Racist Chanting

[Miles Away]

We've reached it folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[gregs_y2k]

Maybe because it kinda spoils your conspiracy theory?

How does it?

 

[Blaby blue blood]

I've just realised how poorly typed my last post is, basically, thought it was you, noticed it wasn't.

I notice you live in Nottingham, have you got any earthly idea about what Blue Blood means by Nottingham is a 'BNP hotbed'?

No idea what he is on about. Only place I know is Heanor, but that is Derbyshire. I've lived in Nottingham for about 4 years now, and I cant say I've ever seen or heard of a racially motivated attack, they aren't that fussy who they shoot!

 

[OldGit]

We've reached it folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

OOhhh!! you fascist!

 

[gregs_y2k]

We've reached it folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Haha

Did anyone comment on Nazism in the new manager or Maynard threads?

 

[tedfoxxx]

I'm sorry to hear that people have racially abused you all of your life by calling you a Spud Picker...

However, I have seen football fans refusing to confront racist comments at football matches since black players were being racially abused back in the 70s...but it seems you object to 'confrontation' - would you rather I confronted someone who was making sexist or 'Spud Picker' comments at you during a football match?

In a wider context...if more people had confronted Hitler when he was started a minority party of racist lunatics, then maybe 6 million Jews, Romanian Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and Catholics would not have died - or for that matter the hundreds of thousands of soldiers/underground resistance fighters who died in vain fighting his evil Nazi regime.

In vain? Well....it seems 70 years later, there are still Nazis in our country!

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ!!! Are you for real man?

 

[Kingy_85]

I have to admit that when I read the words spud-picker I LOL'd bigtime.

I have no idea what racial motive that might have.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Re: smacking children

I've always found it quite disturbing that hitting children is considered socially acceptable by some, yet hitting women isn't by the same people. Not saying either (or indeed hitting men) is right, because I don't think any of them are, but children are much more defenseless and vulnerable than a fully grown adult and it's always seems even worse from a morale standpoint to me. May be just me though.

(To counteract the generic bullshit pro-smacker quote): My parents never smacked me and I never turned into a criminal.

 

[camberwell fox]

Re: smacking children

I've always found it quite disturbing that hitting children is considered socially acceptable by some, yet hitting women isn't by the same people. Not saying either (or indeed hitting men) is right, because I don't think any of them are, but children are much more defenseless and vulnerable than a fully grown adult and it's always seems even worse from a morale standpoint to me. May be just me though.

My parents never smacked me and I never turned into a criminal.

No, but you are an arsehole.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Ture. Though I'm sure I would have been an arsehole anyway.

 

[Babylon]

No, but you are an arsehole.

:icon_lol:

 

[gregs_y2k]

Re: smacking children

I've always found it quite disturbing that hitting children is considered socially acceptable by some, yet hitting women isn't by the same people. Not saying either (or indeed hitting men) is right, because I don't think any of them are, but children are much more defenseless and vulnerable than a fully grown adult and it's always seems even worse from a morale standpoint to me. May be just me though.

(To counteract the generic bullshit pro-smacker quote): My parents never smacked me and I never turned into a criminal.

I'm always surprised when people put them in the same category. Beating a woman is very different to smacking a child. If you're using the same forces you'd use to strike someone in a fight then yes that is compeltely and utterly wrong. A parent smacking a child generally uses a fraction of the force available to them so it isn't the same. I'm not saying it should be done on a daily basis and should be used carefully. But I won't ring Childline if I see a parent smacking a child. It's a sad state of the human condition that these things get over analysed and we strive to stamp them out of our way of being.

 

[Cate Fox]

I'm sorry to hear that people have racially abused you all of your life by calling you a Spud Picker...

However, I have seen football fans refusing to confront racist comments at football matches since black players were being racially abused back in the 70s...but it seems you object to 'confrontation' - would you rather I confronted someone who was making sexist or 'Spud Picker' comments at you during a football match?

In a wider context...if more people had confronted Hitler when he was started a minority party of racist lunatics, then maybe 6 million Jews, Romanian Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and Catholics would not have died - or for that matter the hundreds of thousands of soldiers/underground resistance fighters who died in vain fighting his evil Nazi regime.

