FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Offensiveness

Offensiveness

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

What's wrong with saying offensive things!, it seems to me there's been lots of offensive things(Monty pythons life of Brian, relax by Frankie, God save the queen by the sex pistols, in fact nearly everything by the sex pistols offended somebody) that most people actually enjoy, just because it doesn't actually offend them.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People still reserve the right to be offended. I think having that awareness and knowing you could upset someone is important. Why would you want to purposefully upset someone?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

Someone is always going to be offended by something, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to offend anyone but I can't be doing with the "we are offended" culture

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Someone is always going to be offended by something, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to offend anyone but I can't be doing with the "we are offended" culture

Your profile pic is brilliant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"People still reserve the right to be offended. I think having that awareness and knowing you could upset someone is important. Why would you want to purposefully upset someone?"
.

I'm guessing it's Because you perceive them as wrong?..

It was the my daughters hanging around with a homophobic racist that got me thinking

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?"

Completely agree

A. It's free speech

B. Others need to learn to torrlerate people's views - even if they don't agree

C. Yes - that's what democracy is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I see a difference between taking offense and just debating a point. I feel like lots of people think that just because you are disagreeing with them you must be taking offense - when for me, at least, that's usually not the case.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"People still reserve the right to be offended. I think having that awareness and knowing you could upset someone is important. Why would you want to purposefully upset someone?.

I'm guessing it's Because you perceive them as wrong?..

It was the my daughters hanging around with a homophobic racist that got me thinking"

Dunno, I don't have the desire to upset people. It's alien to me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

It just got me thinking there's a very fine line between what somebody "finds" offensive and what actually is offensive!.

I'm what I would describe as an outspoken critic of religion, I try not to criticise religious people perse but people find it offensive even though I'm not trying to offend.

Although I'm an outspoken critic of capitalism as well, it seems to offend less people, well there is one!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"People still reserve the right to be offended. I think having that awareness and knowing you could upset someone is important. Why would you want to purposefully upset someone?.

I'm guessing it's Because you perceive them as wrong?..

It was the my daughters hanging around with a homophobic racist that got me thinking

Dunno, I don't have the desire to upset people. It's alien to me. "
.

That's a very strange attitude!.

Not a bad one but one I would say is very seldom found...

My point being there was lots of people on that thread that would have liked to have upset that racist homophobe on that thread (me being one of them)...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It just got me thinking there's a very fine line between what somebody "finds" offensive and what actually is offensive!.

I'm what I would describe as an outspoken critic of religion, I try not to criticise religious people perse but people find it offensive even though I'm not trying to offend.

Although I'm an outspoken critic of capitalism as well, it seems to offend less people, well there is one!

I think you're right, I was accused of trolling and being offensive in those doctor strikes threads for believing if the number was right, the strike would be called. I wasn't attempting to offend and I don't understand how that is offensive, but clearly some nurses were upset by it.

Still, they're allowed to be offended. However as they didn't explain why, I can't explain or apologise for their interpretation. Articulating the reasons why offense was taken is also important, otherwise you're just ignored.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell"

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

When you begin to consider the possible range of expression — including, say, hate speech that incites violence — it becomes apparent that even a tolerant society has to put some limits on freedom of expression.

Therefore, much of the law relating to free speech is concerned with trying to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the use (or abuse) of that freedom in a way that harms society.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Being offensive is as it says " offensive" so it would be better not to go down that avenue knowing that most will be offended ,better to have a positive non offensive approach ,having an opinion and debating an opinion in an adult fashion are the only acceptable ways to be in a forum ,why would you want to upset someone ? We all sometimes have a view that doesn't go down well with the majority eg my feeling that clubs overcharge single men but I'm just airing my opinion ,in the same way Mrbracknell feels that his bank account balance makes him sexier than me he honestly believes that its his opinion but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

Completely agree

A. It's free speech

B. Others need to learn to torrlerate people's views - even if they don't agree

C. Yes - that's what democracy is "

*exercises his right to disagree*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Being offensive is as it says " offensive" so it would be better not to go down that avenue knowing that most will be offended ,better to have a positive non offensive approach ,having an opinion and debating an opinion in an adult fashion are the only acceptable ways to be in a forum ,why would you want to upset someone ? We all sometimes have a view that doesn't go down well with the majority eg my feeling that clubs overcharge single men but I'm just airing my opinion ,in the same way Mrbracknell feels that his bank account balance makes him sexier than me he honestly believes that its his opinion but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It'd only offensive.. If you take offence.. "

No, something is only offensive if it has malicious intent. If you feel offended by something said by a person with no malicious intent then a) you have that right b) you're wrong and c) nothing happens

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Oh forgot to say

You don't think it's fair to target people - yet you did exactly that by naming me - I'm confused?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

Completely agree

A. It's free speech

B. Others need to learn to torrlerate people's views - even if they don't agree

C. Yes - that's what democracy is

*exercises his right to disagree* "

Cool- I agree

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

"
wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

"
.

Your free to offend, your just not free to incite violence or hatred!..

Always tough ones... Do we draw the line at the BMP shouting racist insults or yusaf Islam saying salmon Rushdie should be burned alive!...

It seems sometimes the "offensive" can be subjective depending on the mass of outcry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People have the right to be offended as much as you have the right to offend.

You often see suggestions that people being offended by something means they're trying to stop the person doing it. No, if I'm offended I'm not trying to stop you doing or saying whatever it is, I just think you're a cunt for it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It just got me thinking there's a very fine line between what somebody "finds" offensive and what actually is offensive!.

I'm what I would describe as an outspoken critic of religion, I try not to criticise religious people perse but people find it offensive even though I'm not trying to offend.

Although I'm an outspoken critic of capitalism as well, it seems to offend less people, well there is one!

I don't think you always get that balance right in terms of criticising religious people - if that's not your intention, that's how many of your posts read.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

See, to me it seems that the personal insults and offensiveness in a debate usually become apparent once one side has seemingly lost the debate!.

