Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mal Baadshah)
    Sounds illegal lol as well as highly unlikely. Can you not?
    I am not lying to you, ask TheOnlyMrsHolmes. This thread was created out of a comment I made on a relationship thread after I saw her avatar.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    OK yeah, I admit I was in the wrong I'm just in a strange mood right now :blushing:

    Plus the several threads in which this is being debated are confusing me as to exactly who's voicing which opinions...
    No problem dude
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is it possible/true that a mod can create a thread under someone else's account...?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Mal Baadshah)
    oh geez
    He asked for it.

    I'm sick to death of all the knuckle heads on here who think they can be so condescending about matters that do not concern them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mal Baadshah)
    this whole thread is completely unnecessary :rofl: Not even I would say **** like this.
    I agree, I did not want to create a thread out of this, but as I said - MODS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iAre Teh Lejend)
    No honestly, I did not make the thread. My comment was taken from another thread and made in to a thread of its own by a MOD, causing this to blow up in to a crisis.
    And even still, your posts seem to echo the OP...that you "didn't create." I mean I've literally never heard of this on here, nor any other forum I've posted on...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iAre Teh Lejend)
    I agree, I did not want to create a thread out of this, but as I said - MODS.
    :hmmm: k den. Still holding you accountable you know.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I totally agree with you. My old best friend found SEXUAL ACTIVITY so uncomfortable and that's fine? Like, what the hell, who am I to tell you how to feel but it's just *******s when you're like, "Oh yeah sexual activity... ew... oh wait, only when it's this group of people tbh." Lol, shut up.
    No, I agree, it shouldn't be optional. I truly understood his original points, from people finding it offensive and it's distasteful, I disagreed. We reached a agree to disagree conclusion.

    What I can't find peace with is lesbians are okay but gay men are not. That's not okay. That isn't fair. All or none imo(preferably all).

    BUT

    look none of us are getting anywhere and we all feel insulted personally one way or another, I don't think there is any point in continuing this on for pages and pages and pages.

    I think we need some agree to disagree thing right about now.

    Sometimes it's not exactly the arguement that is effective but the after thought process.

    I'm just going to leave that thought there for you guys to think about
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, I agree, it shouldn't be optional. I truly understood his original points, from people finding it offensive and it's distasteful, I disagreed. We reached a agree to disagree conclusion.

    What I can't find peace with is lesbians are okay but gay men are not. That's not okay. That isn't fair. All or none imo(preferably all).

    BUT

    look none of us are getting anywhere and we all feel insulted personally one way or another, I don't think there is any point in continuing this on for pages and pages and pages.

    I think we need some agree to disagree thing right about now.

    Sometimes it's not exactly the arguement that is effective but the after thought process.

    I'm just going to leave that thought there for you guys to think about
    Agree with you completely. I'm going to watch Maurice now anyway :lol:

    F.Nietzsche --->
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thecatwithnohat)
    He asked for it.

    I'm sick to death of all the knuckle heads on here who think they can be so condescending about matters that do not concern them.
    I missed what he said but I'm not in the mood for a headache today, so I'll pass. This is too deep. Certain things just shouldn't be said people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    I don't think there is any point in continuing this on for pages and pages and pages.
    Yes.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    I don't care if people disrespect my opinion.

    Ah good, you've mentioned laws from the past which were unjust to somehow make a point about the state being crappy on morality. The problem with that is the glaring notion that we have PROGRESSED through the years and are now much more for equality and acceptance than we used to be, at least under the eyes of the law. So things have gotten better, not worse.

    You've really gone for the philosophical stance on all of this being relative and nothing being concrete. While I appreciate that move (having graduated with a philosophy degree) it seems you're just asking questions with no substance and not providing your own opinion. When you have, you've said that you do not respect racism and homophobia. I said persecution of those communities is unjust. That statement is a logical extension of finding homophobia and racism deplorable, which means you should agree with me if you have no time for discrimination. However, it seems with the regards to the point in bold, that you don't seem so sure. Indeed, you've contradicted yourself because you were surely against racism and homophobia, and now me labeling it as unjust has got you to question what justice is, instead of agreeing with me and thus reinforcing your previous position.

    It's irrelevant if it has gotten better or worse. My point being that what is right and wrong is not dependent on state. Who can tell if 270 years from now, we have a 360 degrees turn and outlaw black people going to university and having rights, with the government reinforcing it because it will be just and the right thing to do?
    It's because social norms change that we can never say what is truly right and what is truly wrong. We all have our own take on it, having popular definitions but never having a whole population agree on it wholly.