In vain? Well....it seems 70 years later, there are still Nazis in our country!

I didn't put my point across well at all. Yes, racism should be confronted, no argument at all with that. I meant I found the tone of chrisFilters post a little confrontational, but maybe that was the point.

On this note, I'm ducking out of this...!

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I'm always surprised when people put them in the same category. Beating a woman is very different to smacking a child. If you're using the same forces you'd use to strike someone in a fight then yes that is compeltely and utterly wrong. A parent smacking a child generally uses a fraction of the force available to them so it isn't the same. I'm not saying it should be done on a daily basis and should be used carefully. But I won't ring Childline if I see a parent smacking a child. It's a sad state of the human condition that these things get over analysed and we strive to stamp them out of our way of being.

So, if you hit a child, who is not fully developed, in terms of bone/muscle structure and is going to be much weaker than a fully grown adult, with the same force as you hit a fully grown adult, only then would it be acceptable to compare the two?

It's not beating a woman with full force that's frowned upon, beating anyone is frowned upon, but plenty of people who are pro-smacking children are anti-hitting women with any kind of force, not just beating them as in a full force punch, but slapping them, or giving them a light punch or anything which is generally designed to cause physical pain to make a point (and it's the making of a point which you're doing when you're smacking a child).

Again, I don't think either is right, but it just seems a bit of a hypocrisy to me.

 

[Macky]

I'm always surprised when people put them in the same category. Beating a woman is very different to smacking a child. If you're using the same forces you'd use to strike someone in a fight then yes that is compeltely and utterly wrong. A parent smacking a child generally uses a fraction of the force available to them so it isn't the same. I'm not saying it should be done on a daily basis and should be used carefully. But I won't ring Childline if I see a parent smacking a child. It's a sad state of the human condition that these things get over analysed and we strive to stamp them out of our way of being.

No, that's the beauty of the human condition. We've analysed it and figured out that using violence against children is wrong and counterproductive.

 

[Miles Away]

No, that's the beauty of the human condition. We've analysed it and figured out that using violence against children is wrong and counterproductive.

Spot on.

 

[ChrisFilter]

If only somebody would invent the word 'harmony', eh?

Ha!

 

[gregs_y2k]

So, if you hit a child, who is not fully developed, in terms of bone/muscle structure and is going to be much weaker than a fully grown adult, with the same force as you hit a fully grown adult, only then would it be acceptable to compare the two?

It's not beating a woman with full force that's frowned upon, beating anyone is frowned upon, but plenty of people who are pro-smacking children are anti-hitting women with any kind of force, not just beating them as in a full force punch, but slapping them, or giving them a light punch or anything which is generally designed to cause physical pain to make a point (and it's the making of a point which you're doing when you're smacking a child).

Again, I don't think either is right, but it just seems a bit of a hypocrisy to me.

It's comparable if you're causing physical injury. I've never come across a situation where someone hits a woman and hasn't meant to do them harm or vice versa. There may be cases out there but I've not come across them. If you're leaving bruises on a child then you're obviously using too much force and that is then violence. Most parents that smack, smack them on the bum, it's the safest part of the body to smack, due to the amount of muscle and fatty tissue there without causing any damage to bones etc. It's been used throughout human history as a tool of discipline and only been outlawed in the last few years. I'm not saying bring back caning. Are we saying that children weren't loved until 15-20 years ago?

Slightly off topic, but just out of curiosity do you class a woman slapping a man in an argument acceptable?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

No, that's the beauty of the human condition. We've analysed it and figured out that using violence against children is wrong and counterproductive.

Ture. In fact that last line you bolded by gregs to me comes across as a very, very dangerous way of viewing things and I hope I am wrong and gregs will correct me on this, but it almost seems like he's saying that we shouldn't analyse human instinct, behaviour and our human conformist society and that we should blindly accept things the way they are and we shouldn't seek stamp out the bad things and bad traditions of them (of which there are many and of which there are many which were accepted in the past which have thankfully been stamped out over the years).

 

[gregs_y2k]

No, that's the beauty of the human condition. We've analysed it and figured out that using violence against children is wrong and counterproductive.

What statistics out there that say it is wrong and counterproductive. Are crime rates dramatically lower than 20-30 years ago? I think not.