Do we all fall back on the as hominem argument?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"See, to me it seems that the personal insults and offensiveness in a debate usually become apparent once one side has seemingly lost the debate!.

Do we all fall back on the as hominem argument?"

I guess we don't have full control over offensiveness

That is dictated by the law - so as long as its within the law - I don't care

If the law needs to change - petition parliament

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Given the state of BBC3, I think Mary Whitehouse should be dug up and her coffin fitted with a device so she can literally spin in her grave

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It just got me thinking there's a very fine line between what somebody "finds" offensive and what actually is offensive!.

I'm what I would describe as an outspoken critic of religion, I try not to criticise religious people perse but people find it offensive even though I'm not trying to offend.

Although I'm an outspoken critic of capitalism as well, it seems to offend less people, well there is one!

I don't think you always get that balance right in terms of criticising religious people - if that's not your intention, that's how many of your posts read. "
.

For me it's not personal, I think the confusion comes from the other side because religion is personal!

I could be wrong!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."

That's the kinda shit the Stalin came out with:

"A single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *unky monkeyMan over a year ago

in the night garden

"You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

That's the kinda shit the Stalin came out with:

"A single death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic." "

and by all accounts he rocked an amazing omelette.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It just got me thinking there's a very fine line between what somebody "finds" offensive and what actually is offensive!.

I'm what I would describe as an outspoken critic of religion, I try not to criticise religious people perse but people find it offensive even though I'm not trying to offend.

Although I'm an outspoken critic of capitalism as well, it seems to offend less people, well there is one!

I don't think you always get that balance right in terms of criticising religious people - if that's not your intention, that's how many of your posts read. .

For me it's not personal, I think the confusion comes from the other side because religion is personal!

I could be wrong!"

No, it's the difference between saying "all religion is idiocy" and "you there, religious person, you're an idiot".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous "
when and where did I say anything about singling out a person ? I said being offensive wasn't acceptable and it isn't and I think you would agree with that would you not ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

See, I would disagree with you on this. A good debate on hate speech can be found in the different laws in the US and the UK. For the most part, hate speech in American is still legal, it is free speech.

And this is an interesting point because it highlights when offensive things are allowed to be said. It points out that one person's understanding of the limits of free speech may be different to another's.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"It just got me thinking there's a very fine line between what somebody "finds" offensive and what actually is offensive!.

I'm what I would describe as an outspoken critic of religion, I try not to criticise religious people perse but people find it offensive even though I'm not trying to offend.

Although I'm an outspoken critic of capitalism as well, it seems to offend less people, well there is one!

I don't think you always get that balance right in terms of criticising religious people - if that's not your intention, that's how many of your posts read. .

For me it's not personal, I think the confusion comes from the other side because religion is personal!

I could be wrong!

No, it's the difference between saying "all religion is idiocy" and "you there, religious person, you're an idiot". "
.

That's my point exactly!

For me it's not personal, I'm critical of a doctrine, a church, a gathering, an ideology...

All those things are personal to the follower and so whatever I say they find it personally offensive, even though in my mind its not?.

It's exactly the same as criticisms of homophobic or racists views.. I'm not critical of the person, I'm critical of holding those views...

You don't have to be racist to disagree with Islamic philosophy and doctrines... But I'm often accused of it... It's not personal to me!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

Oh forgot to say

You don't think it's fair to target people - yet you did exactly that by naming me - I'm confused?"

he also named himself as an example, adding a comma after opinion in the penultimate line will clear the confusion and soothe the angst..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

-Courtney "

And I would argue the case of 'Freedom from' as greatly as 'Freedom to'.

It's instructive what His Serene Holiness, the Pope, had to say on the matter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - which were indicative of one person's rights TO, and other people's rights to NOT:

"He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction.

He added: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"And I would argue the case of 'Freedom from' as greatly as 'Freedom to'.

It's instructive what His Serene Holiness, the Pope, had to say on the matter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - which were indicative of one person's rights TO, and other people's rights to NOT:

"He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction.

He added: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”"

It's a rare day when I quote the Pope

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous when and where did I say anything about singling out a person ? I said being offensive wasn't acceptable and it isn't and I think you would agree with that would you not ?

but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

-Courtney "
.

What's that wacky baptist church thats always getting called out for protesting dead US soldiers?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

-Courtney

And I would argue the case of 'Freedom from' as greatly as 'Freedom to'.

It's instructive what His Serene Holiness, the Pope, had to say on the matter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - which were indicative of one person's rights TO, and other people's rights to NOT:

"He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction.

He added: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”"
.

But on the other thread you openly mocked somebody's idea of being homophobic!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward "

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

For me it's not personal, I think the confusion comes from the other side because religion is personal!

I could be wrong!

No, it's the difference between saying "all religion is idiocy" and "you there, religious person, you're an idiot". "

A lot of the time it's the difference between behaviour and identity too - 'That was a foolish thing to do' is less offensive that 'You are a fool'.

It's also a question of respect to my mind - without respect you are very likely to offend, though I agree, people nowadays will take offence far too lightly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'."

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"But on the other thread you openly mocked somebody's idea of being homophobic!"

Eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"But on the other thread you openly mocked somebody's idea of being homophobic!

Eh?"

People don't half say some stupid shit tho'?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous when and where did I say anything about singling out a person ? I said being offensive wasn't acceptable and it isn't and I think you would agree with that would you not ?

but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward "
so by using you as an example I was offensive ? I thought the example I used you as was to illustrate unpopular opinions we both had ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech "

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'."

You're right, this is often the case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'."
.

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

-Courtney "

People regularly confuse our free speech laws with those in America. We're much more heavily regulated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous when and where did I say anything about singling out a person ? I said being offensive wasn't acceptable and it isn't and I think you would agree with that would you not ?

but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward so by using you as an example I was offensive ? I thought the example I used you as was to illustrate unpopular opinions we both had ?

