Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

OK let's try and stay away from getting too personal against individual members....it's getting late and I'm hoping to get to bed soon.. :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well, no, actually I was trying to interpret your comment of "Really....you surprise me... :rolleyes: " and that was the most appropriate interpretation of it that I could see given what you have written elsewhere in this thread.

Of course if that *wasn't* what you meant, perhaps next time instead of making a vague comment, the interpretation of which is up to the reader, you could be a little more exact in your meaning...?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ah, I didn't know that, I thought reps didn't happen at all.

Well, in which case, there's a green rep heading your way :)

Yep, very true.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

You've got a point. Althought you could have just directly asked what i was talking about.... :D

My point was I think that what you were suggesting was quite, what's the word...preposterous and I'd consider it to be almost overkill paranoia. I didn't actually think you were serious initially but now I think you were. The idea that there's an underground conspiracy to make life hard for gays is not a theory I could take seriously. Yes of course many will have experienced prejudice in their time but....nah, I can't even begin on this one.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Im talking about people in general. As far as Im concerned the thread title is written in predudicial(sp?) language and is biased against gays.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Oh Xaccers, were that things were so simple, unfortunately this looks like just another "irregular verb"...

I stand up for my rights.

You over-react.

He is looking for trouble.

Nonsense! Questions can be loaded either through deliberate intent or through ignorance.

"Tell me, are you still beating your wife...?!"

And I agree. And had the decision of the Police been that *NO* officer should wear jewellery I wouldn't have a problem.

Since, however it is only the *male* officers who have been singled out, this is discrimination as I pointed out in my first post on this subject.

Because this is targetted towards *only* male officers and, apparently, the only male officers who wear earrings/ studs are gay, so there does seem to be just a *hint* of anti-gay bias to the decision.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It certainly was not meant in that way and I'm sure you'd be hard pushed to find a thread where I show any classic homophobic tendancies.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

That doesn't mean people can't have a sensible discussion where person A says, my view is this, and person B says, mine differs from yours for the following reasons. Perhaps we can discuss the reasons for our differing views, and learn something from each other.

I'm naive I know, but frankly I can't believe how this thread has developed :shrug:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Amen bruvvah.....

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thank you. Also thank you for your comment above about personal remarks.

True, although you could have just said it more clearly in the first place... :D

Russ, do you believe that there is racism present in *some* elements of the Police Force (including senior elements), even if not the endemic "institutional racism" reported in the report on the Stephen Lawerence murder?

If so, then you accept there is prejudice against a minority that *some* in the Police "don't like", yes?

So is it *REALLY* such a huge leap of the imagination to think that, just perhaps, there are senior members of the Police Force who are homophobic and who will allow this (albeit only in secret) to colour their thinking and affect their decision making??

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Oh have a guess guys who's throwing the rep points out again like there's no tomorrow. Yep I know everything and you have to agree with me Graham.

I'm an adult Graham so I wont be red repping you dont worry

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well, I have to say I'm entirely unsurprised as to how this thread has developed.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Apparently... What do you mean? My understanding of he original link was that the gay rights organisation took exception to the rule that men weren't allowed to wear earrings

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes I believe there is racism in today's police. But to suggest there is an underground network of influential people who wish to make life as hard as possible for gays is not a suggestion I can take seriously. Perhaps tomorrow when I have more energy I'll go in to why I don't believe it.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'm not worried about red reps (unlike someone around here...!) but I am worried that you found it necessary to drag this into public when it's completely off topic.

If you want to discuss this matter with me further (in an "adult" way) I suggest you PM me.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'm sure I asked politely a few minutes ago.....

Graham has neg-repped me a few times in the past (I believe) and sometimes his views make me hit the roof and annoy the brown stuff out of me but if he and I are to argue, it will be in PM. Please follow suit....

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Do many/ any straight Policemen wear earings or only gay ones?

Was this ruling against *all* officers wearing earrings or only male ones?

I don't find it a great leap of imagination to see a connection.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Oh come off it (good natured) your seriously saying that when your wrote that title you didnt expect some sort of 'reaction' against it??
If people are gonna 'over react' to not being allowed to wear earrings then they're certainly gonna 'react' to being called trouble makers.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I used to wear an earing. So did loads of my mates. Are any of us gay? No. In an environment where appearance and presence is vital, such attire on men is not what I would call appropriate.

