Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I didn't red rep you for asking questions, (another assumption youve made) i red repped you for accusing me of being angry. LIke I keep saying there is no emotion in my post (except maybe frustration :) ).
I've tried to explain where I thought our misunderstanding has occured but you have insisted on missquoting me as accusing you of being antigay.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Did you see the question mark in the title?

Maybe Russ was ASKING if Gays were overreacting/looking for trouble?

And ,while I disagree with Discrimination generally, I do think that the fact that the ex-police officer is trying to fight this cheapens more serious complaints of discrimination. The more we have cases like this, the more likely that the public will assume a gay person who suffers serious abuse is just "being a whinging queen" when he reports it. The same applies for Lesbians and any minority group.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

DID YOU see my post where I already answer that question or are you just trying to be argumentative???

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No I don't claim any such thing, that is your inturpretation of my posts.

So my accusation of being 'inflammatory' would stand??

Again your inturpritation of my posts. I see the phrasing as biased and predudicial, not the same as saying Russ had that intent. Nor does a person have to intentionally be homophobic to do something homophobic. In a similar way Ron Atkinson didnt mean to be racist when he called that player a N***.

Yes, its an issue for me, thats why Im discussing it here.
That's a poor excuse for allowing discrimination. Women wearing earrings can look just as disrepectfull.

I'm talking about moral discrimination, the law is an arse at the best of times, so it's not suprising that it would allow discrimination on an ad hock basis.

Again, this is only a reason why BOTH sexes shouldnt wear earrings, not a reason for discriminating against one gender in favour of another.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Judging by your previous posts in this thread, this is your standard reply to someone when you don't like their reaction to your opinions. In the interests of mutual understanding and continuing dialogue, if you think my interpretation is wrong, it would be nice if you could explain why you think that.

In this context, no. We are meant to be discussing the subject of the question, not the question itself. Getting hung up on the wording of the question just avoids the substantive issue.

My previous comments were intended to take in suggestions of both intentional and subconscious prejudice, and again by quibbling over the words I use you miss the substantive point. You claim the phrasing is biased and prejudicial (whether Russ consciously intended this or not). I claim the phrasing is an effective means of starting a debate and nothing more.

Right, now we're getting somewhere. Previously you have claimed that this is 'an issue'. Now you say it is 'an issue for me'. The dress code rules were not framed to address your issues. They were written for a section of society that still has problems with its perception of men wearing ear rings. My contention - and presumably that of those people who wrote the rules - is that the right of men to wear ear rings is secondary to the needs of those in the community who have a problem with men wearing ear rings.

And this, I think is the nub of the issue. Moral discrimination? By whose code of morality, exactly?

When you dismiss the Law as an ass, you similarly dismiss the opinions of those who wrote it, argued for it and passed it. The Law has no life or existence outside of that which is given to it by people just like yourself. It is passed by people, it is repealed by people. By claiming that the Law's rulings on discrimination are made on an ad hoc basis, you pass judgement on the opinions of those who passed the Law and declare that your own moral code, which has a different view of what is discrimination and what is not, is morally superior.

While I would agree with anyone who believes that moral equivalence is a myth, I would expect that person to give some account of why they think their morality is better than someone else's. You have not done this so far. As said previously, merely uttering the word 'discrimination' does not prove your point. Why is such discrimination wrong in your point of view?

Ok, so it appears you accept that it is valid to ask serving police officers to modify their dress and self expression in the interests of community relations. The question is, if it is only the issue of men wearing ear rings that is the problem, why is it not reasonable only to ask the men to remove them? Again, the charge of 'discrimination' is not an explanation in and of itself. You must give an account of why, in your moral code, it is so important that everything else appears secondary to it.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Based on this quote

I would say that you never even entertained the notion that Russ might be asking a question. You have assumed that Russ is homophobic. Where as, reading through Russ' 1st post, I would say that he expressed no opinion at all. He asked for other people's opinions.

You'll probably call me Homophobic (I am definately not, as my Gay friends will testify) for this, but I would also say that going to see your local councillor because your employer won't let you wear earrings could be construed as over reacting.

And, no, I am not being argumentative.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yeah, keep twisting my words till they say what you wanna say. 'An issue for me' is in relation to this thread and discussion forum. It is both 'an issue' and 'an issue for me'.

I dont care who the rules are written for, they are discriminatory. If you dont understaind how they are discriminatory then look up the word.

I've made my point plain and simple. if women can wear earrings then so should men, any law that says otherwise is discrimination.

