Turn on thread page Beta

Leave the homosexuality threads to fade away. watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by calumc)
    The whole PC obsession bugs the hell out of me, it just results in even more pointless clipboard-bashing burocracy and petty court cases, the majority by women.
    Do you have a source/evidence for that claim?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Do you have a source/evidence for that claim?
    Yes. I have NEVER read of a "sex discrimination" case brought by a man.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by calumc)
    Yes. I have NEVER read of a "sex discrimination" case brought by a man.
    I see

    I didn't realise that you understood "petty court cases" to mean only sex discrimination cases....I thought you were talking about the cases were people sued McDonalds for getting fat and the like
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I see

    I didn't realise that you understood "petty court cases" to mean only sex discrimination cases....I thought you were talking about the cases were people sued McDonalds for getting fat and the like
    Well that's what I was thinking of when I wrote it, and I did say "the majority", not "only". The majority of petty PC-related court cases I have seen certainly have been "sex discrimination" of women. I could probably have been clearer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Yes. I have NEVER read of a "sex discrimination" case brought by a man.
    I have. It concerned uniform in the workplace. Women were allowed to wear what they liked as long as it was presentable, whereas the men had to wear a suit and tie. The guy tried to wear clothes under the same rules as the women but the workplace said he couldn't. He later took it to the employment tribunal and won his case that it was in fact sex discriminant. Sorry I don't know any names to it. Maybe when others read what I put they may know themselves. You will get a lot less cases such as the one I have described above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Well, yes, but it's not really a case of "not knowing its use", more "knowing it is useless/reasonless". There are parts of our body which appear useless, such as the appendix, though this appears to have been "left over" from our evolution from animals where it did have a purpose, so does have a reason behind it.
    but homosexuality is not a physical part such as the appendix that can be removed, there are no pathogens in our system which tell us to go for same sex, and not chemical inbalances in our brains negating all reason: if a baby was born blue, which apparently you seem to be unaware that some are, it would be due to lack of oxygen reaching it during labour / in the woumb... a disease is not a useless part of a person, but a classified, harmful, PHYSICALLY TRACEABLE problem....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I have. It concerned uniform in the workplace. Women were allowed to wear what they liked as long as it was presentable, whereas the men had to wear a suit and tie. The guy tried to wear clothes under the same rules as the women but the workplace said he couldn't. He later took it to the employment tribunal and won his case that it was in fact sex discriminant. Sorry I don't know any names to it. Maybe when others read what I put they may know themselves. You will get a lot less cases such as the one I have described above.
    I heard about something like that, maybe it was the same case :confused: Although I'm the same as you, I can't remember anything other than what happened.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I have. It concerned uniform in the workplace. Women were allowed to wear what they liked as long as it was presentable, whereas the men had to wear a suit and tie. The guy tried to wear clothes under the same rules as the women but the workplace said he couldn't. He later took it to the employment tribunal and won his case that it was in fact sex discriminant. Sorry I don't know any names to it. Maybe when others read what I put they may know themselves. You will get a lot less cases such as the one I have described above.
    Now that you mention it I think I did hear about that. However, I've heard a lot more concerning women, and these are usually far more petty such as "sexist" jokes in emails or something, where had the same been said about a man nothing would have been done.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Now that you mention it I think I did hear about that. However, I've heard a lot more concerning women, and these are usually far more petty such as "sexist" jokes in emails or something, where had the same been said about a man nothing would have been done.
    You have never considered the possibility that most men would not file a court case eaven when their rights were in fact violated? I think a large ammount of the court rules brought forward by wommen are justified (although some, like the McDonalds one, are rather silly). The point is that something could very well be both politically correct and justified. What I considder most important is that people's rights are not violated merely because some people have got a weird idea that human rights is 90% political correctness. As an example, many people dismiss the criticism against the prisioners at guantanamo as political correctness, when in fact the american government is guilty of a quite serious violation. If the law is not respected anti-pc will become an excuse for violating peoples rights on a sparadic basis.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    You have never considered the possibility that most men would not file a court case eaven when their rights were in fact violated? I think a large ammount of the court rules brought forward by wommen are justified (although some, like the McDonalds one, are rather silly). The point is that something could very well be both politically correct and justified. What I considder most important is that people's rights are not violated merely because some people have got a weird idea that human rights is 90% political correctness. As an example, many people dismiss the criticism against the prisioners at guantanamo as political correctness, when in fact the american government is guilty of a quite serious violation. If the law is not respected anti-pc will become an excuse for violating peoples rights on a sparadic basis.
    I have considered that possibility as I believe it would apply to me. If someone was forwarding jokes about men or some other petty form of sexual "harassment" I certainly would NOT take it to court, since in my opinion that's just pathetic. Anyone who does need to grow up and stop being such a pussy.