Your right

But I suspect you were doing it to score points

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity"

Are you actually hoping to offend them into some form of sanity? Because that really doesn't work. If I'm offended by something someone says - which will be because they've been rude, hostile, disrespectful etc., NOT just that they disagree with me - then I'm far less inclined to take anything they say seriously whatsoever and therefore far less likely to be convinced by any of their arguments.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?"

I can usually find at least a couple of things about offensive people who have the right to offend others. But when I offend them, they run around like little girls crying their eyes out. I have never understood that. Then they will flail about citing racism, ageism, fatism, heightism, and all other manner of isms

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however "

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But on the other thread you openly mocked somebody's idea of being homophobic!

Eh?

People don't half say some stupid shit tho'?"
.

So that's getting more to the point I'm making... There's a fine line!.

How do you separate mocking homophobic views from cartoons mocking religion.

You seem to be able to do it..

I can't, to me it comes down to a sense of factualness to the argument.. However neither of those subjects to me are personal but to the people holding them, they are!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue."

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"But on the other thread you openly mocked somebody's idea of being homophobic!

Eh?

People don't half say some stupid shit tho'?.

So that's getting more to the point I'm making... There's a fine line!.

How do you separate mocking homophobic views from cartoons mocking religion.

You seem to be able to do it..

I can't, to me it comes down to a sense of factualness to the argument.. However neither of those subjects to me are personal but to the people holding them, they are!"

I still don;t quite follow this line of questioning

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not"

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *dwalu2Couple over a year ago

Bristol

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not"

No-one is entitled to be ignorant or discriminatory.

The fact that racism is against the law should be a clear enough indicator that there is no entitlement.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"But on the other thread you openly mocked somebody's idea of being homophobic!

Eh?

People don't half say some stupid shit tho'?.

So that's getting more to the point I'm making... There's a fine line!.

How do you separate mocking homophobic views from cartoons mocking religion.

You seem to be able to do it..

I can't, to me it comes down to a sense of factualness to the argument.. However neither of those subjects to me are personal but to the people holding them, they are!

I still don;t quite follow this line of questioning"
.

So you seem to be happy to openly mock somebody holding homophobic views?.

But not so happy for cartoonists to mock people with religious views?.

Where's the line drawn!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong. "

Self defence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

No-one is entitled to be ignorant or discriminatory.

The fact that racism is against the law should be a clear enough indicator that there is no entitlement."

Laws aren't always morally right or based on freedoms

Ultimately you cannot tell someone how to think or feel

That is exactly what Stalin and Hitler wanted to do

Enough of your mind control

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

No-one is entitled to be ignorant or discriminatory.

The fact that racism is against the law should be a clear enough indicator that there is no entitlement."

Just because somebody is making racist comments or general hate speech without explicitly calling for physical attacks does not mean that their speech won’t lead to physical attacks.

Incitement to racial hatred includes racist or anti-Semitic comments that create an atmosphere of general hate in a society.

Because it’s that atmosphere of hatred that will lead to physical attacks and assaults in the street, even if the person that made the speech in the beginning didn’t intend violence, that’s what hatred leads to.

And we have a lot of cases of that happening in Europe historically.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended"

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... oTelling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

"
no because fugly is not a word in the oxford English dictionary so its not factual

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... oTelling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

no because fugly is not a word in the oxford English dictionary so its not factual

Who said I was using an English word

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

Now that is utter bollocks lol!! Many, MANY times in human history people have believed something against all the evidence - and the evidence turned out to be false, or misunderstood......and in the end the idiots were the ones that put their faith in something which turned out to be innacurate. It happens all the time in all the sciences, to think otherwise is pure arrogance, and rather ignorant arrogance as well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

"
.

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

"
.

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

No-one is entitled to be ignorant or discriminatory.

The fact that racism is against the law should be a clear enough indicator that there is no entitlement.

Just because somebody is making racist comments or general hate speech without explicitly calling for physical attacks does not mean that their speech won’t lead to physical attacks.

Incitement to racial hatred includes racist or anti-Semitic comments that create an atmosphere of general hate in a society.

And we have a lot of cases of that happening in Europe historically."

It's hard

You can't be responsible for how people react to what you say

On a side note : you hear of people watching violent movies or games and then going out and killing

Should grand theft auto be banned for that reason or is it protected under freedoms of speech and expression?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"It's hard

You can't be responsible for how people react to what you say

On a side note : you hear of people watching violent movies or games and then going out and killing

Should grand theft auto be banned for that reason or is it protected under freedoms of speech and expression?"

Proof for this wive's tale?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!."

You have misunderstood it - there damn well is!! There is ALWAYS evidence on both sides of a question and those who choose to believe one version or another. It is a very much question of belief and faith, it's just that any decent scientist is not biased and prepared to adjust his belief AT ANY TIME should the evidence demonstrate that his previous belief was incorrect.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on"
.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Be offensive but don't become defensive when someone calls you out on it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There are a lot of 'Trolls' on the Internet. Behind a keyboard they think they are powerful.

I look at it this way. would I be prepared to say whatever to a persons face?

Even then expressing an opinion is not the same as deliberately being offensive just to cause hurt.

Respect!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't think many people intentionally go out of their way to be offensive. Those who do usually have deep seeded issues or mental health problems.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"There are a lot of 'Trolls' on the Internet. Behind a keyboard they think they are powerful.

I look at it this way. would I be prepared to say whatever to a persons face?

Even then expressing an opinion is not the same as deliberately being offensive just to cause hurt.

Respect!"

Aretha Franklin - Respect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNmEQpy0Wnc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some offensive comments on here are often said by people not seeing the irony of their offending. For instance,the man who spoke in a derogatory way about some fat women on here and his own wife was hideous. Of course we couldn't say hold on a minute mate,have you seen what you're getting in bed with every night? That would be the kind of offensive that gets you a forum ban.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think many people intentionally go out of their way to be offensive. Those who do usually have deep seeded issues or mental health problems.