As to the phrasing of the thread. Again its predudicial to gays, not only do they have to fight for the right to wear earrings, but they also have to face being labled as trouble makers and 'screaming queens' before they can actually get to the problem at hand.

'Police discriminate' is much more fair and still offers a provocative title but like I said before Im not predudiced against gays but I am against the police so my choice of wording would be like that.

Stop trying to score points and actually give a reason why you think its ok to discriminate against a section of society?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

AGAIN IVE NOT SAID RUSS IS HOMOPHOBIC, Ive said the title is predudicial and biased against gays.

I do wish people would stop this poor point scoring trick, of saying that a person is callling them something (that they never did) so that the person has to refute it.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

OK. You did not directly call Russ Homophobic, but you did infer he was in the following statement.

The inference being that you think that being against Gays is being homophobic, and you stating you think Russ is against Gays.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As I have said several times now, you cannot win an argument simply by re-stating your conclusion. You can keep repeating †˜itâà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÃ ‚¢s discriminationâââ₠¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ until youââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢re blue in the face, but until you give reasons for the conclusion you have arrived at, you have proven nothing.

†˜Any law that says otherwise is discriminationâââ₠¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ is a classic example of this. Why is it discrimination? If you were writing an exam essay on this subject you would be scoring very poorly indeed. Come on, give some reasons for what you believe!

If Gaham were online just now, he might have suggested your argument is flawed by a Circular Reasoning fallacy. Assuming something is true is not evidence that it is true. Have a look at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Trying to avoid answering my question by turning it round onto me is really a very poor debating tactic indeed. I have explained several times in this thread why I think, in this specific instance, discrimination is acceptable. It is you, rather, who has failed to say why it is not acceptable. Your appeal to the vague concept of †˜moral discriminationâââ₠¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ is not an explanation, it is yet another way of avoiding an explanation.

I am happy, however, to state, once again, why I believe it is acceptable to prevent only men from wearing ear-rings:

1. Certain parts of society have a problem with men wearing ear rings.
2. Police men must be seen to command respect and wield authority across the whole of society.
3. The need for good community relations is more important than a police officerââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s right to express his own dress sense while on duty and in uniform.
4. Police men should therefore not wear ear rings, as this is the most simple solution to the problem of lack of respect from certain sections of the community that the wearing of ear rings by male police officers can cause.
5. To similarly bar women from wearing ear rings, even though this is considered quite acceptable in society at large, reduces the process to the extremely childish and selfish level of †˜if I canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t have it, then nobody else can.ââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ There is no need to ban women from wearing ear rings, so in a mature and adult fashion we just let them get on with it.

As a footnote, can I please remind you that I have further said, several times in this thread, that I have looked up the meaning of the word †˜discriminationÃƚ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢âà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¾Ã‚¢. According to dictionary.com, there are three common meanings, and only one of them has any possible †˜moralâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ connotation:

Even the third common meaning is only morally loaded if you believe that merit is always the only valid consideration when choosing between one person and another.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I notice you didn't answer that point zendawn.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Point scoring again??

Thats a matter for Russ and me, I've explained how I think the title is (and I'll say it again) predudicial and biased against gays.

What intent Russ had I do not know, but what I do know is that its 'predudical and biased against gays.

have I repeated that bit enougth ??

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I doubt it. But if he is, he's scoring more than you.

Nope, it's a matter for all of us, as you have chosen to conduct your discussion in a public forum. If you wanted to sort things out one to one with Russ, you should have used the PM system.

And several of us have explained how we think you are wrong. Please don't expect us to just cave in to your inexorable logic and stop picking you up on this point.

In your opinion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...e-question.html :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

1. Certain sections of society are against gays too but that shouldnt mean they arent allowed in the police force.
2. The police force lose repect in various ways, just because people prejudge people who wear earrings doesnt mean they should be pandered too. Still applies to women as well.
3. Wearing an earring is not just about expression, again it applies to women as well as men.
4. Again its discrimmination against men. Women wearing earrings on duty is just as bad its only people predudice that makes men wearing earrings seem wrong.
5. No, the immature attitude is that its wrong for men to wear earrings in general.

I do not need to explain why its discrimination, the definition of the word is enougth.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, not point scoring. And it's true. If you think Russ is homophobic, that is nothing to do with me (Russ is big enough to fight his own battles, he doesn't need me).

As to Russ' intent, I think he stated that quite clearly when he said " I'm asking if you think they are overreacting and/or looking for trouble, you are then invited to give your views. If the title was a statement then what you say may have some foundation - of course I'm not homophobic". How is asking for somebody views on a subject prejudicial?

And you still haven't answered the second point I made in post 152.