    Mod Expression - Language Violation - Post Amended
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by calumc)
    I have considered that possibility as I believe it would apply to me. If someone was forwarding jokes about men or some other petty form of sexual "harassment" I certainly would NOT take it to court, since in my opinion that's just pathetic.
    And what if your boss started coming on to you or making you feel uncomfortable - would you take that to court?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    I have considered that possibility as I believe it would apply to me. If someone was forwarding jokes about men or some other petty form of sexual "harassment" I certainly would NOT take it to court, since in my opinion that's just pathetic. Anyone who does need to grow up and stop being such a pussy.
    Mod Expression - Language in Quotation Violation - Post Amended

    The truth is however that many wommen are exposed to forms of sexual harrasment which is much more serious than a few jokes. Anyways, if a court ruleis silly, it is up to the judges to decide that. One should not remove the laws protecting equal rights because of it. There are plenty of justified cases of sexual harrasment as well and one should not underine those merely because a few (and yes I dont think there are that many) stupid lawsuits. Also, what is important is not how many such "silly" lawsuits are being filed, what matters is how many of them get the sympathy of the court. The case against McDonalds did fail as an example.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Men will generally not take things like this to court. It is also very apparent when they have been assaulted by women. Many men won't because they fear that they will be laughed at. I heard there was some fuss with the Cambridgeshire police trying to proceed with an investigation involving the abuse of Steven Hawkins. But he didn't want them to proceed. So perhaps something happened here?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was actually curious as to what other people thought when I started my thread. Don't tar everyone with the same brush Jonatan :mad:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Men will generally not take things like this to court. It is also very apparent when they have been assaulted by women. Many men won't because they fear that they will be laughed at. I heard there was some fuss with the Cambridgeshire police trying to proceed with an investigation involving the abuse of Steven Hawkins. But he didn't want them to proceed. So perhaps something happened here?
    Or perhaps Mr Hawking just decided he had more important matters to worry about, really speculating about criminal cases like this is something I would advice against.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Or perhaps Mr Hawking just decided he had more important matters to worry about
    Perhaps.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    really speculating about criminal cases like this is something I would advice against.
    Yes I do realise this, at one point in my life it was really apparent with footballers and TV presenters and a certain sex crime...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Trust me, all the pro-homo rubbish where everyone who says anything even slightly "bad" or not PC is dismissed as a bigot/homophobe is just as annoying. People won't even take the time to see a decent point being made even if it's on something relatively soft on the surface such as a possible cause for homosexuality - is that really so offensive? Is "disease" a bad word? The PC response says it is, so we can't even suggest that homosexuality is a disease, its just an unexplained "thing", and unless a PC explanation is found this is how it will remain. Personally I believe it is some form of "condition", regardless of what the homosexuals who take offense to this might say.
    i personally get more annoyed when you post a refutation that homosexuality is not a disease or mental illness based on the criteria used by the medical profession(s), and yet people like you continue to use words such as condition or mental illness. i dont like you using the terms, but whats worse is you use it out of ignorance, not due to any informed opinion. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Even more annoying by the way is people who dismiss anything that contradicts whatever little pieces of lunacy they happen to be indulging in as PC and therefore irrelevant and illegitimate.
    so true!!! rep for that one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    :rolleyes:Hardly!

    Hence if there was no "reason" for having black/white/blue skin then we could classify it as a disease. Not really that hard to understand.
    good lord that is not the criteria for 'disease'. where do you get this nonsense from?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Rep comment - "Oh get over that bloody obsession with pc"

    One word - RETARD. It looks like somebody has COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. My whole point was AGAINST the "bloody obsession with pc" which appears to have taken hold - anything not PC is "taboo" and dismissed regardless of it's possible validity even if there is no alternative on offer. The whole PC obsession bugs the hell out of me, it just results in even more pointless clipboard-bashing burocracy and petty court cases, the majority by women.
    Haha I think it is you who has missed the point. I think when you mention PC all the time, it can be seen as an obsession whatever your view on it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
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.