Scotland Yard Racism...

Scroll to see replies

AP1989

...yes

Discriminatory laws for some of those groups, yes, but no where near on the same level.

Form lobbying groups then, if those people felt that oppressed they'd do something about it.

Reply 121

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

Toddlers poke people and act as general annoyances. A police officer who hates toddlers in general, a characteristic of that toddler, or the relations of the toddler, may take their anger out on that toddler because they feel it is appropriate to make them stop. This is a very plausible situation if you feel it is appropriate for emotions and opinions to manifest in the emergency services.

By breaking their fingers?

Yours. That said, do you stand by your position?

Then it is an anecdote.

So they can bludgeon a rock-throwing toddler?

I don't feel it is appropriate I feel it is inevitable. Just going to ignore the rest of that crap.

So, in this situation, you are a paralysed man in a wheel chair and people are poking your eyes? The cop better break their fingers first before I get to them :biggrin:

.

Mine? Yeah a beating should be reserved for people they see attacking vulnerable people, people burning down homes etc. :smile:

No. Using their brainz they can realise that the toddler just needs disarming. A fully grown man throwing rocks? I really don't care if they do beat him.

Reply 122

Bonged.

Original post by AP1989

Discriminatory laws for some of those groups, yes, but no where near on the same level.

Form lobbying groups then, if those people felt that oppressed they'd do something about it.

Nah not really, the only reason why race lobbies are so successful is because there are a wealth of guilty liberals ready to right their great-great-great etc grandfathers wrongs.

Reply 123

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

I don't feel it is appropriate I feel it is inevitable. Just going to ignore the rest of that crap.

Are you unable to defend your position logically?

So, in this situation, you are a paralysed man in a wheel chair and people are poking your eyes? The cop better break their fingers first before I get to them :biggrin:

Is that a yes?

Mine? Yeah a beating should be reserved for people they see attacking vulnerable people, people burning down homes etc. :smile:

So a toddler should be beaten for poking an impaired person? If the police officer were racist against this toddler and specifically aimed for their temple, killing them, is nobody responsible? Reconcile this with your anti-corporal punishment stance, if you can.

No. Using their brainz they can realise that the toddler just needs disarming. A fully grown man throwing rocks? I really don't care if they do beat him.

So now they should show restraint? A fully grown man 'just needs disarming', as well, no? If the toddler persisted, can they bludgeon her?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 124

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

Another very plausible scenario: what if the fully grown man had a psychological disorder that was responsible for his throwing rocks, poking people, etc.? Since the police are not judiciaries and do not know anything outside of their immediate interpretation of the situation, is it still appropriate for them to have bludgeoned him? Under your system, how would these scenarios be avoided?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 125

Sisu

I don't really care that he used the N-word, after all it's a word and like all words can have multiple meanings some being innocent within certain contexts. However, the problem here is a) he used it within a racist context, it would've been equally as bad to say "you'll always be a black" because it' the same context and same intention i.e. racist one and b) he is a professional, even if we presume he didn't use it in a racist context he shouldn't have used that word as a professional because there's a code of conduct which he broke, this applies to calling someone a "bitch" or "****er". In conclusion, his bitch ass should be sacked.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 126

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

Are you unable to defend your position logically?

Is that a yes?

So a toddler should be beaten for poking an impaired person? If the police officer were racist against this toddler and specifically aimed for their temple, killing them, is nobody responsible? Reconcile this with your anti-corporal punishment stance, if you can.

So now they should show restraint? A fully grown man 'just needs disarming', as well, no? If the toddler persisted, can they bludgeon her?

Haha. You've had to go through beating toddlers, breaking fingers, etc etc. It's not me thats clutching at straws.

I thought the toddler was white? How could the officer be racist against them?

I didn't know that the imaginary gang poking the imaginary disabled person was made up of toddlers. hahaha. nah should probably just get them to move on. or really should get social services on the case to see why they are roaming around in gangs threatening disabled people.

Yes, a toddler has less agency than a man. Also a toddler is more easily stopped.

No but they should bludgeon the rioter.

Reply 127

marcusfox

Original post by AP1989

Isn't it obvious?

Have any of those groups faced the discrimination that black people have throughout history? Were any of those groups ever made into slaves? Were any of them repressed via discriminatory laws?

At point of entry into the slave trade it was quite often black people selling their countrymen into slavery.

And plenty of Arab slave traders from North Africa took white slaves from Europe.

We have laws against gender discrimination, disability discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination.

You can't pull the slavery card as a reason for those, or for race laws. In that case it would only be illegal to discriminate against black people.

However, it is illegal to discriminate against any race.

Reply 128

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

HAHAHA!

get a grip fuxake.

Reply 129

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

Haha. You've had to go through beating toddlers, breaking fingers, etc etc. It's not me thats clutching at straws.

I've been using these examples for a while.

I thought the toddler was white? How could the officer be racist against them?

Are you unable to answer my question? The officer could be sexist, hates certain hair/eye colours, the colour of shoes she is wearing, etc. Is that a yes?