Not like this.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Then I suggest you disable something Russ. What people cannot put there views forward without having some ____le repping everything that move's. I dont think so

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I haven't suggested there is an "underground network" as if this is an organised conspiracy, but simply that there are number of influential people who all hold similar opinions and without even the *need* for someone to say "wouldn't it be a good idea if...?" there is an effort to, as you say, "make life as hard as possible for gays".

Verb sap.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'd say this "number of influential people" could be considered an underground network after all, they're not going to publically declare their 'dislike' of gays are they?

Graham can neg-rep whoever he wants - that's why we have it as a feature on the site.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Oh so If thats the point I can just keep neg repping whoever I wont hmm thanks Russ

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

What's wrong with that question?




Nonsense, there are many hetrosexual PCs who wear earings while off shift.
They too are affected by this, therefore either this action is not targetted at gays, or you are suggesting that the police believe any man wearing an earing is gay.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well....yes, that's why we have it. All we ask is that any comments you apply to rep points are not abusive.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, of course not, but I re-iterate that "underground network" suggests some sort of organised conspiracy, instead of just a group of powerful, like-minded people.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I was extracting the unrine Russ. I dont do neg points anyway. I have + repped a few but thats it. I think the neg repping is childish myself but hey I've seen his posts so nuff said really ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Again, I'd say that anyone who can make such a change to 'oppress' (my choice of word) gays in such an institution as a police force surely can be likened to an organised conspiracy?

Anyway we're going around in circles here with definitions of words, the bottom (pardon the pun) line is that I cannot see that this is a deliberate act to make life hard for gays. After all, being gay isn't just about wearing an earing while on duty is it? (Or have I been reading the wrong books???)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As someone has remarked earlier, isn't this stereotyping gay people?

If a policeman wears an earring he must be gay? Is that right?

So which is it?

Gay (or any other people) shouldn't be stereotyped?
Gay (or any other people) shouldn't be discriminated against?

I would say both. But, as there are many people, there are many opinions. Not being gay myself, I'd say some gay people may view the topic at hand as discrimination, others may view it as stereotyping.

As another person remarked earlier. If you advocate gay rights (which I'm all for) pick your battles right. I don't think this is a good pick. But that's my opinion.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:erm: :shocked: :no: :spin: :wtf: :Yikes: :shrug: :eeek:

Excuse the large number of emoticons there, but I *CANNOT* believe that you just asked me that!!

"Are you still beating your wife" is the *CLASSIC* "loaded question" because *however* you answer it, you're going to end up in the wrong and the *only* way to answer it is *not* answer it at all!

If you answer yes, then you admit beating your wife.

If you answer no, then because of the way it's worded "are you still...?" the obvious corollary is that you may no longer be beating your wife, but you *admit* to having beaten her in the past...!!!

No they are not because, by your own statement, it is only *off shift*!

Well, yes! I think the suggestion that some senior members of the Police consider that any man wearing an earring is gay is a valid one!

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

If you want to liken it to that, I can't stop you.

Is being a Sikh Police Officer "just" about wearing a turban on duty?

No, of course not, but it's a part of it...

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Actually that's not quite correct. If you asked me that, my answer would be no because

a) I don't have a wife, and

b) I've never hit a woman.

Graham...a Sikh has to wear a turban, it's an essential part of their faith.

A homosexual male does not HAVE to wear an earing.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As I've said, I think there may well be some in the senior ranks of the Police who *do* stereotype gays in this way.

It is not *MY* stereotyping, however.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Substitute girlfriend or other such referant as appropriate.

Which is, as I pointed out, the only way to deal with the question, ie *not* answer it.

No, a Sikh does not *have* to wear a turban. Their religion may *require* them to wear one, but that's not the same thing.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, my answer would be "I've never hit her".

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As I quoted in a previous post, it was an ex police office and now Conservative city councilor, that suggested it was part of the gay culture to wear earrings. The gay rights group quoted hadnt even taken up the issue with the police authority,
So it looks like a couple of guys have gone to the coucilor and made a few complaints.
Not a mass of gays shouting and getting angry as the language of both the article and this threads titlle would suggest.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

"Please answer the question yes or no Mr Russ" says the cunning Barrister.

Anyway, this is getting off the topic now.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Most people would answer "never have done, never will"
Are they in the wrong?