    I think we have differing opinions on what counts as homophobia and racism therefore I cannot I agree with you completely [on homophobia/racism being unjust]. This extends to justice in regards of what it is, with your view on it not being absolute.I do not doubt myself on this.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    I totally agree with you. My old best friend found SEXUAL ACTIVITY so uncomfortable and that's fine? Like, what the hell, who am I to tell you how to feel but it's just *******s when you're like, "Oh yeah sexual activity... ew... oh wait, only when it's this group of people tbh." Lol, shut up.
    Given that we live in a society wherein heterosexuality is still considered to be the default, "normal" sexual orientation, it's no surprise that some people may feel uncomfortable, or even disgusted at the sight of what they consider "abnormal" - in this case, males kissing other males. But I definitely agree that these people ought to keep such thoughts and opinions to themselves, especially when voicing their disgust may perpetuate homophobia and persecution of homosexuals on a wider scale.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Given that we live in a society wherein heterosexuality is still considered to be the default, "normal" sexual orientation, it's no surprise that some people may feel
    uncomfortable, or even disgusted at the sight of what they consider "abnormal" - in this case, males kissing other males. But I definitely agree that these people ought to keep such thoughts and opinions to themselves, especially when voicing them may perpetuate homophobia and persecution of homosexuals on a wider scale.
    No one is disputing that people will feel uncomfortable about it and no one is disputing that that's okay either.

    Your ending is essentially the point I've been trying to make so yeah, I agree.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    It's irrelevant if it has gotten better or worse. My point being that what is right and wrong is not dependent on state. Who can tell if 270 years from now, we have a 360 degrees turn and outlaw black people going to university and having rights, with the government reinforcing it because it will be just and the right thing to do?
    It's because social norms change that we can never say what is truly right and what is truly wrong. We all have our own take on it, having popular definitions but never having a whole population agree on it wholly.

    I think we have differing opinions on what counts as homophobia and racism therefore I cannot I agree with you completely [on homophobia/racism being unjust]. This extends to justice in regards of what it is, with your view on it not being absolute.I do not doubt myself on this.
    It's completely relevant, and entirely my point with regards to TRENDS. The trend, for decades, has been a progression toward a society of equal opportunity and one which does NOT discriminate based on race, sex, sexuality etc. This has of course shown in our laws, and it would be unlikely that a 180 (which is what you meant, at least from the point of today) would occur precisely because there is no logical reason for discriminating against someone based on something they cannot control. We've understood this as a people, hence why we've moved away from it. We've matured. I can tell you know this, but you'll still make the 'what if' point anyway. As an aside, I never argued for the state being a perfect manifestation of what is just, I just said the progression towards not discriminating against people and accepting minority groups has come about over time, and this has been reflected in our laws. Do you agree that we're in a better place than we were hundreds of years ago? Please tell me you do.

    What do you count as homophobia and racism? Surely it's not purely restricted to an utterance like 'I hate black people' or 'I hate gays'? I mean one could say gay people would not make good parents, or that black people steal, while still saying 'I don't hate them'. That wouldn't negate the inherent prejudice in their statements though.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Agree with you completely. I'm going to watch Maurice now anyway :lol:

    F.Nietzsche --->
    Enjoy!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    It's completely relevant, and entirely my point with regards to TRENDS. The trend, for decades, has been a progression toward a society of equal opportunity and one which does NOT discriminate based on race, sex, sexuality etc. This has of course shown in our laws, and it would be unlikely that a 180 (which is what you meant, at least from the point of today) would occur precisely because there is no logical reason for discriminating against someone based on something they cannot control. We've understood this as a people, hence why we've moved away from it. We've matured. I can tell you know this, but you'll still make the 'what if' point anyway. As an aside, I never argued for the state being a perfect manifestation of what is just, I just said the progression towards not discriminating against people and accepting minority groups has come about over time, and this has been reflected in our laws. Do you agree that we're in a better place than we were hundreds of years ago? Please tell me you do.

    What do you count as homophobia and racism? Surely it's not purely restricted to an utterance like 'I hate black people' or 'I hate gays'? I mean one could say gay people would not make good parents, or that black people steal, while still saying 'I don't hate them'. That wouldn't negate the inherent prejudice in their statements though.

    You talk as if you think society has never been civil up until this point in time. What has changed has been the fact that minorities have been liberated from their position as minorities. And I think in terms of equal opportunity, we have improved.
    And my 270 years from now example was an example, not a what if. I was merely showing that at any given point in time, an opinion held by a majority is considered the right opinion.