I didn't know that the imaginary gang poking the imaginary disabled person was made up of toddlers. hahaha. nah should probably just get them to move on. or really should get social services on the case to see why they are roaming around in gangs threatening disabled people.

Why can't they be bludgeoned? I'm not asking what they 'should' do, I'm asking whether or not you would have any qualms with their bludgeoning of a toddler for poking an impaired man. Reconcile your answer with your anti-corporal punishment stance, if you can.

Yes, a toddler has less agency than a man. Also a toddler is more easily stopped.

They can be stopped even easier with a quick blow to the temple. Why do you have a discrepancy with this occurring with a toddler?

Why not?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 130

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

HAHAHA!

get a grip fuxake.

Ever heard of ADHD? 'Etc.' indicates 'things of that nature'; i.e., antisocial behaviour that causes harm to people.

Reply 131

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

I've been using these examples for a while.

Are you unable to answer my question? The officer could be sexist, hates certain hair/eye colours, the colour of shoes she is wearing, etc. Is that a yes?

Why can't they be bludgeoned? I'm not asking what they 'should' so, I'm asking whether or not you would have any qualms with their bludgeoning of a toddler for poking an impaired man. Reconcile your answer with your anti-corporal punishment stance, if you can.

They can

be stopped even easier by a quick blow to the temple. Why do you have a discrepancy with this occurring with a toddler?

Why not?

What even is your question? Finding it hard to keep up with these flights of fancy.

It is not necessary to bludgeon a toddler to stop them from attacking someone. It may very well be necessary if a pack of yutes is.

Yep, but unless you are INSANE you will realise that they can be stopped without bludgeoning them. People murdering OAPs for trying to put out fires? Different story.

Reply 132

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

Ever heard of ADHD? 'Etc.' indicates 'things of that nature'; i.e., antisocial behaviour that causes harm to people.

if someone suffers from it that bad that they are attacking innocent people they should really be sectioned until better.

Reply 133

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

What even is your question? Finding it hard to keep up with these flights of fancy.

Is it appropriate for the police to break a toddler's fingers if they do not desist poking my eyeball? Reconcile your answer with your anti-corporal punishment stance, if you can.

It is not necessary to bludgeon a toddler to stop them from attacking someone. It may very well be necessary if a pack of yutes is.

It may very well be 'necessary' if the toddler persists.

Minimising harm to all parties concerned requires appropriate force being used to restrain and then detain the suspect.

Yep, but unless you are INSANE you will realise that they can be stopped without bludgeoning them. People murdering OAPs for trying to put out fires? Different story.

Since the police officer is the judge, jury and executioner, they may disagree. Killing the toddler is the only 100% effective means of stopping them, so why shouldn't the police kill all 'suspects'? It would completely eliminate crime (and the human population), wouldn't it?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 134

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

if someone suffers from it that bad that they are attacking innocent people they should really be sectioned until better.

But they're not. This fully grown man is throwing rocks and poking people and the police have beaten him into a coma. Is this appropriate?

Reply 135

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

Is it appropriate for the police to break a toddler's fingers if they do not desist poking my eyeball? Reconcile your answer with your anti-corporal punishment stance, if you can.

It may very well be 'necessary' if the toddler persists. Minimising harm to all parties concerned requires appropriate force being used to restrain and then detain the suspect.

Since the police officer is the judge, jury and executioner, they may disagree. Killing the toddler is the only 100% effective means of stopping them, so why shouldn't the police kill all 'suspects'? It would completely eliminate crime (and the human population), wouldn't it?

No. A fully grown man poking a disabled persons eyeballs? Yes!

No it won't be. Unless the police officer is a toddler himself he will have the capability to remove the toddler from your perimeter.

O really, come back to earth some time.

Reply 136

Bonged.

Original post by whyumadtho

But they're not. This fully grown man is throwing rocks and poking people and the police have beaten him into a coma. Is this appropriate?

I'm not sure. Has he himself poked someone into a coma?

Reply 137

whyumadtho

Original post by Bonged.

No. A fully grown man poking a disabled persons eyeballs? Yes!

What if it later transpires that this fully grown man had a psychological impairment that was responsible for his actions. Is it appropriate to beat psychologically impaired people now?

No it won't be. Unless the police officer is a toddler himself he will have the capability to remove the toddler from your perimeter.

He can also remove a teenager from the vicinity. Both a gang of toddlers and a gang of teenagers will require a group of police officers to disperse the situation; in both cases, it is possible to stop the threat without potentially lethal force.

O really, come back to earth some time.

Are you unable to defend your position logically?

Reply 138

anonymouspie227

Pretty disappointed at the responses that the daily mail readers gave- and the fact they were green arrowed on the website.

'How can it be racist to tell someone that they will always be part of the race/colour into which they were born?
- Kate Evans, Nottingham,England, 31/3/2012 12:41
Rating 191'

Why? Why is it acceptable to say such things? He wasn't telling him he was black- to be nice, was he, he called him a N***** before saying that?
What the hell is wrong with the world today.
It's a real shame that racism exists- a real shame.