Has Milan run his course........

Is it time for Milan to move on.


  • Total voters
    39
Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't consider taking the piss out of a religion to be offensive

Maybe not offensive to you, but do you accept that it could be offensive to those who do have religious beliefs?
 
Maybe not offensive to you, but do you accept that it could be offensive to those who do have religious beliefs?

It could be, but that's their problem.
Some people will be offended if we take the piss out of their football team, their weight, their taste in music etc. Why should their belief in the supernatural be treated any differently?
 
Maybe not offensive to you, but do you accept that it could be offensive to those who do have religious beliefs?

It could be, but that's their problem.

That answer isn't exactly conducive to a tolerant attitude and indeed sounds more than a little arrogant.

Some people will be offended if we take the piss out of their football team, their weight, their taste in music etc. Why should their belief in the supernatural be treated any differently?

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a God botherer myself but I am aware that others may be and I respect their views (hence the capital G!) even if I do not subscribe to them :icon_wink
 
It could be, but that's their problem.
Some people will be offended if we take the piss out of their football team, their weight, their taste in music etc. Why should their belief in the supernatural be treated any differently?

Don'T ever become a politician.

What if someone called you a 'fat bastard' Jeff, you wouldn't be offended :102:.
 
Last edited:
It could be, but that's their problem.
Some people will be offended if we take the piss out of their football team, their weight, their taste in music etc. Why should their belief in the supernatural be treated any differently?

Didn't Newts get an infraction for saying something that was deemed to be offensive? I don't get this place, on one hand Newts get's his infraction for making a comment in The General Rules Forum but then mods come out in defence of Macky and say that you can say what you like in there. Then Biff says someone looks like Harold Shipman and everyone cries again? What are the rules here because from where I'm sitting it looks like the people with the power are getting a bit big for their boots and are enforcing a 'do as I say not as I do' policy.

I'd like to note by the way that I find none of what's been said offensive.
 
Didn't Newts get an infraction for saying something that was deemed to be offensive? I don't get this place, on one hand Newts get's his infraction for making a comment in The General Rules Forum but then mods come out in defence of Macky and say that you can say what you like in there. Then Biff says someone looks like Harold Shipman and everyone cries again? What are the rules here because from where I'm sitting it looks like the people with the power are getting a bit big for their boots and are enforcing a 'do as I say not as I do' policy.
I'd like to note by the way that I find none of what's been said offensive.

:038::038::038:
 
Didn't Newts get an infraction for saying something that was deemed to be offensive? I don't get this place, on one hand Newts get's his infraction for making a comment in The General Rules Forum but then mods come out in defence of Macky and say that you can say what you like in there. Then Biff says someone looks like Harold Shipman and everyone cries again? What are the rules here because from where I'm sitting it looks like the people with the power are getting a bit big for their boots and are enforcing a 'do as I say not as I do' policy.

I'd like to note by the way that I find none of what's been said offensive.

Biff hasn't received an infraction, and I can't remember anyone crying because of anything he's said.
 
Didn't Newts get an infraction for saying something that was deemed to be offensive? I don't get this place, on one hand Newts get's his infraction for making a comment in The General Rules Forum but then mods come out in defence of Macky and say that you can say what you like in there. Then Biff says someone looks like Harold Shipman and everyone cries again? What are the rules here because from where I'm sitting it looks like the people with the power are getting a bit big for their boots and are enforcing a 'do as I say not as I do' policy.

I'd like to note by the way that I find none of what's been said offensive.

I don't see any evidence for either of those statements.
 
People call me that all the time. They have a point, I am overweight, and it's my own fault.

Ive never met you, but if you was out with me and someone called you that, they would have me and Bertie to answer to.
 
That answer isn't exactly conducive to a tolerant attitude and indeed sounds more than a little arrogant.

I tolerate (nearly) everyone. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to believe in what they want, just that they shouldn't receive any special status because of their beliefs.


You didn't answer my question. Why should a religious belief be treated any differently to any other kind of belief?
 
Biff hasn't received an infraction, and I can't remember anyone crying because of anything he's said.

I know Biff hasn't had an infraction but Newts got one for saying something offensive, whilst you, as a mod, have since said that anything anyone finds offensive is "their problem".

I'm trying to understand why sometimes when somebody says something it is OK and other times it's not. It seems that really, in this case anyway, someone has (again) looked to mock and patronise somebody for starting a thread and when there was a bit of retaliation some very pink and very fluffy toys got thrown out of a pram (and like the crying comment previously Jeff I don't mean that literally).
 
It seems that really, in this case anyway, someone has (again) looked to mock and patronise somebody for starting a thread and when there was a bit of retaliation some very pink and very fluffy toys got thrown out of a pram.

As a matter of fact, I had the temerity to post on Jessel's thread, nothing 'mocking' or 'patronising', Jessel then abused me.
I don't know who it is you're referring to that has been throwing fluffy toys about.
 
Maybe not offensive to you, but do you accept that it could be offensive to those who do have religious beliefs?

It could be, but that's their problem.
Some people will be offended if we take the piss out of their football team, their weight, their taste in music etc. Why should their belief in the supernatural be treated any differently?

I didn't say that.
 
I know Biff hasn't had an infraction but Newts got one for saying something offensive, whilst you, as a mod, have since said that anything anyone finds offensive is "their problem".

I'm trying to understand why sometimes when somebody says something it is OK and other times it's not. It seems that really, in this case anyway, someone has (again) looked to mock and patronise somebody for starting a thread and when there was a bit of retaliation some very pink and very fluffy toys got thrown out of a pram (and like the crying comment previously Jeff I don't mean that literally).

Wow an island of fact and sense in an ocean of pure diarrhea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1946
2Arsenal2040
3Nottm F2040
4Chelsea2036
5Newcastle2035
6Manchester C  2034
7Bournemouth2033
8Aston Villa2032
9Fulham2030
10Brighton2028
11Brentford2027
12Tottenham 2024
13Manchester U2023
14West Ham2023
15Palace2021
16Everton1917
17Wolves2016
18Ipswich2016
19Leicester2014
20Southampton206

Latest posts

Back
Top