Home Politics & Debate
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.

Tolerance- an apology

123457»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    The only way to keep the building "private" by those standards would mean NO-ONE but the owner was allowed in.

    e.g. if he let say, his wife in (and she wasn`t in any way a legal owner) then he would be discriminating against approxiamately 6 billion others.

    And yes, if he was to serve his wife or selected friends beverages or offer them services in a commercial capacity, then he would be trading illegally, and there are laws to protect against that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    When you have considered ALL those occasions, imagine how you would feel if "the Law" forbade that action of discrimination, and compelled you to enter into relationships (of WHATEVER nature it happened to be) with EVERYONE you had CHOSEN not to.

    It already does, and I think it's quite a pleasent place to live actually.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    I don`t think any law gives you the power to do things (excepting in a legal sense).

    Well it gives you the power, as you say legally, to get away with doing certain things, such as removing someone from a particular piece of completely open and public space because you claim "ownership" of it. And it removes anyone elses right (through force as you say) to walk into a certain area without permission from the "owner". So yeah, I agree with you, the law does only stop you from committing certain actions. It stops you from entering a certain (phyiscially open) area without prior permission from someone who claims to have authority in that area based on a piece of paper stating that he is the owner.

    Hmm, we're getting a bit post-whorey here.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ghost18

    Where are you getting your info on fascism from? It's not entirely accurate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    I got some of it from here and some from books a friend of mine (Politics sudent) lent to me last year. Most were written before the Second World War.
    Wish I still had them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No wonder its inaccurate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For example
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    They also tried to gain support from the Skinheads, another Far Right Group.

    Skinhead was a youth subculture. It took influences from Jamaican rude boy culture and they listened to ska. It later got a big racist element, but it also had an anti-racist element too, e.g. SHARP (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). To call it a "far right group" is simply not true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This
    Ghost18 wrote: »
    Unrelated to this but needs to be said K18 was the Militia wing of the Original National Front, which won 5 seats in the 1977 general elections. In 1978 the NF became split on the decision to disband K18 and become a proper political party. The group that wanted to get rid of them separated from the group and became what is now the BNP. K18 was fully absorbed into the NF bolstering its ranks.


    is also completely inaccurate. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would tell you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And yes, if he was to serve his wife or selected friends beverages or offer them services in a commercial capacity, then he would be trading illegally, and there are laws to protect against that.

    Protect who ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It already does,

    :confused:

    I wasn`t aware of a law that would compel "I`m with Stupid" to, for example

    (1)Have a sexual encounter with Jade Goody because you had offered the same "service" to your girlfriend.

    (2)Fill your ipod with the complete works of Celine Dion because you had offered to do the same with the works of Radiohead.

    (3) Enter into a pay per view contract with a synchronised swimming organiser because you had done the same with the Ricky Hatton fight.

    and I think it's quite a pleasent place to live actually.

    Each to his own.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well it gives you the power, as you say legally, to get away with doing certain things, such as removing someone from a particular piece of completely open and public space because you claim "ownership" of it. And it removes anyone elses right (through force as you say) to walk into a certain area without permission from the "owner". So yeah, I agree with you, the law does only stop you from committing certain actions. It stops you from entering a certain (phyiscially open) area without prior permission from someone who claims to have authority in that area based on a piece of paper stating that he is the owner.

    I follow your reasoning with regards to the (allegedly owned) open space.

    Would you expand that ("legal authority") to the service/action of the person ?
    Hmm, we're getting a bit post-whorey here.

    I disagree !

    Nevertheless,I can happily tolerate it :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    I follow your reasoning with regards to the (allegedly owned) open space.