Now to put that question into the same context as the one asked in this topic, it would be something like "Do you beat your wife?"
In order to put the question asked in this topic in the context of the one you asked would be something like "gays still overreacting/looking for trouble?" or "gays overreacting/looking for trouble again?" in which case a perfectly good answer would be "they weren't in the past but I feel they are now" or "they weren't in the past and they still aren't"

Thats because they're not allowed to wear them on shift because of this rule you wally :pp
Before this rule came about, many hetrosexual PCs wore either one or two earings while on duty.
I know several

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ah you mean someone would be unable to answer to question with a simple "yes" or "no"?

You didn't say that :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

If it's wrong for men to wear earrings then it should be wrong for women to as well. Otherwise it's discrimination pure and simple.
It's the dicrimination against men and (if they so see it, gays) that's at issue not whether earrings should be worn or not.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

And we come to the more sensible and accurate discussion of this being gender discrimination and health and safety rather than homophobic. *phew*

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

May I again refer the learned gentleman to my first post in this thread...!

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Give us the post number (really busy cleaning up after microsoft's mess here at work)

Thanks Graham

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Post #31

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...8&postcount=31

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

May I refer the learned gentleman to http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...2&postcount=67
:)

We both appear to be in agreement that this is gender descrimination, and a case for health and safety concern.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Graham & Xac in agreement - *and* it only took 145 posts - maybe world peace is possible after all .... ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'd give him a hug but you know how messy it could get if my chest hair (honest it's not a wig) got caught up in his nipple ring (think he's got one) :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Nope, but if you're really into that sort of thing, I can get hold of some "temporary" ones that are just loop of springy metal with rounded ends (to avoid unnecessary suffering)...

PS Thanks to Tez for posting the link :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thanks for the red rep Zendawn.I've just green repped you.Perhaps I went a little overboard on my questions but heck I just wanted to understand what you were trying to say.Seeking explanations shouldn't earn you red reps should it?Sorry if I hurt your feelings.However maybe you too over reacted?

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Your claim to be able to tell what someone is thinking or believing (whether consciously or subconsciously) based on the words they choose is flawed, and your post here shows the reason.

This is a discussion forum. It is a tradition of good debate to start off a discussion with a question that is framed in such a manner that it provokes an animated exchange of views. As you yourself say, the thread title may simply have been phrased to get a reaction. In the context of a discussion forum surely this is a good thing?

It is true that the way someone chooses to phrase something might shed some light on what they actually think about the subject, but for you to speak with such certainty about Russ' private, un-shared opinions based purely on five words in a thread title is arrogance in the extreme on your part.

With respect, it might be what's at issue for you, but it is not the issue for the people who have instigated this ban. What they have said is that they are concerned with the possible loss of respect/trustworthiness that may be caused among a section of the population if male police officers wear ear rings.

Discrimination is not an absolute crime in UK Law. It is illegal in certain circumstances only, so throwing the word at people you disagree with, as if it were some medieval curse, really proves nothing. In fact, the right to set differing dress codes is specifically enshrined in Law, so there is no ambiguity here at all. It is not discrimination, except in the narrow, dictionary-definition sense of the word, which merely means to differentiate (without any necessary positive or negative bias) between one thing and another.

Police men and women are public servants, in uniform and under oath. They accept that in the line of duty, their own perceived rights are often secondary to the needs of the job and the good of the community they serve. If by removing their ear rings they make relations with a section of the community easier, then the ear rings must come off.

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.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Nobody is saying gay ment should not be allowed in the police force. Nobody is saying that men who like to wear ear rings should not be allowed in the police force. They are saying that those ear rings should be removed while on duty. Please, if you want to argue by analogy do try to use one that is at least a little equivalent.

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Aha, the promise of a logical argument ... I agree with you. In my opinion it is an unjustified prejudice on the part of those who think men wearing ear rings is wrong. However I do not think that the premise that the prejudice is unjustified leads necessarily to the conclusion that it is wrong to ban only men from wearing ear rings. The problem of lack of respect for the police is far more potentially damaging than the problem of some people being prejudiced against men wearing ear rings.

Another fallacy. It may be immature to believe there is something wrong with men wearing ear rings, but it does not therefore follow that it is not immature to decide to ban everyone from doing something simply because there are good reasons to stop one group of people from doing it.

By which you demonstrate that you really are not capable of forming a reasoned argument to back up your point of view. That said, I can see I am wasting my time trying to carry on a debate with you on this subject.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Again it just shows a level of predudice. If you or anyone who IS* against homosexuality wanna use this as an excuse for calling gays 'screaming queens' then thats their predudice. Personally I can allow for the fact that people will find something 'small' offensive and still allow for people to fight the 'bigger' issues without fear of it being lessened.

