Brutal Homophobic Attack in Brighton, Sussex

Oh shut it. Why is race even being brought into it?

Sure its a general reference. But when the LGBT community are avid defenders of Islam, keen supporters of refugees, and all for multiculturalism i dont think you should be dismissing it like that.

I mean, there's not many who are heterophobic right?

As i said, it was a generic reference.

You're delusional.

He's trolling...

Im not really sure whats up for debate here. Britain is extremely tolerant of homesexuals. If the aims of the LBGT community is for a world to exist where not one single homosexual is called a homophobic slur, then that is never going to happen.

Slight side point to the article included in the OP but we cannot even be sure his sexuality motivated the attack. Providing the religious demographic stays low, homosexuals will only continue to become more and more accepted in society

Yes I suffer from the delusion of rejecting your pop culture notion of the privilege/victim status hierarchy....which was unheard of a decade ago.

I really do not understand all the comments about Islam?

No.

If some chav wants to smack a gay guy in the mouth for being gay, no amounts of protesting in your underpants or thinking up new terminology in your social justice class will change that.

The only privilege is money.

Can you both stop turning this into something else, please?

It was a homophobic attack? "We can't be sure" - that's what it was; the article clearly states the man made homophobic remarks and was verbally abusive before the assault.

I will but he read it out of context, i explain myself and the idiot continues to mumble on, diverging on.

I am not saying he didn't use homophobic language, I am saying that it does not necessarily mean he was attacked for being homosexual

Islam thinks its fine to murder homosexuals yet the LGBT community defend them. If anything, they should be the ones openly criticising the islamic establishment and yet the closest they come to that is requesting for a change of laws.

You are really hairsplitting now. It was quite clear.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/05/11/man-arrested-after-brutal-homophobic-attack-on-brighton-seafront/

- - - - - - - - -

I don't usually post threads like these ever but I came across this earlier and thought I should post it. People assume that everything is perfect in the Western world, that the LGBTQIA community is fully integrated, supported, and protected by the law. It is not. These sorts of attacks still happen very regularly and I thought it would be worth reinforcing that message.

Now, this is not a thread inviting debate about whether or not being gay is right, whether or not its LGBT or LGBTQIA, whether or not T is a sexuality, and whether or not free speech is being limited by laws protecting homosexuals and so on. People often go into these things on such threads - don't, please.

It would be nice to discuss what you think about the gay rights movement and whether or not it has achieved its goals, why things like this still happen, and whether or not it is taken seriously enough.

Its not hairsplitting.. its a really important distinction.

The article has us assuming that the attack was completely unprovoked and was motivated by the mans sexuality all this inferred by him using homophobic remarks

Now it may well have been, I am simply stating thats not necessarily the case..

Maybe the victim poo'd on his hands and smeared it over his attacker whilst calling him a fat ugly tramp... Attacker turns around makes homophobic slurs and lamps him one..

Would you still say he attacked him because he was a homosexual?

It's LGBTAISDK ffs, why do you just forget about other sexualities, you sound like a bigot

You are a prime example of someone in the LGBTAISDK community who defends Islam. Please go to Saudi Arabia and report back, well that's if you are still walking

But that didn't happen. If it did then I'd say it was only a contributing factor, but it didn't.

You are hairsplitting. The distinction is generally important but all sources on this particular occurrence, across accounts/reports, note that it had homophobic motives. The blatant homophobic language is one piece of obvious evidence. You are indeed, hairsplitting to try and prove a point.

Yes it was a hypothetical to make the point that just because somebody used homophobic slurs during an altercation does not neccesarily mean that said altercation was motivated by homophobia

I haven't read all sources, just the article you linked too.

No blatant homophobic language is not obvious evidence without understanding the extenuating circumstances and context of the altercation. This is not hairsplitting... its making a crucial argument

You are trying to say it wasn't homophobia... when it was.

I see the need for the distinctiom but evidence has been given here and the accused admitted.