The child is father to the man

Dave Farrance wrote:

It _does_ seem to me that you're trying to assert that denigrating
racism is as bad as denigrating blacks.

No, I'm just pointing out both sides are using almost identical graphics
to make their point. The graphics are in both cases nonsensical. The
moral rightness of the racist or anti-racist case is irrelevant. I'm
talking about the intellectual falsity of the graphics here, not the
arguments they try to represent.


It really is difficult to read
your contribution here otherwise. Why did you feel it necessary to weigh
into this topic in this particular way?

As I explained above, to show that virtually the same stupid graphic has
been used by both sides. In particular, that to make the claim that
racists have small brains does the cause of anti-racism a great
disservice. Why? Because people will think, 'Oh that's ridiculous!' and
then might by association dismiss more valid anti-racist arguments.

Bill

Dave Farrance wrote:
Scion wrote:

I'm saying that IMO it is disproportionate that a bit of childish name-
calling is considered a *criminal offence* if the word "black" is used but
not otherwise. *Nowhere* have I said that it is wrong to take offence at
what was clearly meant to be an insult - that's what insults are for,
after all!

So you're claiming "f- black c-" isn't racially offensive, but remains
childish name-calling"? So you don't mind me calling you a ****ing
racist ****, then? Because it'd be "disproportionate" to be offended.
And because that's what you are.

No, he said the punishment was disproportionate, not the offence
suffered by the insultee.

Bill

Scion wrote:

Fortunately you have proved that how things seem to you are completely
irrelevant in the real world.

Fortunately, how things will seem to any reasonable reader of this group
that's bothered to read this discussion so far (if anybody) is also a
fairly safe assumption for me. That's it then. Feel free to have the
last word.

Bill Wright wrote:

No, he said the punishment was disproportionate, not the offence
suffered by the insultee.

Seriously Bill, do you really want to step down the path of defending
obvious racism on the part of that poster? I'm fairly sure how this
thread would read to most people in this group, and since you presumably
wish to continue posting here, I suggest that you don't dismiss how this
might further affect your reputation.

Dave Farrance put finger to keyboard:

Scion wrote:

Fortunately you have proved that how things seem to you are completely
irrelevant in the real world.

Fortunately, how things will seem to any reasonable reader of this group
that's bothered to read this discussion so far (if anybody) is also a
fairly safe assumption for me. That's it then. Feel free to have the
last word.

OK, I will.

From befo
--------------------------------
You claimed that I said it was the word "black" in isolation that caused
the problem. Wrong.

You claimed that I said the phrase in its entirety was not racial abuse.
Wrong again.

You claimed I said that it was disproportionate to take offence at the
phrase. Wrong yet again.

Then you claimed that I said "f****** black c***" is not racially
offensive. Guess what? Yep, also wrong.
--------------------------------


Isn't it strange how you failed to explicitly address any of those
statements?

I wonder why?

Perhaps if you did so, there would be less of a chance that people think
you're clutching at straws.

Or you could grow a pair and admit that you were wrong.

Dave Farrance put finger to keyboard:

Bill Wright wrote:

No, he said the punishment was disproportionate, not the offence
suffered by the insultee.

Seriously Bill, do you really want to step down the path of defending
obvious racism on the part of that poster?

Oh for crying out loud! Bill is not defending anything I said, he's merely
pointing out *what* I said, and that it is different from what *you* are
claiming I said.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:47:15 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:31:50 +0000 (UTC), Scion
wrote:

(I strongly suspect that the "racist" element of that case has been
hyped by the media and there were other, more serious factors - but all
the BBC report alludes to is "threat of violence".)

The judge & the Daily Mail amongst others got it wrong then

"The group were found guilty of racially aggravated fear of violence and
sentenced at Blackfriars Crown Court."

Uh huh. Thank goodness that it is the opinion of the judge that counts at
the end of the day and not the opinions of certain people in this group.

Dave Farrance wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

No, he said the punishment was disproportionate, not the offence
suffered by the insultee.

Seriously Bill, do you really want to step down the path of defending
obvious racism on the part of that poster?
You either haven't listened or you haven't understood, or you're being
wilfully obtuse.

I'm fairly sure how this
thread would read to most people in this group, and since you presumably
wish to continue posting here, I suggest that you don't dismiss how this
might further affect your reputation.

Absurd as your paragraph above is, there's a sinister aspect. You are
threatening that I will be ostracised not because of what I've said but
because of the construction you have put upon it. That is how the left
often attempts to close down debate on subjects like immigration, by
screaming 'waaysist!' It is also a mainstay of political correctness,
which is one of the greatest evils of our age.

What you don't understand is that just because someone puts basic
freedoms, like freedom of speech, ahead of the cause of anti-racism,
that doesn't make them a racist. Yes, fighting racism is important, but
we mustn't lose sight of other values.

We shouldn't have a hierarchy of 'isms' -- they are all very unkind and
should all be deplored equally.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

I'm fairly sure how this
thread would read to most people in this group, and since you presumably
wish to continue posting here, I suggest that you don't dismiss how this
might further affect your reputation.

I just came across this:
"Years ago you could say what you thought about pretty much anything
that took your interest, regardless of how much offense it may give,
with no fear of the law. Sometimes it would be rude , unpleasant ,
upsetting even, but some times it would be worth saying and of value to
society as a whole. Now there is a growing list of things you can’t say
in public without fearing that someone will call the law because they
are offended or pretend to be offended.
But what is even worse than these repressive laws, is that they have
become culturally accepted and no one dare protest about them, even
though they are curtailing our freedom of speech. The BBC has been at
the forefront of this drive to change our culture and it is succeeding."

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

How about this from the Telegraph?

"The four defendants shouted “kill the white slag” as they attacked Rhea
Page after dragging her to the ground.

Ambaro Maxamed, 24, her sisters Ayan, 28, and Hibo, 24, and their cousin
Ifrah Nur, 28, faced up to five years in jail after admitting causing
actual bodily harm.

But Judge Robert Brown gave them six-month suspended sentences after
deciding that the attack in Leicester city centre was not racially
motivated.

He heard in mitigation that the four were not used to alcohol because
their religion does not allow it."

So 'Kill the white slag' isn't racist. How would 'Kill the black slag'
sound?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ked-woman.html

Bill