    Would you expand that ("legal authority") to the service/action of the person ?
    This point seemed to be the jist of what you were getting at there, so I'll just answer these. I think you have to distinguish between the seller and the buyer of a particular service. In my opinion, the seller already has the law extending him special privilages, by allowing him the exclusive use of private space. And therefore, he should be required to not discriminate against customers he chooses to trade with. Is it entirely fair on the business owner? No. Is it entirely fair on a member of the general public to not be allowed to enter a particular space to trade, without the prior permission of one "owner?" No. Either way, the law is infringing on someone's freedoms (I think I know what you're solution would be here). I'd rather it was one business owner, than countless members of the public.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This point seemed to be the jist of what you were getting at there, so I'll just answer these. I think you have to distinguish between the seller and the buyer of a particular service. In my opinion, the seller already has the law extending him special privilages, by allowing him the exclusive use of private space. And therefore, he should be required to not discriminate against customers he chooses to trade with. Is it entirely fair on the business owner? No. Is it entirely fair on a member of the general public to not be allowed to enter a particular space to trade, without the prior permission of one "owner?" No. Either way, the law is infringing on someone's freedoms (I think I know what you're solution would be here). I'd rather it was one business owner, than countless members of the public.

    I hope your explicitness has helped my understanding of your position which I`ll summarise.

    You think the lawful infringement on freedoms should be limited to what you perceive as commercial transactions, in a sort of "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" way.

    Accepting your polarised buyer/seller position (merely for the exploration of this idea ;) ), would you limit the infringement to the seller`s property ?

    To clarify (hopefully :D ) I`ll try to envisage a hypothetical.

    Say, someone who is offering a mobile service ?

    Would you welcome the "full force of the law" coming to bear on such an individual, if that individual subsequently refused (on whatever personal predilection) the service to someone who had requested it ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    No wonder its inaccurate.

    You've been known to use Wikipedia quite a lot.

    Yeh but his figures are wrong either way you look at it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    You've been known to use Wikipedia quite a lot.


    Yes, but it's not the only source I look at.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I have always believed, and often expressed, that we should show zero tolerance to acts of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, racism or homophobia against individuals or groups. My view was that the perpetrators of such acts were the intolerant people and that it was the duty of any civilised society to ensure such things did not happen.

    However, in view of various discussions in recent weeks I have come to realise I was wrong. After giving careful thought to the matter over the weekend I have concluded that a tolerant society should in fact allow anybody to be as prejudiced or bigoted to others based on their sexuality, religion, colour of skin, nationality or indeed anything else that might bother them as they damn like.

    I therefore would like to apologise profusely for my past intolerant and unacceptable beliefs. I would also like to declare that from now on I shall fully support the right of anyone to ban people from shops, hotels and other premises and to deny them services based on their religion, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or any other issue.

    More than that, I will actively fight for their right to do so.

    And I will do so because I now realise that a country where blacks can be banned from hotels; where gays are told they cannot eat at a restaurant because they are AIDS-ridden filthy abominations; where shopkeepers can hang swastikas from their shop windows and bar subhuman hooknose Jews from entry; where pub landlords tell Irish scum they're no welcome; where golf courses put up a sign that reads 'no dogs or women'; where football fans can freely chant to each other 'you're just a town full of pa kis'; where political parties state that every single member of Muslim religion is a violent wife beating terrorist who cannot be considered British and must be kicked out of the country; or where landlords can evict people from their houses if they are found to be Catholic/Protestant/atheist, would not only be the dictionary definition of a tolerant society, but also a very pleasant place to live indeed.

    Thank you for opening my eyes :)

    What exactly would be wrong with a community that required its' members to all be from the same "group?"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh do fuck off.

    Stepping up the trolling a notch are we?

    Yawn.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh do fuck off.

    Stepping up the trolling a notch are we?

    Yawn.

    Aladdin,

    Why not try answering the question ?

    It seems a reasonable one to me,given what you had previously said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    Aladdin,

    Why not try answering the question ?
    You don't know the half of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    You don't know the half of it.

    :confused::confused:

    You have now got me thinking that I don`t know ANY of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    You don't know the half of it.

    I do and from my experience with you in the "Define White" thread, you seem to be very threatened (or frightened) by people that dissent from your opinion.

    Could that be why you are refusing to respond in a civil way now?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    snore.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dissent all you like - just back it up with a reasoned argument. However, you don't seem capable.
Sign In or Register to comment.