Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Dally wrote:I'm sort of with you but I must stress that I very rarely use personally directed abuse (certainly relative to others on many threads). I used one apparently derogatory term in a generic sense, a term which is well understood and was said tongue in cheek (as it were!).
I am aware of that, and I set out to at least attempt to be as even-handed as possible in this.
Personally, I actually let a lot of things go, but this has been raised with me – hence my acting.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Joined: Nov 29 2008 Posts: 1318 Location: Kirkstall, Leeds
We need more calm here.
It's never constructive to post when angry, which is what I suspect quite a few people on here do. I know that we often disagree on issues which are emotional, but I always find that it is better to walk away from the PC and make a cup of tea before posting a response. Once you've literally let off some steam, reason takes over and you can make a positive contribution to the debate.
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
kirkstaller wrote:We need more calm here.
It's never constructive to post when angry, which is what I suspect quite a few people on here do. I know that we often disagree on issues which are emotional, but I always find that it is better to walk away from the PC and make a cup of tea before posting a response. Once you've literally let off some steam, reason takes over and you can make a positive contribution to the debate.
My two cents.
Whilst I appreciate the sentiment, I also disagree with what you say (to an extent).
I disagree in that I think that, within this context, one of the major things that makes many people angry is attempting to debate rationally with others whose very basis for their intolerance is something for which there is not a shred of evidence.
And here we hit the impasse – and the wider problem of how we treat religion in a society that, by and large, does not actually appreciate fundamentalist religious adherence and most certainly not the proselytising of such.
That, of course, becomes in itself a problem for anyone who believes in the right of free speech. And generally I suspect that a lot of the more impolite language about it has been a response to that conundrum: no – we do not ban; we do not censor. But we do, therefore, expect to be able to voice strongly and in unequivocal terms our responses to nonsense arguments.
Some religious appear to want to have their cake and eat it: they want to have, for themselves, the right to say whatever they want about certain groups and issues. But when people respond, they whine about how badly they're treated.
It's rank hypocrisy.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Joined: Nov 23 2009 Posts: 12749 Location: The Hamptons of East Yorkshire
kirkstaller wrote:We need more calm here.
It's never constructive to post when angry, which is what I suspect quite a few people on here do.
You were very angry when you started that Paul Wood's thread about his sexual indiscretions though weren't you Kirky? I'd go as far as to say you'd lost all rationale. You were veritably seething. It's nice to see the new, calmer you.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Dally wrote:In an address Lord Denning gave to The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship in November 1954 he asked; "Why do people obey the law?" And gave the following answer: "The people of England do not obey the law because they are commanded to do so; nor because they are afraid of sanctions or being punished. They obey the law because they know it is the thing they ought to do ..... For this reason it is most important that the law should be just. People will respect rules which are intrinsically right and just, and will expect their neighbours to obey them, as well as obeying them themselves: but they will not feel the same about rules which are unrighteous or unjust. If people are to feel a sense of obligation to the law, then the law must correspond, as near as may be, to justice."
But then again - perhaps the past really is another country?
I'm struggling to comprehend why you quoted Denning in relation to this thread.
Read it again and acknowledge the time it was made. In 1954 sexual acts between men were illegal, they were seen as acts of gross indecency and yet there were many men who viewed the law as unfair and were willing to risk imprisonment and social castigation, for no other reason than they were "different" to the "legal norm".
Thankfully, in time, the law recognised that homosexuality wasn't "grossly indecent" and legalised sexual acts between "consenting adults" in private. Over further time, it was recognised that the age of consent could be reduced to 18 years and then 16 years, to reflect the age of consent for heterosexual couples. The law then went further to make discrimination against someone purely on the basis of his/her sexuality illegal. Then further still to mitigate against an incitement to cause offence, based on someone's sexuality.
Rather than Denning backing up your argument, it blows it out of the water
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
cod'ead wrote:I'm struggling to comprehend why you quoted Denning in relation to this thread.
Read it again and acknowledge the time it was made. In 1954 sexual acts between men were illegal, they were seen as acts of gross indecency and yet there were many men who viewed the law as unfair and were willing to risk imprisonment and social castigation, for no other reason than they were "different" to the "legal norm".
Thankfully, in time, the law recognised that homosexuality wasn't "grossly indecent" and legalised sexual acts between "consenting adults" in private. Over further time, it was recognised that the age of consent could be reduced to 18 years and then 16 years, to reflect the age of consent for heterosexual couples. The law then went further to make discrimination against someone purely on the basis of his/her sexuality illegal. Then further still to mitigate against an incitement to cause offence, based on someone's sexuality.
Rather than Denning backing up your argument, it blows it out of the water
I felt the words "Christian" and "unrighteous" were relevant in the context of some people having strong opinions against gay marriage. The fact that some feel their views "wrong" does not negate their strongly held views or even "beliefs." They are perfectly entitled to hold their views.
The further point I am trying to make is that the law and rule of law has been and continues to be eroded by so many instances of morality shifting to accomodate vociferous minorities (of all types) claiming rights off society as a whole.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