    There is more than one dimension of a person. I cannot write down what counts as homophobia/racism and what doesn't because of the endless scenarios.
    I agree that verbal and physical harassment directed at a person because of race/sexuality which is the crime. I end it there.
    A stand alone comment of "gay people make bad parents" and "black people steal" is not accountable. There are gay people who make bad parents. There are black people who steal. But so does heterosexual parents. And so do white people. Is it because the comment was made about a minority, that it's discrimination?


    [you seem to hate my question marks but I refuse to make them statements as my opinions are not objective]
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    You talk as if you think society has never been civil up until this point in time. What has changed has been the fact that minorities have been liberated from their position as minorities. And I think in terms of equal opportunity, we have improved.
    And my 270 years from now example was an example, not a what if. I was merely showing that at any given point in time, an opinion held by a majority is considered the right opinion.

    There is more than one dimension of a person. I cannot write down what counts as homophobia/racism and what doesn't because of the endless scenarios.
    I agree that verbal and physical harassment directed at a person because of race/sexuality which is the crime. I end it there.
    A stand alone comment of "gay people make bad parents" and "black people steal" is not accountable. There are gay people who make bad parents. There are black people who steal. But so does heterosexual parents. And so do white people. Is it because the comment was made about a minority, that it's discrimination?


    [you seem to hate my question marks but I refuse to make them statements as my opinions are not objective]
    Well society has been somewhat civil I guess but one needs a comparison in order to make sense of civility. It's a relative term and cannot be understood if one takes into account a stand alone society frozen in time and unchanging. But you say we have improved, so you agree with me that society has become more civil. That was my point.
    It was a 'what if'. You said, what if 270 years from now we do a 180 and black people have less rights. I'm paraphrasing but something like that. Of course it's a 'what if' because that hasn't happened and you're talking about a very unlikely future just to make a point about changing ideas. I understood the point but the 'example' was weak.

    How do you not understand the prejudice in those statements? It's a generalisation of minority communities and acting as if they all do x. When you hear 'gay people wouldn't make good parents' people mean most or all gay people. You've never heard 'straight people don't make good parents' because next to no one has ever said that. Somehow you're acting in your question that any comment made toward a minority is discrimination. No. You know full well those comments aren't driving at that. Such comments are bigoted because they generalise and act as though those negative qualities are facets only held by minority communities and are widespread in minority communities. For example, a white racist would not say all white people steal, though he may say some do. He sees white people as individuals. The same cannot be said of the way he sees black people. They are a monolith to him, and because their skin is black, he sees them as more likely to commit crime and steal from him. THAT is bigoted.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    Well society has been somewhat civil I guess but one needs a comparison in order to make sense of civility. It's a relative term and cannot be understood if one takes into account a stand alone society frozen in time and unchanging. But you say we have improved, so you agree with me that society has become more civil. That was my point.
    It was a 'what if'. You said, what if 270 years from now we do a 180 and black people have less rights. I'm paraphrasing but something like that. Of course it's a 'what if' because that hasn't happened and you're talking about a very unlikely future just to make a point about changing ideas. I understood the point but the 'example' was weak.

    How do you not understand the prejudice in those statements? It's a generalisation of minority communities and acting as if they all do x. When you hear 'gay people wouldn't make good parents' people mean most or all gay people. You've never heard 'straight people don't make good parents' because next to no one has ever said that. Somehow you're acting in your question that any comment made toward a minority is discrimination. No. You know full well those comments aren't driving at that. Such comments are bigoted because they generalise and act as though those negative qualities are facets only held by minority communities and are widespread in minority communities. For example, a white racist would not say all white people steal, though he may say some do. He sees white people as individuals. The same cannot be said of the way he sees black people. They are a monolith to him, and because their skin is black, he sees them as more likely to commit crime and steal from him. THAT is bigoted.

    It was an example not a question. Maybe I should have worded it better but I was provoking thought not expecting an answer.

    I meant what I meant. Your example felt too vague to be offensive [or I just don't get offended easily] If you had say "ALL black men steal"-that's racist.
    Nowadays everything is generalised which is why we have stereotypes.We don't help ourselves when we use labels for everything.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    It was an example not a question. Maybe I should have worded it better but I was provoking thought not expecting an answer.

    I meant what I meant. Your example felt too vague to be offensive [or I just don't get offended easily] If you had say "ALL black men steal"-that's racist.
    Nowadays everything is generalised which is why we have stereotypes.We don't help ourselves when we use labels for everything.
    Right, fair enough.

    Stereotypes and generalisations such as 'all black men steal' or 'no gay couple would be good parents' aren't cool, and I think you agree. I think we should just leave it here tbh, we seem to have reached some sort of agreement.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.