If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I find the woman's attitude odious in the extreme, as I'm sure MoK does, but it is NOT the place of the Government to start creating legislation to force people to do things. I don't agree with this woman's moral code, but I agree with her right to have it and act by it.
Banning someone from having their own moral code is absolutely no different to banning someone because they are gay. I don't agree with everyone's moral code, but unless you want YOUR moral code banned you shouldn't be advocating the banning of others'.
Its very different. One is a fence, the other is a social/medical intervention.
True. However, note my comments earlier about privatisation of space.
Ambiguous use of "private" and "privatised".:chin:
What parameters do you use,if any, for your definitions ?
You seem to have missed my point.
It's not that much of one. The abortion clinics will just move up the road, and nothing will change, really.
Some silly old nutjob gets her mug in the papers, a load of Guardianistas get to have a fake radge, and everyone plods along as before.
Most women go to Stopes for their abortions anyway.
I've posted it. But here it is again.
The issue is wider than whether some posh people will be able to get abortion at Harley Street. It's to do with the private control of space/property. Ultimately its about property relations.
Listen Blagsta, I'm pretty sure I agree with your opinion on this, and probably most other matters as well.
However, your curt and tbh patronizing "style" of debate is pretty disrespectful to people who are trying to engage with you. If you refuse to elucidate any opinion or argument no one is going to be convinced, no one is going to question their own values and political opinions, and you are going to achieve nothing - except diminish your cause.
However I take your point...although I wish Fiend85 could answer the point I put to her earlier in the thread.
Licences, illegal activities. So you do advocate someone restricting what happens on the premises then? Just not the owner.
Yet your religious belief is forming part of your approach here, non?
And yet you advocate banning her from doing that because you believe that her actions are "sinful". Do you see the contradiction?
Please point out the prejudice in this case.
I do, buy argument and persuasion, not by law. Resorting to litigation just hardens resolve.
Nicely sidestepped
Exactly.
Just as we are free to act by our moral code - to argue against the beliefs this woman has, to demonstrate aginst her actions - she has the right to stop anyone from accessing what is, ultimately, her property.
You don't change odious views like hers by sending them underground.
Nope. I don't have a religious belief. But even if I did, that's not the issue. The issue is whether people should be allowed to discriminate against others solely on the basis of personal beliefs.
I don't think organised religion is a good thing and I don't like religious people who accuse everyone of being a sinner and try to ram their views down our throats. And yet I would not kick out any of them from any property I might own.
Now that is tolerance. If only others could do likewise...
No, not really. I would like to see unfair discrimination and prejudice against invididuals and groups being outlawed. Nothing more, nothing else.
Do you advocate a landlord being able to ban people from his property because of the colour of their skin? Yes/no?
And don't say it's a different scenario. It isn't.
The prejudice is towards those who might carry out abortions because the landlady believes it's a sin.
If I had a row of properties to rent, no I wouldn't turn out anyone unless they were engaging in illegal, racist or homophobic activities.
Again I have to ask you whether you would support the right of a landlord to ban non-whites from his premises.
If you believe he should, well, I don't agree with it but at least you are consistent. But if you believe he should not be allowed to do that you've got a bit of a case of double standards brewing.
I suspect we're not going to agree to anything much if we were to carry on for 200 posts so please retort and I will leave it at that
Agin, though, you would ban actions from properties because they don't conform to your own beliefs.
Atheism is a belief.
Again, point out the discrimination here.
But you would restrict their actions?
I have a gutteral dislike of banning like that. However I agree that a line should be drawn and it's one where there is promotion of violence (yes seeker, I know
That isn't the case here though. There is no discrimination going on.
No it isn't.
It's against anything which she believes are "lifestyle" choices. This isn;t restricted to abortions.
Meaning the BNP
My gut feeling is that no, I don't have a problem with it. At least it would be in the open and so long as it's not state funded in any way.
I would much rather flush these people out so that they can be shunned rather than hide their beliefs. There are other ways to get people to change their views - making them a pariah for example...
Because then you become as bad as them, if not worse.
If you don't take a stand as to what you believe is right, then you end up with complete relativism and are paralysed into inaction on anything.
:yes:
Take a deep breath.
"You smell that? Do you smell that? Anarchy, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of anarchy in the morning." -(with thanks to)Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore
And the afternoon
What kind of stand,if any, are you advocating ?
I meant to be tolerant of their beliefs and who they are, maybe not so much their actions.
No because he'd be breaking the law and it also depends on what you do to 'prevent' him from banning black people doesn't it.
I dunno tbh. It's a difficult one and my views change. I'm just chucking it into the mix for discussion.
Tbh, in my opinion a person is a person, which is what I meant. There's a difference between hating a person and hating an act that person does. If somebody is racist, surely you're just as bad as them in many ways if you resent them for being racist. You are just being as intolerant as they are.
They don't like somebody because they're black, you don't like somebody because they don't like black people.
No I don't, but that is not being intolerant to a person's beliefs and it is a law, not an individual thing.
What I mean is that it really winds me up how people have this shitty attutude towards racist, homphobic, sexist or religiously intolerant people. Like taking a moral high ground, making insults at them. Nine times out of ten, these people need to be educated, not condescended, in theory at least and usually they are in some way oppressed by the system. The whole "holier than thou" because I am not racist, not a rapist, an atheist, a Jew ect ect is what I'm talking about.
I know people for example, who like freedom of speech so long as they can hand out their Socialist Worker papers, but complain if the BNP get freedom of speech.
Don't get me wrong, I think that laws should be put in place to stop discrimination in its milder forms (as you have already stated) and in its most extreme forms, for example genocide. Laws are laws and should be there to protect the people so that when you take people to court they are judged by laws and not human emotion (hence I am against the death penalty as I just see it as a form of savage revenge).
But by being an intolerant person against somebody else who's attitudes are intolerant makes you just as bad as them because like them, you cannot live and let live.
Now I'm not saying that you shouldn't be an activist, but I am saying that you should respect your "enemies" because they're your greatest teachers.
Does that make sense on the point I was making?