Bold statement - are you a doctor? Mental health professional? Let's not make statements like that as its damaging to those with views and the mentally ill at the same time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

- Stephen Fry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Some offensive comments on here are often said by people not seeing the irony of their offending. For instance,the man who spoke in a derogatory way about some fat women on here and his own wife was hideous. Of course we couldn't say hold on a minute mate,have you seen what you're getting in bed with every night? That would be the kind of offensive that gets you a forum ban. "

Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Like yourself, I don't care if you are offended or not. Do you care when you offend people with your so-called, facts? No, you don't

So, as I said earlier, for an accurate description of fugly, stare hard in your mirror

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

-Courtney .

What's that wacky baptist church thats always getting called out for protesting dead US soldiers?"

The westborough baptist church

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I do think that we have gone too far down the political correctness path. Universities now dont invite speakers in case someone might be offended...however hoe the hell does that prepare someone for the real world. If you insulate someone from everything they MIGHT find offensive how will you know where they draw their own boundaries? Or give them the skillset to argue againt a point? Or simply see a different point of view?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

- Stephen Fry"

I am f**king offended by that [too]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

Agree with you there, and there does seem to be a certain section of society these days who are the perpetually offended, who go out of their way to look for things to be offended by. When they can't find anything to be offended by themselves then they become offended by things on other people's behalf.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

Aka daily mail readers...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And if they aren't offended they are outraged

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

I am a part-time professional offendee; the pay is quite good

I am so good at what I do that once I even got offended on my own behalf

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence"

You are incorrect, there are many people who put all their faith in science and the scientific process without even looking at the evidence on any particular question. And yet it is deeply, deeply fallible. Just how many glasses of wine is it best for me to drink? Is an egg really be detrimental to cholesterol balance? Why was asbestos thought to be safe? Or Thalidamide?

I howled with laughter when it was announced that geneticists had discovered that every woman on the planet was related to one woman...but her name was not Eve! Haha, oh the irony!!

And whilst I agree that a GOOD scientist remains totally unbiased, many, many do not, they have too much invested in their view.

Peer reviews will disagree and people will chose which side to believe - that is a question of faith, much as you hate it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

I am a part-time professional offendee; the pay is quite good

I am so good at what I do that once I even got offended on my own behalf

"
harlot

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

People seem to get very offended by other people being offended.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?"

I posted this on another thread a few days ago;

I think if we returned to duelling to the death, a lot more people would be a lot less offended by a lot less "stuff".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Like yourself, I don't care if you are offended or not. Do you care when you offend people with your so-called, facts? No, you don't

So, as I said earlier, for an accurate description of fugly, stare hard in your mirror

"
.

Do I care that I offend people?.

Yes I do!, but as I said I'm not trying to.

So called facts?.. You'll have to be a bit more precise, at least state what your calling me out on so I can answer back!.

Fugly I can take as anything then although by your tone, I'm guessing it's not complimentary.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

I posted this on another thread a few days ago;

I think if we returned to duelling to the death, a lot more people would be a lot less offended by a lot less "stuff"."
yeah

It made

then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence

I howled with laughter when it was announced that geneticists had discovered that every woman on the planet was related to one woman...but her name was not Eve! Haha, oh the irony!!

And whilst I agree that a GOOD scientist remains totally unbiased, many, many do not, they have too much invested in their view.

Peer reviews will disagree and people will chose which side to believe - that is a question of faith, much as you hate it."
.

Can you give me an example of this corrupt science.

Asbestos was never scientifically proved safe ever and in fact it was proved unsafe long before it was banned because people like yourself misunderstand science!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think many people intentionally go out of their way to be offensive. Those who do usually have deep seeded issues or mental health problems.

Bold statement - are you a doctor? Mental health professional? Let's not make statements like that as its damaging to those with views and the mentally ill at the same time "

Really? How do you work that one out from what I've said? I didn't say all individuals with mental health issues and neither did I suggest people with views had any issues either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Like yourself, I don't care if you are offended or not. Do you care when you offend people with your so-called, facts? No, you don't

So, as I said earlier, for an accurate description of fugly, stare hard in your mirror

Do I care that I offend people?.

Yes I do!, but as I said I'm not trying to.

So called facts?.. You'll have to be a bit more precise, at least state what your calling me out on so I can answer back!.

Fugly I can take as anything then although by your tone, I'm guessing it's not complimentary.

Fugly is complimentary; there are words beyond fugly

OK, serious for a moment. There are times when we say what we think is correct, factual, backed by scientific evidence, whatever. All good stuff. But if I find that I am causing real hurt and pain to someone by hammering on with those arguments, I will withdraw. It is not a contest to the death

Where I find the above scenario and that person does not withdraw, I will find their Achilles heel (and everyone has it) and then I show them no mercy. Time for them to feel real hurt and pain. Sometimes, that is the only way some people learn

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?

I posted this on another thread a few days ago;

I think if we returned to duelling to the death, a lot more people would be a lot less offended by a lot less "stuff"."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence

I howled with laughter when it was announced that geneticists had discovered that every woman on the planet was related to one woman...but her name was not Eve! Haha, oh the irony!!

And whilst I agree that a GOOD scientist remains totally unbiased, many, many do not, they have too much invested in their view.

Peer reviews will disagree and people will chose which side to believe - that is a question of faith, much as you hate it."
I agree what each individual human being believes in is his or her faith ,religion is just another opinion of faith ,the fact that so many people were seduced by each different variation of it shows you how gullible humans are

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""If liberty means anything, it is the right to hear that which you do not want to."

~ George Orwell

However, free speech has limits and respect and tolerance are also key.

I.e. unless your a comedian try not to be a cunt

-Courtney

And I would argue the case of 'Freedom from' as greatly as 'Freedom to'.

It's instructive what His Serene Holiness, the Pope, had to say on the matter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - which were indicative of one person's rights TO, and other people's rights to NOT:

"He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction.

He added: “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”"

I stopped reading the thread because I went away for a while and too many people commented

But I wanted to address your point. I completely disagree. I think you should be able to say what you want (in regard to hate speech. If we were to get technical about limits on free speech when there is an imminent chance of inciting violence, that would be a different discussion).