(I've capped 'IS' just incase you think I'm assuming YOUR against homosexuality, which I dont).

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Fine by me, if you wanna be predudiced against people, be it. No need to justify yourself to me.
There is absolutly no justification for women being allowed to wear earrings over men. By definition it is discrimination, no logical argument is needed.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

w00t! I am now a fully paid-up member of the zendawn red-rep club!! All for the controversial contents of post 163.

And the constructive comment that accompanied that little strawberry-flavoured pill?

Zen buddy, if I'm suggesting you have difficulty constructing a logical argument to back yourself up, wouldn't you agree that tactics like that only help to prove my point?

I don't suppose you would like to take the opportunity to explain why you are so willing to dish reps out, yet rather less willing to acknowledge what you receive?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Umm ... I wasn't. Here's another logical fallacy you might be interested in. It's called 'appeal to emotion':

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...o-emotion.html

Are you really expecting me to yelp 'Hey, I'm not prejudiced! OK, I admit it, you were right all along!' :confused:

Pathetic.

:banghead:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

By definition (again) you ARE prejudiced. You would alllow women to wear earrings but not men, based on yours or other peoples prejudging that men who wear earrings are not to be respected.

Can't make it any plainner than that.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

People people people!!!

This is a thread about my asking if gays are overreacting regarding the police force in question having this policy.

Can we get this back on topic please, if anyone wants to discuss who has misunderstood who etc please go to PM or msn.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

By whose definition? This is one of the many questions I and others haveposed to you that you have completely ignored. You made a vague appeal to 'moral' discrimination yet without explaining where these morals come from and why they are superior to the morals of someone who disagrees with you. Once again, you seem to believe that you only have to say something is the case in order for it to be true. Not good enough.

If there's one certainty in all this, it is that you have completely failed to make anything plain.

That I agree with the decision to vary the male/female dress codes is not in dispute. That the reason for this is the prejudice of certain sections of society is not in dispute.

The core issue is discrimination, which in its strict linguistic sense does not necessarily carry any positive or negative meaning.

Can I ask you another question:

Do you believe that discrimination of any kind is ever justified under any circumstances?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I think the question is, should we allow the prejudices of others affect the rules we set.

If nobody found earrings a problem we wouldn't be haven't this conversation.

If people think blonde women are stupid, should they be required to dye their hair?

PS: I apologise if this has already been said - I haven't read the entire thread yet.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

YES, they are over reacting, they are a bunch of 'screaming queens' who have nothing better to do than fight silly little rules, that pander to the prejudices of a certain section of society.
If your male and wear an earring your either a poof or a yob, neither of which command much respect in society.
If your female, weariing an earring is decorative and makes you look attractive so we wouldnt want to stop them wearing them, incase their piercing heals over and they cant get the earrings back in.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No it's wrong in any circumstance. I believe we only live once, so to be treated as different because I was born in a different body to another, is in my opinion wrong.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I was born in a different kind of body to my sister. She works for a female rape crisis charity. The fact that she was born in to that kind of body makes her more ideal for that job than I.

In which case discrimination was appropriate.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Very well put and I like the blond analogy :tu: .

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So 'positive' discrimination, designed to remedy the effects of past prejudice by over-recruiting from formerly overlooked sections of society, is also wrong?

The kind of discrimination that prevents male social workers from working with prostitutes is wrong?

Discrimination that says people who take senior jobs at faith-based organisations must be in sympathy with that faith, is wrong?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well again we will differ in opinion (nothing wrong with it tho).
They are just allowing the perceptiion that ALL men are bad if only women can council women on this issue. Rape affects both sexes.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I think the words 'in any circumstance' covers your post.

How to define what we mean by 'wrong' is perhaps the better conversation, but one whch is off topic for this subject and one which i doubt our respective vocabs would allow to come to a constructive conclusion,

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

The reason my sister is better suited is because she's female - if ever you come in to contact with a woman who's had the misfortune of being attacked, ask if she'd rather get counsel from a man or a woman.

