h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

SoRB - let me introduce you to the word 'disingenuous'.

"some people are het up"

How dare you use such blatantly discriminatory language in this thread! Moderator!









SoRB

SoRB, are you genuinely trying to deny that the attack on the Admiral Duncan was aimed primarily at gay men? Seriously?!

The fact that a heterosexual woman was killed while her husband was seriously injured takes nothing away from the fact that this attack was carried out by a professed neo-Nazi with a hatred for gay men. The target was a *gay pub* - it is a fair assumption that most of the clients at a gay pub are homosexuals and so it's pretty clear that this was an attack on gay men.

To be perfectly honest, I find your denial of this simple and blatant truth to be distasteful in the extreme and the motive behind such a denial concerns me

Mrs Dykes was an innocent bystander - in the wrong place at the wrong time. She died simply because she was physically too close to a group that a retarded psychopath decided to kill.

If this attack wasn't aimed at gay men, who the heck was it aimed at?

---
"he hasn't addressed what I said in post 60 "

Sorry, but I didn't see a clear question.
---

I count four questions in that post - three arguably rhetorical, but one very direct and in the very first line. If you didn't see a clear question, I suspect you're the only one who didn't.

You've no obligation to answer, of course, but when someone raises serious arguments and evidence against something I've posted, I tend to make a point of responding. Either to respond with further arguments or clarifications to my position, or to concede a point (in part or in whole).

That's the most frustrating thing with trying to engage in discussion with you, SoRB. You'll post something interesting, challenging, and provocative, but then you'll only answer responses that suit you - that you think can easily be dealt with, ideally by giving someone a bit of a intellectual savaging. When more substantial challenges come along (and this is a general point, not about my post) you don't tend to respond, and instead change the subject.

And I think it's a pity. A waste.

Three arguably rhetorical - so the clear question you refer to is:

"SoRB, can you explain exactly what your problem is in this case?"

Now who's being disingenuous? Is my position really so unclear?

The proper response, the response a reasonable member of the public might expect, when interrupted in the commission of a crime by a member of the emergency services, would be to exhibit embarrassment and contrition. It would not be to complain and to cause those members of the emergency services to be disciplined out of all proportion to *their* non-criminal goofing off in work hours.

That I have to repeat this really makes me question whether I'm debating adults or automata.

And the topic drift is part of the natural flow of conversation.

On the subject of disingenuously unanswered questions, there's a doozy in post 75. For the apparently hard of thinking, I'll repeat it explicitly so there's no confusion:

"There's also (rightly) a moral revulsion at the concept of beating someone senseless"

Now, explain to me why you need to tack ANYTHING onto that sentence, EVER.

SoRB

SoRB

This post has been removed.

>>That I have to repeat this really makes me question whether I'm debating adults or automata.

And that, I fear, is our objection to your own views on the matter.

To you, it appears to be a cut and dried matter of "They were in a public place. What do they expect?".

And you follow this with legalistic definitions of what might or might not count 'being killed for being gay'.

Unfortunately, you are living in a somewhat more nuanced world. There is a context to this story.

Could it be comparison of a subset of "mass murder" to a subset of "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing."

There's a bill being debated today in Parliament which will make it a crime to criticise or stigmatise gays.

In the light of which, what would be the greater crime - The men having alfresco sex, the firemen having a jolly on company time or SoRB expressing his opinion?

Now now. That's a naughty misrepresentation.

I think you'll find that the bill being debated covers homphobic encitement, not criticism. Naturally, it's being portrayed by homophobic Christians as being aimed at stopping their criticism which, granted, could be taken as legitimising incitement.

Whether or not such a bill is useful or necessary is a wider debate. But it's not "a bill...which will make it a crime to criticise or stigmatise gays".

My bad then. But, could a lawyer not construe SoRB's comments as incitement to homophobia? Being described as a moral degenerate isn't generally regarded as a term of endearment.

>>But, could a lawyer not construe SoRB's comments as incitement to homophobia?

Oh, do stop being silly. The proposed law covers incitement to homophobic violence.

Let's not hypothesise about some hypothetical misuse of the law if some lawyer hypothetically tries it on. Hypothetically speaking, it doesn't even mean that a hypothetical judge would agree, even hypothetically.

Not even conceivably or theoretically?

<<"I think you'll find that the bill being debated covers homphobic encitement, not criticism.">>

Just poking my nose in, isn't this sort of thing covered already by incitement to violence or somesuch?

I have a general dislike of private laws for one group or another. Its inelegant, and it looks unfair (even if it isn't really).

Yeah, SoRB I do expect that if I found someone in the commission of a crime that if I were at all on shaky ground when I caught them in the act that Id get it in the neck for going about things the wrong way.

The firefighters, if they were punished out of all proportion, and I wasnt aware that you were the arbiter of punishments within the fireservice, but you learn something new everyday, do have a right of appeal. They have unionised colleagues who though it appears from past disputes they are loathe to strike could organise a ballot for industrial action. If these two things arent happening there could be several reasons why not but certainly for some people two of them are that some people think their treatment was fair in the circumstances and that the firfighters in question have taken it like non-gender specific adults.

You might think that people paid to do one job taking it upon themselves to stray into an arena where they have little or no training and were carelessly diverting resources away from their important, designated use is a good thing. You usually display a great deal of though in your posting, care to let us in on on why you think it is so in this case?

one love

"could a lawyer not construe SoRB's comments as incitement to homophobia? Being described as a moral degenerate isn't generally regarded as a term of endearment."

I invite anyone to try to point to where I used the term "moral degenerate".

Lies to support your argument... don't support your argument.

I'm always baffled why people post lies in a forum like this when it's so incredibly easy to show that they are simply lying to bolster their side. And yet it happens again and again "I NEVER said that!" bleats one person, when it's the work of a second to provide links to two or three or a dozen instances where they have. "How dare you say XXXXX!" whines another, when it's equally simple to prove incontrovertibly that you haven't. Idiots.

SoRB

Sorry SoRB. I thought you had said that. A genuine mistake and no malice intended.

SoRB, your argument, by extension means that it is impossible to discriminate in anyway against homosexuals. Ergo, it should be fine to post the "No Gays" sign at the public business, b/c hey, it can't b enforced b/c no one can tell who is or isn't gay.

Reductio ad absurdem.

>>
Just poking my nose in, isn't this sort of thing covered already by incitement to violence or somesuch?

Like I said - there's a debate to be had about whether the bill is useful or necessary. But it's not about preventing 'criticism'.


Although...I'm not sure why anyone would want to 'criticise' homosexuality. Personal attributes seem a bizarre thing to object to. Criticism of tall people? Of Gingers?

"Criticism of tall people? Of Gingers?"

You'll say that from behind your screen, won't you. Say it to my six foot seven auburn face!