The Pope, in your quote, didn't give a reason for limiting my speech- other than that it might result in his punching someone, he just gave an opinion that such limitations on my speech should be allowed. And I don't subscribe to appeals from authority.

Free speech, even when we don't like it or when it's hurtful, is valuable to society because it allows for free debate and intellectual debate. And if something is so bad to say that we deem it not acceptable, then who makes that judgement call? Who is allowed to decide what speech is acceptable and what isn't? The arbitrary and capricious nature of such decisions should disprove their validity.

So no, I reject the opinion of the Pope in the quote you cite.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?"

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

When I was 5 years old, my mum told me "sticks and stones" lol. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, or take it out on other forumites by getting them banned!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I see a difference between taking offense and just debating a point. I feel like lots of people think that just because you are disagreeing with them you must be taking offense - when for me, at least, that's usually not the case.

-Courtney "

This

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence

I howled with laughter when it was announced that geneticists had discovered that every woman on the planet was related to one woman...but her name was not Eve! Haha, oh the irony!!

And whilst I agree that a GOOD scientist remains totally unbiased, many, many do not, they have too much invested in their view.

Peer reviews will disagree and people will chose which side to believe - that is a question of faith, much as you hate it..

Can you give me an example of this corrupt science.

Asbestos was never scientifically proved safe ever and in fact it was proved unsafe long before it was banned because people like yourself misunderstand science!"

Haha, stuff and nonsense. Take any substance, drug, processs, proceedure which shown to be unfit for the purpose it was approved by science for, there are thousands! Someone has to put their faith in the method, that the testing was accurate and sufficient, that the peer review enough to out bias.

Time and again it is shown not to be so, the vast majority of scientific thought is CONSTANTLY updated.

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It's instructive what His Serene Holiness, the Pope, had to say on the matter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - which were indicative of one person's rights TO, and other people's rights to NOT:

"He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction."

...I didn't think it was remotely instructive, I thought it was extraordinarily laughably moronic coming from someone commonly referred to as 'His Holiness'!?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

""It's instructive what His Serene Holiness, the Pope, had to say on the matter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - which were indicative of one person's rights TO, and other people's rights to NOT:

"He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights however he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organises his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction."

...I didn't think it was remotely instructive, I thought it was extraordinarily laughably moronic coming from someone commonly referred to as 'His Holiness'!?"

He's human and being realistic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Like yourself, I don't care if you are offended or not. Do you care when you offend people with your so-called, facts? No, you don't

So, as I said earlier, for an accurate description of fugly, stare hard in your mirror

Do I care that I offend people?.

Yes I do!, but as I said I'm not trying to.

So called facts?.. You'll have to be a bit more precise, at least state what your calling me out on so I can answer back!.

Fugly I can take as anything then although by your tone, I'm guessing it's not complimentary.

Fugly is complimentary; there are words beyond fugly

I'm kinda turned on by this scenario...

Do my Achilles baby

Although if it's painful, can you be gentle to start!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence

I howled with laughter when it was announced that geneticists had discovered that every woman on the planet was related to one woman...but her name was not Eve! Haha, oh the irony!!

And whilst I agree that a GOOD scientist remains totally unbiased, many, many do not, they have too much invested in their view.

Peer reviews will disagree and people will chose which side to believe - that is a question of faith, much as you hate it..

Can you give me an example of this corrupt science.

Asbestos was never scientifically proved safe ever and in fact it was proved unsafe long before it was banned because people like yourself misunderstand science!

Time and again it is shown not to be so, the vast majority of scientific thought is CONSTANTLY updated.

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too."

Careful there Frisky, you'll hurt your head, keep banging it on the wall like that......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Having been on the receiving end of 'abuse' especially verbal. There has to be limits on freedom of speech.

I get verbal abuse in town about once a week for being disabled. Usually from young men.

one of wife's families are of Austrian Jewish origin. Verbal abuse soon becomes physical.

I respect someone who has a dif opinion to me, but someone who just is 'abusive' or disrespectful I do not. To me they are a world apart.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

You have misunderstood science, there's no "faith" in it!.

No you really have misunderstood science, honestly, you can't have faith in science.

You can have faith that the evidence supports your theory, but it's not personal beliefs, that's why they peer review evidence

I howled with laughter when it was announced that geneticists had discovered that every woman on the planet was related to one woman...but her name was not Eve! Haha, oh the irony!!

And whilst I agree that a GOOD scientist remains totally unbiased, many, many do not, they have too much invested in their view.

Peer reviews will disagree and people will chose which side to believe - that is a question of faith, much as you hate it..

Can you give me an example of this corrupt science.

Asbestos was never scientifically proved safe ever and in fact it was proved unsafe long before it was banned because people like yourself misunderstand science!

Time and again it is shown not to be so, the vast majority of scientific thought is CONSTANTLY updated.

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too."
.

Again your saying thousands and giving none!... Which ones! Let's examine them.

The gp having faith in a drug is a ridiculous example, it's like saying I'm having faith in gravity by not floating off!.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Like yourself, I don't care if you are offended or not. Do you care when you offend people with your so-called, facts? No, you don't

So, as I said earlier, for an accurate description of fugly, stare hard in your mirror

Do I care that I offend people?.

Yes I do!, but as I said I'm not trying to.

So called facts?.. You'll have to be a bit more precise, at least state what your calling me out on so I can answer back!.

Fugly I can take as anything then although by your tone, I'm guessing it's not complimentary.

Fugly is complimentary; there are words beyond fugly

I'm kinda turned on by this scenario...

Do my Achilles baby

Although if it's painful, can you be gentle to start!"

Gentle??? You are barking up the wrong tree

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended

And when I sate that someone is so fugly that they should leave this site, I too am stating a fact

What's fugly mean?.

If it's factual or has some basis of factualism..

I can either

get offended

Live with it

Leave

Change.

It's a fact because I say so; and for confirmation, have a look in the mirror

. But no cheating by asking your mother

You can change fugly? Try and come back and let me know how you got on.

But I don't know what fugly is?

Why don't you just tell me..