They say a woman every time. And as I said, she works for a charity which deals with FEMALE victims.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I can't believe this thread is still going. The answer to this is simple as we know. When they get there hearing it will go in favour of the gays because its unfair that women are allowed and the gays are not. That is not equal rights. Simple really

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Of course they will say women, because they are prejudiced into thinking that only women can understand what its like to be raped and that ALL men are rapists.
So just because a person has male chromosomes(sp?) they are not intelligent or empathic(sp?) enougth to understand the violation that has happened.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I hope your right, hopefully they can go to the european court if not.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

OK I can see you have no experience of counselling so let me explain. Those offering help need to be seen as approachable. In the vast majority of situations, if a woman has been attacked, she will develop a distrust/fear of most/all men (whether justified or not) so in order for her recieve the best possible treatment, she needs to be dealt with my someone she will feel comfortable with. It's just one of those things that she will feel more comfortable relating her experiences to another woman.

it's not sexist, it's not prejudice, it's just one of those things!!

I'm sure that for male rape charities there are more men involved.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

And you think that the only person whose feelings matter in such circumstances is the man who wants a job as a rape counsellor, and not the poor woman who has been raped? Would you like to be the one to tell a traumatised woman who is asking to confide in a female rape counsellor that she is exhibiting prejudiced thinking and should be content with whoever she's given?

Forgive me, but I think you are the last person who should be delivering lectures about empathy.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I have a vast experience of counselling(sp?) and like I said before it's not only women that get raped (if you get my point).
It takes alot of courage to face your abuser, so I can imagine how hard it would be to talk to (or even be in the presence) of somebody who was the same gender as your abuser.
But that is just a psychological response to a fight or flight situation, one which as a species we need to evolve out off.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Please see post 188 and read the subtext.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So:

Victim: I've been raped, please help me...
Man: OK, you can talk to me.
Victim: I'm sorry, I really can't be in a room with a man just now. I'd prefer to talk to a woman.
Man: Oh come on, that's just a psychological response to a fight or flight situation, one which as a species we need to evolve out off.

Should the day come that I experience some awful crisis, I will thank the good Lord above that I won't be getting the benefit of your 'vast experience' at counselling.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes shows the level of counselling in today society. But that is how male victims of abuse ARE treated.
Men arnt supposed to feel, but women are, another example of discrimination and prejudice that perpetuates the cycle.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that male victims of abuse suffer a lesser standard of treatment when receiving counselling, so therefore women should receive a lesser standard too?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

yes thats what im saying. Cause It's obvious from my previous posts that i think all people should be treated the same, not matter how badly.

:rolleyes:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

My apologies. I just wanted to be certain of the facts before I tell you I think you are stark, raving mad.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Please don't drag me into this or assume that I would support your position.

I have already made my views on this issue clear.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Perish the thought that I should assume your support for anything. :)

However my comment was clearly in relation to what I know is a topic you have often brought up in duscussion (logical fallacies), not your views directly on the topic of 'Gays overreacting etc'.

If I have misunderstood your interest in the subject, maybe we can start another thread and discuss it some time. In the context of this thread, it was a passing comment intended to re-introduce a link to a website you yourself brought to the forum a few weeks ago.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

There are certain circumstances where it is justified (depending on how it is applied), For instance, if I were to walk up to a Nuclear Power station, I would be refused access. This would technically be discrimination, but seeing as I know nothing about the technology used , if I were allowed free access I could do a lot of damage.

Also, another example. IIRC, the procedure is that they victim has to be examined by a doctor, and they are entitled to a female doctor if one is present. Again, technically, this is discrimination but is justified as being examined by a man may put the woman under more stress.

But, I do agree. In general, discrimination against people based on their race, sexual orientation, age or gender is wrong.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

True, it's not only women that get raped (a fact that is often forgotton), but, when people do get raped, they often are frightened of members of the same sex as the rapist. When my Ex (as she is now) was raped, for months afterwards the only blokes she talked to where Me, her dad and her brother in law. She was scared of every other bloke (including ones she had previously been friends with).

You argue it is just a psychological response, and, yes it is. But, Fear is a psychological response.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes, I'm aware of that, however the implication was seemingly that I would agree with you that it was a circular argument.

And, as you said, "Perish the thought that I should assume your support for anything."

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Far be it from me to put words in your mouth. I did saymight have, and my whole reason for mentioning your name at all was by way of acknowledging that I was using source material that you originally introduced to the forum.

Additionally, you did not make clear earlier that you had drawn a distinction in my post between discussion of a logical fallacy and direct discussion of the topic subject.

So, is it a circular argument then?