the second poll that you quote. I am merely pointing out that it is a strange position to have for 12% of those polled. Doing nothing wrong but expecting him to apologise for it. Do you not agree? Still no opinion on the demographics of this as well? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cenny has made his position quite clear. His views represent the minority view, as he mentioned. That Boris should not apologise. Whilst most of the posters disagree with him and accept the majoirty view that he should at least apologise. Being as such, if democracy values hold true, then majority wins on verdict. Boris should apologise. As to a disiplinary by his own party. The tories lost their backbone a long time ago, if they did anything to the shaggy one the party may split. "Looking at the 2 polls together it's clear a majority think he should not apologise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cenny has made his position quite clear. His views represent the minority view, as he mentioned. That Boris should not apologise. Whilst most of the posters disagree with him and accept the majoirty view that he should at least apologise. Being as such, if democracy values hold true, then majority wins on verdict. Boris should apologise. As to a disiplinary by his own party. The tories lost their backbone a long time ago, if they did anything to the shaggy one the party may split.
Looking at the 2 polls together it's clear a majority think he should not apologise. "Given all the above I really struggle to see how you get to this conclusion without adding in the condition of if he’s a racist or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the tory party are happy to accept Boris Johnson and spout stupid comments about Muslim Women who wear a veil. Do you see any attempt by the tories to adopt a policy of against islamaphobia in their party? Does there need to be a working definition of islamaphobia before it stops. Your thoughts? A Deltapoll opinion poll out today showed the following.... Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were right and he has nothing to apologise for = 36% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were offensive and he should apologise = 23% Boris Johnson's remarks about Burkas were over the top and he should apologise, but not for starting a debate on it = 28% Centaur; Should Boris apologise then? No, when it comes to this particular poll I'm with the 36% on this, I don't think his remarks were offensive, he was right to say what he did and he shouldn't apologise. When you consider an earlier sky news data poll on the same topic gave a result of 60% said Boris Johnson's remarks were not racist and he shouldn't apologise I think it puts my opinion firmly in the majority. So some responses in the same poll can be accepted because you agree with them, but those you don't agree with are not even though given by the same group of people? Got it. You asked a question. I gave you an answer. I wasn't just referring to one poll, I clearly gave you reference to two separate polls that support my opinion. You did, but disagreed with the poll that you posted to support your position and moved to another one. Just seems odd. You seem to find a lot of things odd. Maybe it's just the way you look at and interpret things. I didn't disagree with the first poll, I said I agreed with the 36%. I didn't 'move' to another poll (you imply I was ignoring the first one by mentioning another). I referred to the 2nd poll to back up what the first poll said. What's odd, to me, is that you quoted a poll in which the minority agreed with your position. That is odd, isn't it? The second poll does not back-up the first one. It draws a different conclusion. It also creates states that 45% think he should apologise and 48% think he shouldn't although 60% think that his comment wasn't racist. How does that work? There's a demographic divergence again too: 18 to 34-year-olds think Mr Johnson should apologise by 58% to 37%, while those aged 55 and older think he should not by 58% to 31%. Incidentally, I have no problem discussing the wearing of full face veils. I find it discourteous and a barrier to communication. I certainly disagree if it is imposed on women. If women choose to wear it that's up to them. I think that it's completely inappropriate to mock women who may be forced to where these garments and implicitly approving of them being bullied or assaulted on public. You seem indifferent or even gleeful at that prospect. I find that odd." Maybe I can clarify the 60% not racist 45% he should apologise. I'm part of that 5%. I don't think what he said was racist, although I can see that the comments would appeal to people who are. If he thinks something looks ridiculous he should be free to say so. However if as a result of his comments some racist people thinks this gives the a license to abuse others then he should apologise for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cenny has made his position quite clear. His views represent the minority view, as he mentioned. That Boris should not apologise. Whilst most of the posters disagree with him and accept the majoirty view that he should at least apologise. Being as such, if democracy values hold true, then majority wins on verdict. Boris should apologise. As to a disiplinary by his own party. The tories lost their backbone a long time ago, if they did anything to the shaggy one the party may split.
Looking at the 2 polls together it's clear a majority think he should not apologise. "Surly, if he's done something he now feels was wrong he should apologise and if he doesn't feel he was wrong then he shouldn't. What difference does it make how many others think either way. The fact that he hasn't apologised says to me that he feels he's done nothing wrong so, even if 98% felt he should apologise and forced him to do so, it would be a worthless apology as it would not be genuine. Unfortunately, because BoJo isn't really the great, Churchillian states man he dreams to be, instead of starting a debate on the wearing of burkas etc. he's started a row over whether the Conservative party is islamophobic or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being against a religious organizations and the individuals fwho follow it are two different things. You can be against those states who use religion to break human rights. It's just wrong to prosecute their followers who use it as faith. It's like the Catholic conservatives in Latin america using religion to buy the faith of their citizens but then bam gay marriage and abortions in the name of God. You can be scared of the church, but don't generalise all Catholic followers for what their states do. For example blame pedoephilia on the church, not Catholic people. Blame stoning on the states using Islam, not Muslims who follow the Qur'an. Blame Israel for their atrocities, not the Jewish people who follow their faith. So I think we can criticise the states who follow Islam and use it to break human rights. Just don't treat Muslims the same way. The difference between islamaphobia and muslim-phobia."
This.
I think we have to just step back and appreciate that we as a country might have had more successes in fighting religious zealouts and their backward traditions. It's not to say that there isn't people fighting this shit wherever it's going on.
And right now, in America, there are Christians trying to claw back on hard-fought freedoms (imagine President Pence).
I think societies founded on religious values are pretty dystopian, but I'm not going to blame all Muslims because they happen to live in places whose governments can get away with more violent shit than ours can. Maybe give those people who are actually fighting it more of a voice instead of whiteknighting?
And focusing too much on what they do might only be lowering the bar for ourselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