I promise I won't be offended

Like yourself, I don't care if you are offended or not. Do you care when you offend people with your so-called, facts? No, you don't

So, as I said earlier, for an accurate description of fugly, stare hard in your mirror

Do I care that I offend people?.

Yes I do!, but as I said I'm not trying to.

So called facts?.. You'll have to be a bit more precise, at least state what your calling me out on so I can answer back!.

Fugly I can take as anything then although by your tone, I'm guessing it's not complimentary.

Fugly is complimentary; there are words beyond fugly

I'm kinda turned on by this scenario...

Do my Achilles baby

Although if it's painful, can you be gentle to start!

Gentle??? You are barking up the wrong tree

"
.Ohhh... I don't really do pain, I've found it too close to pleasure and far too addictive for my liking

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too..

Again your saying thousands and giving none!... Which ones! Let's examine them.

The gp having faith in a drug is a ridiculous example, it's like saying I'm having faith in gravity.......

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Was Newton 'thick' because Einstein's theory came along and superceeded his laws under certain circumstances? Does quantum mechanics prove that traditional physicists were all morons?

The faith a GP must put in the researchers is it exactly the kind of thing I mean, whether it is a drug or dietary advice or whatever. He puts his trust in a process which time and again proves to be fallible - new evidence changes 'scientific opinion' on a daily basis in just about every field. You're just having a kneejerk reaction to the word, but it is a correct use of it nonetheless.

Pick any drug that has been withdrawn if you want an example - Pergolide for instance. Someone, at some point, put their trust in the evidence, believed it to be safe, approved it for use, and GP's the world over put their faith in that process and prescribed it. They were all wrong, and new evidence eventually demonstrated that fact.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence. "

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Having been on the receiving end of 'abuse' especially verbal. There has to be limits on freedom of speech.

I get verbal abuse in town about once a week for being disabled. Usually from young men.

one of wife's families are of Austrian Jewish origin. Verbal abuse soon becomes physical.

I respect someone who has a dif opinion to me, but someone who just is 'abusive' or disrespectful I do not. To me they are a world apart.

Violence isn't free speech

It's violence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too..

Again your saying thousands and giving none!... Which ones! Let's examine them.

The gp having faith in a drug is a ridiculous example, it's like saying I'm having faith in gravity.......

"
.

Eisenstein didn't prove anything that newton wrote wrong!.

No faith was needed in newtons calculations.

Your confusing two things.

Science doesn't need or work on faith!

Faith in science by a human is totally different!.

As I said I don't need to know newtons laws to have faith in his calculations, it's born out of evidence!.

I suggest you reread what you originally wrote to my assumption that science doesn't do faith!

Your going off at tangents

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too..

Again your saying thousands and giving none!... Which ones! Let's examine them.

The gp having faith in a drug is a ridiculous example, it's like saying I'm having faith in gravity.......

Isn't that due to the way the medical industry self regulates research and hides negative tests?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rinking-in-laCouple over a year ago

Bristol

The GP. when he prescribes a medication or asks for a test has to put his faith in the process - he has not one clue about the evidence most of the time, it's just a question of trust.

faith

fe??/

noun

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I know many people who put their faith in science, and funnily enough some of them are religious too..

Again your saying thousands and giving none!... Which ones! Let's examine them.

The gp having faith in a drug is a ridiculous example, it's like saying I'm having faith in gravity.......

Only people who do not understand science ever suggest that something has been proven to be a fact. Any remotely balanced scientist will only say that given the available evidence, something is shown to be true or not. A good scientist will then comment on how much evidence is available and it's quality.

To suggest that science proved asbestos to be safe is preposterous and singularly divorced from what actually took place. People with a vested interest using a selected piece of scientific evidence to back up their claims is not science. It is commercialism.

Asbestos was adopted at a time when we knew and had evidence of the myriad benefits it brought to buildings etc. but had neither the knowledge nor the inclination to investigate it's physiological effects on animals.

One scientific study which gives rise to a particular conclusion is almost never enough to base a decision on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder"

No problem fixing this for you;

Generaly was the word I used.

No need to thank me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder"

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right."

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said."

I was replying to the person who questioned me saying murder is always wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right."

This distinction is known as justification vs excuse. Self defense, legally, is often seen as a justification, but not an excuse. It's actually a very interesting distinction dealing with moral culpability and legal culpability. If you're interested.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

what is offensive to some isnt to others - some one will usually beat someone about on here for somethings that others find funny - tis life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney "

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *manda63Woman over a year ago

Southampton

I could be offensive publicly and privately and on here but free speech isn't really allowed anywhere it seems to me. Imho anyway. F half posting

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right. "

I didn't say that. I was just noting the interesting distinction between justifications and excuses in law. It's worth a bit of a read if you have the time. It's pretty interesting if you're into moral philosophy.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Isn't that due to the way the medical industry self regulates research and hides negative tests?"

It may be occasionally, but most of the time it is just because we simply don't know what we don't know yet!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney "

Nooo, sorry, I mean the man replying to my initial comment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right. "

Who is?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

Who is? "

Sexyinbracknell. Read the above posts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney "

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

Who is?

Sexyinbracknell. Read the above posts. "

Ah, as it's him I'll not bother.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Exactly, though I think use of the word 'true' is incorrect, it is too definitive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Isn't that due to the way the medical industry self regulates research and hides negative tests?

It may be occasionally, but most of the time it is just because we simply don't know what we don't know yet!"
.

We'll never know what we don't know!. We can only go on the facts or evidence as we know them today!

The reason I said you misunderstood science and faith is you don't need faith for science to work...

If you get the clap and the doctor gives you antibiotics they work on you regardless of whether you have faith or not!.

Your misconstruing faith in a scientist and demonstratable evidence!.

Facts are stuff that's can clearly be observed and are overwhelmingly demonstratable... That's why I said at the beginning

Like evolution over creationism!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

A fact isn't a fact unless you put it in capital letters at the end of your post.

FACT

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me. "

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"People seem to get very offended by other people being offended."

