Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

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.

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.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by scastle

Did you see the question mark in the title?

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

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

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

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.
.

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

Originally Posted by towny

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?

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

Originally Posted by towny

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?

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***.

Originally Posted by towny

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.

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.

Originally Posted by towny

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..

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.

Originally Posted by towny

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..

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

Originally Posted by zendawn

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

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.

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

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.

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***.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

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

Based on this quote

Originally Posted by zendawn

Ahh the old 'it's only a question' excuse!!

Just add a question mark and any phobia/ism is instantly removed.

It's easy to see from any of your posts on the subject of homosexuality that your against it. Of course you'll say that isn't the same as being homophobic.
But in the end it's because of their sexuality that you made a difference and not because of anything else.

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.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

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.

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?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

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.

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

Originally Posted by zendawn

It's easy to see from any of your posts on the subject of homosexuality that your against it. Of course you'll say that isn't the same as being homophobic.

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

Originally Posted by zendawn

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 others 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 acdtually give a reason why you think its ok to discriminate against a section of society?

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:

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

I notice you didn't answer that point zendawn.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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 ??

Originally Posted by zendawn

Point scoring again??

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

Thats a matter for Russ and me,

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.

I've explained how I think the title is (and I'll say it again) predudicial and biased against gays.

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.

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

In your opinion.

have I repeated that bit enougth ??

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

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

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.
.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by zendawn

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 ??

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.