What's worse? (racism)...

[TexasTom]

Oh my goodness - you are hilarious.
How about you actually look into the facts on gun crime before you use "statistics" to back up your arguments.
I can't even be bothered to argue with you its pointless.

Please do tell me where I am going worng on Gun Crime I am truely intrigued. I thought I was quite aware of Gun Crime. I know that the vast majority of shootings in Birmingham are black on black and that I guess they dont have Firearms Certificates for the weapons they use. I would be surprised if your average Birmingham guy could get a Section 5 certificate which is now required for the legal possesion of such weapons. I suspect most of these shooting are gang/drug related.

So please BB tell me where I am mislead or misinformed on gun crime, I REALLY REALLY REALLY am interested to know. It is futile you saying look at facts before using statistics to back up my argument. Well good statistics are individual facts turned into a single understandable format isnt it?

If the statistics say gun crime with the use of handguns has risen x% doesnt that mean the facts are more guns are being used in crime?

If your saying the use of guns is rising because of their association with drug dealers and organised crime, then yeah your probably right. That points that what I am saying is right though. Gun crime isnt a problem because of the legal use of guns or their availability but for other reasons. So surely they should treat the cause rather than try and treat the effect? But I suppose thats another topic, as it is we have wondered O/T as is.

 

[dog]

Both are sets of people who when found should be locked up and be catgeorised as anachists.

Categorised as anarchists? Erhm, where did that come from? Before putting up statements like that, perhaps it'd be a wise idea to look into the matter, anarchism as a political ideology, has got _nothing_ to do with what you're mentioning here, so why you want them categorised as such is beyond me.

 

[Rich]

agreed with Dan .. it is a common misconception

Tom is a racists .. and no argument is about to change his views ... its been demonstarted on these boards many times and the depth of his views has been shown on many occasions its a pointless debate coz you are not going to make him see any differnt... waste of time and space imho

I had my first ever racist action against me the other day which i found funny..
i wasnt allowed into a HipHop club by 2 bouncers.. they said i was a Skinhead and a white devil and i wasnt gonna be coming in their club.... shame i was DJing there LOL .. phoned the promoter and got him to sot me out ..

insainly small minded blinkered fuckwits that cannot see beyond somones skintone or religion, hair style, weight, body image, social passtimes, musical taste, football club etc etc ... that see everyone other than their own as a threat and treat anyone from beyond their borders with contempt .... its an old world adage that should have been long since put to death, thankfully in some areas it is diaspearing and people that hold those views will slowly disapear with it.

 

[TexasTom]

Lo doggy Well my understanding of an anarchist is someone who wishes to remove a properly elected Civil Government. As this is what the far left and far right wish to do, that makes them anachists in my book . Though obviously a state of Anarchy means no governing power of any sort. Bit like the streets in parts of Birmingham!

agreed with Dan .. it is a common misconception

Tom is a racists .. and no argument is about to change his views ... its been demonstarted on these boards many times and the depth of his views has been shown on many occasions its a pointless debate coz you are not going to make him see any differnt... waste of time and space imho

I had my first ever racist action against me the other day which i found funny..
i wasnt allowed into a HipHop club by 2 bouncers.. they said i was a Skinhead and a white devil and i wasnt gonna be coming in their club.... shame i was DJing there LOL .. phoned the promoter and got him to sot me out ..

insainly small minded blinkered fuckwits that cannot see beyond somones skintone or religion, hair style, weight, body image, social passtimes, musical taste, football club etc etc ... that see everyone other than their own as a threat and treat anyone from beyond their borders with contempt .... its an old world adage that should have been long since put to death, thankfully in some areas it is diaspearing and people that hold those views will slowly disapear with it.

So you happily work for Racists then Rich? Thats a bit two faced aint it? Shouldnt your morals have kicked in and gone "oh right, well find ya selves another DJ, this none racist is off home!"
Then there is the social pastimes, so all the things peeps want to ban eg fox hunting and guns etc should be allowed in your view, good to see you are a man for freedom Welcome to the club. And am I a racist? By your dodgy definition then yeah I am. Well done Rich though for getting us back on Topic, it was starting to slip away!

 

[dog]

Your understanding of anarchy is wrong then, as I pointed out.

 

[TexasTom]

Your understanding of anarchy is wrong then, as I pointed out.

Point me to a dictionary with a different meaning then mate

 

[Rich]

So you happily work for Racists then Rich

you should read what i said before making silly quips
"i phoned the promoter and got him to sot me out"

the promoter isnt racists .. and he also gave the bouncers a bollocking .. and not only that if he wanted he could have told them to fuck off there and then .. with the new bouncing laws it illegal to do what they did .. but it would also leave him with no doormen .security for the patrons on the night is obviously the higher priority at that time .. but i know i wont see them on his door again. so this single faced, non racists morals are fully intact thank you ..