Exactly, especially when it comes to 'racism' and islam. And yet when hundreds of women were the victims of sexual assault by clearly racist 'asylum seekers' on New Years Eve just in Cologne alone there was a deafening silence from the PC chattering classes!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong. "

Maybe I didn't missunderstand, msybe I simply didn't agree.

You didn't do anything wrong. You commented. We're all commenting. It's a thread about offence. People are getting offended. It's ironic. I think there was a song about it once.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, duelling to the death, etc etc etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong.

Maybe I didn't missunderstand, msybe I simply didn't agree.

You didn't do anything wrong. You commented. We're all commenting. It's a thread about offence. People are getting offended. It's ironic. I think there was a song about it once.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, duelling to the death, etc etc etc."

Rubbish. You don't agree that I was referring to another post, and it's just a difference of opinion? You said I was commenting on stuff that wasn't typed when it clearly was if you'd chosen to read prior posts.

Perhaps don't try and white knight when there's no requirement. It's cringeworthy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

It may be occasionally, but most of the time it is just because we simply don't know what we don't know yet!.

We'll never know what we don't know!. We can only go on the facts or evidence as we know them today!

The reason I said you misunderstood science and faith is you don't need faith for science to work...

If you get the clap and the doctor gives you antibiotics they work on you regardless of whether you have faith or not!.

You misunderstood me then, I never said one needed faith in science for it to work.

However, now you mention it - the placebo effect IS indeed a question of faith and has of course been scientifically validated numerable times!

You say "Facts are stuff that's can clearly be observed and are overwhelmingly demonstratable." but the fact remains that different 'stuff' is often simultaneously demonstrated by different studies, and someone at some point may have to make a value judgement and stand by it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said."

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

Who is?

Sexyinbracknell. Read the above posts. "

No I am not - I am adding perspective

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?"

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

Who is?

Sexyinbracknell. Read the above posts.

Ah, as it's him I'll not bother.

Thanks

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong. "

Taxi for someone

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide. "

Homocide - Americanism?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide.

Homocide - Americanism?"

No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong.

Maybe I didn't missunderstand, msybe I simply didn't agree.

You didn't do anything wrong. You commented. We're all commenting. It's a thread about offence. People are getting offended. It's ironic. I think there was a song about it once.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, duelling to the death, etc etc etc.

Perhaps don't try and white knight when there's no requirement. It's cringeworthy. "

That's funny.

But I'm sure it's not supposed to be.

Have another apology in advance at the offence your sure to take.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So have we come to an agreement on offending people?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide. "

This isn't strictly true. Murder does not require premeditation. It depends on your jurisdiction, but a general understanding is that premeditated murder is first degree murder, and second degree murder does not require premeditation.

Not to mention that in many jurisdictions, second degree murder can be increase to first degree murder without proof of premeditation if is associated with some violent crimes (like armed robbery).

Although this is heavily jurisdiction-dependant.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong.

Maybe I didn't missunderstand, msybe I simply didn't agree.

You didn't do anything wrong. You commented. We're all commenting. It's a thread about offence. People are getting offended. It's ironic. I think there was a song about it once.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, duelling to the death, etc etc etc.

Perhaps don't try and white knight when there's no requirement. It's cringeworthy.

That's funny.

But I'm sure it's not supposed to be.

Have another apology in advance at the offence your sure to take."

Loving this cat fight

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?"

Generally yes.

I suspect it's being contemplated at this very moment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous when and where did I say anything about singling out a person ? I said being offensive wasn't acceptable and it isn't and I think you would agree with that would you not ?

I suppose "targeting" people to make your point contradicts what you said

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

Who is?

Sexyinbracknell. Read the above posts.

Ah, as it's him I'll not bother.

Thanks "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

Generally yes.

I suspect it's being contemplated at this very moment.

By that lady you keep annoying?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not sure why you feel the need to name and shame me? But hey that's free speech and I accept your right to say it

Not sure the forum moderators feel the same way about your naming and shaming

They strike a balance between a happy forum and free speech

wasn't shaming you just illustrating my point ,we have opinions ,I didnt insult you in any way

No true

But you specifically pointed me out

Which I don't mind about but goes against your own point of not singling out anyone for attention

Seems a bit incongruous when and where did I say anything about singling out a person ? I said being offensive wasn't acceptable and it isn't and I think you would agree with that would you not ?

I suppose "targeting" people to make your point contradicts what you said

Oh that wasn't me

It was someone else - I was picking up in his points

It doesn't bother me I was picking up on the irony

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'..

But the left often target offence on homophobes, right wing politicans, racists, fascists, environmentalism...

I love nothing more than offending these people, I'm hoping to offend them into some sort of sanity

Yes of course... I will offend people by stating factual evidence that goes against their beliefs, you only have to look at any political thread to see people get offended by being in the wrong!

I'm not taking about name calling here, but let's say somebody holds a view on creationism for instance, calling somebody "thick" for a belief against all factual evidence is not name calling..

I often call people out climate change because they just spout utter bollocks... Telling them what there writing is utter bollocks, is not name calling... It's just factual!

However they always tend to get offended"

Well do what you like, but if you *actually* want to persuade people of an argument or a point of view, do you seriously think mocking them or calling them thick is the way to do it? Seems to me far more likely to get their backs up and close them off to any of your arguments straight away.

Just because you think it's not offensive to call someone thick doesn't mean it isn't. They've got the right to get offended, you've got the right to think they're thick - everyone else has the right to think that actually both sides seem to be coming out of it looking like knobheads.

And the person calmly putting forward a reasoned and evidence backed argument (without calling anyone thick) is the one who someone who is on the fence about a particular argument is more likely to be convinced by.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

-Courtney

Tbh I think it's dumb someone is trying to argue murder is right.

-Courtney

Don't sweat it Courtney, I think he's one of those skilled people who can read invisible writing. You know, something that no one wrote or said.

Are you talking about me? I'm female, also I don't know why you're having a go at me.

Note to self; look at profiles before writing gender related comments.