Then there is the social pastimes, so all the things peeps want to ban eg fox hunting and guns etc should be allowed in your view, good to see you are a man for freedom Welcome to the club

where do i say it should be alowed in my view? ... i dont .. and theres a reason for that .. its because i didnt say it ..

And am I a racist? By your dodgy definition then yeah I am.

what is my dodgy deffinition?

Well done Rich though for getting us back on Topic, it was starting to slip away!

no problem ..

but ill just add this aswell .. keep to the topic of racism if you want to discuss what Anarchy is start another thread..

 

[L0cky]

Lol great answer, wishy washy no facts

Fact: Slavery is wrong
Fact: No voting for woman is wrong
Fact: People fought to ban slavery (ironically one of the main issues that people were fighting for in the American civil war was a country wide ban on slavery or a state by state ban on slavery, and this wasn't resolved at all through people carrying arms and shooting each other. The President had to step in and make the decision on behalf of his electors)
Fact: People demonstrated to liberalise woman with voting
Fact: Slavery was banned throughout the British Empire in 1883
Fact: Slavery was banned in America in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln
Fact: Woman began voting in Britain in 1918 after a massive _majority_ (385 for to 55 against) passed the Representation of the People Act in the House of Commons.

as you said..

Well good statistics are individual facts turned into a single understandable format isnt it?

But when they say things you disagree with, they are wrong!

Obviously. If I didn't think my beliefs were right then they wouldn't be my beliefs would they?

How do you know that the BNP and their kin arent saying what the silent Majority are thinking? Prove to me this isnt the case?

Were they elected into government from our _anonymous_ votes? Oops, nope.

So people shouldnt be able to demonstrate against fox hunting or go on about tighter gun control becasue its oppressive, demoralising and definitely discriminating, i agree LOL

We're not talking about foxhunting, we're talking about racism. If any act is stopped based entirely on it's moral and ethical merits then it's neither oppressive nor descriminating.

The sort of Racists you are on about, are skin head thugs who just want trouble, of a weekend they cause fights at football matches! These are the right wing equivalent to the loony left who blow people up cos they experiment on animals. Both are sets of people who when found should be locked up and be catgeorised as anachists.

I never said anything about right wing extremists. If an employer chooses a non Asian candidate over an Asian one purely because of race, that's pro-active racism. What's that got to do with football?

As for your final sentence, thats somes up the level of understanding you have of what is a complex matter. Allowing people to commit murders is not like sending people back to their country of origin, if you think it is then you are seriously mislead in your thinking!

Reread the sentence, especially the part 'Where would you stop?' and maybe you'll understand it.

As for your talk about gun control, for me it's simple.
1. A gun can end a persons life, purposefully or accidentally.
2. A gun will never give anyone enough enjoyment to justify death.

 

[Useless]

I'd like to stroll back to the original topic if I may?

'If an employer chooses a non Asian candidate over an Asian one purely because of race, that's pro-active racism.'

This is a great way to illustrate my basic point - they do this exercise in schools except they only do it from one point of view. It goes something like 'Jim and Asif both go for an interview at an office. They both have the same qualifications, dress in the same clothes etc...' Basically they're trying to force you to imagine two people who are entirely the same except for their ethnic origin. Anyway '...A few days later Jim gets a letter telling him he got the job, while Asif gets a letter telling him his application was not successful. Therefore, Asif didn't get the job purely because of his race.'

But they never give you a similar exercise saying something like 'Jim and Asif both went for an interview (same qualifications etc). Asif got the job and Jim didn't. Is this racism or isn't it?'

Or even one like 'Jim got the job because he had better qualifications / was better presented / had better references / turned up on time. This is not racism.'

Schools and parents should teach against racism but also make kids aware at the same time that not all situations involving different races necessarily have racist elements. The more open-minded and well-informed people are the better.

 

[L0cky]

I've never heard of this exercise in schools. In my example I said it was because of race, not maybe. As for it not being related to race and more about turning up on time, having good qualifications etc; you're told about that at school a hell of a lot more than about racial issues anyway

 

[Crazy Squirrel]

Please continue the discussion of this thread's topic within the rules, making sure you keep on topic and constructive!

Don't even bother refering to this post or what has happened over the last 20 hours - the mod/admin team are still discussing what has happened and further changes may occur - if you have a problem or anything to say then PM me.

If someone posts offtopic do not reply to them it means more moderation work, pm me and keep the thread on topic by ignoring them.

Re-Read the P&S Forum Rules before continuing.

Thank you