My apologies.

In fairness "analpounder" led me astray. I was going to say gave me a bum steer, but thought better of it.

You also had a go at me for commenting on prior comments, because you misunderstood. Perhaps don't jump the gun, I didn't do anything wrong.

Maybe I didn't missunderstand, msybe I simply didn't agree.

You didn't do anything wrong. You commented. We're all commenting. It's a thread about offence. People are getting offended. It's ironic. I think there was a song about it once.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, duelling to the death, etc etc etc.

Perhaps don't try and white knight when there's no requirement. It's cringeworthy.

That's funny.

But I'm sure it's not supposed to be.

Have another apology in advance at the offence your sure to take.

Loving this cat fight "

Tis chuckle worthy for sure.

Remind me again what this thread topic is about......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Something posted by "no hurry" yesterday got me thinking.

It seems I personally can be quite offensive about many things but I feel that facts are on my logical thinking, so does that give me the right to be offensive?"

Anyone can be offended by anything they like, what might be normal/funny to one person may offend another...but what are they going to do? Call the offensive police?

I may take offence to some things but I don't make a big deal out it unless someone is out and out rude to me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

Generally yes.

I suspect it's being contemplated at this very moment.

By that lady you keep annoying?"

Nooooooooooo surely not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide.

Not to mention that in many jurisdictions, second degree murder can be increase to first degree murder without proof of premeditation if is associated with some violent crimes (like armed robbery).

Although this is heavily jurisdiction-dependant.

-Courtney "

Our laws are different when it comes to murder here in the UK. Here it'd be manslaughter if premeditation is absent in most cases.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide.

Not to mention that in many jurisdictions, second degree murder can be increase to first degree murder without proof of premeditation if is associated with some violent crimes (like armed robbery).

Although this is heavily jurisdiction-dependant.

-Courtney

Our laws are different when it comes to murder here in the UK. Here it'd be manslaughter if premeditation is absent in most cases. "

No - it's manslaughter if there was no intent - premeditation and intent isn't the same

I could intend to kill you in the heat of the moment - not pre planned

Or I could plan to hurt you and you end up dying but I didn't intend to kill you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Ah, what load of old bollox.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

It may be occasionally, but most of the time it is just because we simply don't know what we don't know yet!.

We'll never know what we don't know!. We can only go on the facts or evidence as we know them today!

The reason I said you misunderstood science and faith is you don't need faith for science to work...

If you get the clap and the doctor gives you antibiotics they work on you regardless of whether you have faith or not!.

You misunderstood me then, I never said one needed faith in science for it to work.

However, now you mention it - the placebo effect IS indeed a question of faith and has of course been scientifically validated numerable times!

So I think your talking about faith in scientists?..

You can choose to belive or disbelieve in a theory, but it would be advisable to argue against the evidence not the person!.

If a scientist proclaims something to be "safe".

It's on a set of parameters that are agreed and implemented.

So as far as the evidence suggests aspartame let's say is safe for consumption, that's by the definition being described.

The argument is not about faith in the science it's about human nature and whether we test things correctly!..

That's why I said faith plays no part in science and any good science tests for bias or faith

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No - it's manslaughter if there was no intent - premeditation and intent isn't the same

I could intend to kill you in the heat of the moment - not pre planned

Or I could plan to hurt you and you end up dying but I didn't intend to kill you"

Omg. Did you even read what I typed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"but to deliberately target people and be offensive is not an opinion its ignorant and unacceptable ,positive input is the way forward

Well said.

Sadly, the right to 'offend' is often most strenuously championed by racists, because they want to be racist under the banner of 'acceptable offense'.

No debating the merits of racism / anti racism

Is it really your position to say is Racism is an acceptable offence or not?

I think it is

Not because I'm racist but I uphold free speech

No, racism is not an 'acceptable offense'. It's disgusting ignorance.

That's your view however

It's the correct view. There's no debate to be had on the issue.

See what your saying is very dictatorial

Lots of people have different views and are entitled to them - wherever you like it or not

Some things are just black and white. For example, murder is wrong.

Self defence?

Self defense isn't murder. It's er, I'm not sure how to say this, self defence.

Murder is generally held to be a pre meditated act of violence.

No murder doesn't have to be premeditated

You don't have to plan a murder

It's still wrong to have killed that person. Just because it was self defence, doesn't make it right.

Correct. But again, as above, that's not what I said.

Is murder 'generally' premeditated?

No, but mens rea is there. Otherwise it's just homicide.

Not to mention that in many jurisdictions, second degree murder can be increase to first degree murder without proof of premeditation if is associated with some violent crimes (like armed robbery).

Although this is heavily jurisdiction-dependant.

-Courtney

Our laws are different when it comes to murder here in the UK. Here it'd be manslaughter if premeditation is absent in most cases. "

Regarding the earlier discussion, and this is a question not an argument, someone who kills in self defense....some jurisdictions in the US would say that the person killing in self defense committed murder, but was justified by reason of self defense. Morally speaking, that person still committed murder, they are just found to be justified (this is known in the US as an affirmative dedense).

What would be the case under UK law? I asked because if it is the same as some jurisdictions in the US, then the person was right in the example above regarding self defense as a reason to commit murder.

Even if it isn't the same in the UK as in the US, you can't say "murder is wrong" in a black and white way, unless you don't believe in self defense - you would either have to argue from a culturally relative point of view or acknowledge that other places see it differently.

My point is that your argument above is simplistic.

-Courtney

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Regarding the earlier discussion, and this is a question not an argument, someone who kills in self defense....some jurisdictions in the US would say that the person killing in self defense committed murder, but was justified by reason of self defense. Morally speaking, that person still committed murder, they are just found to be justified (this is known in the US as an affirmative dedense).

My point is that your argument above is simplistic.

-Courtney"

It's simplest as it's a straight forward point.

Legally, an investigation would take place in a self defense case. Quite likely, the CPS would push for manslaughter as the defendant didn't intend to kill the person without excuse. The defendant would then be put through a Crown trial. It'd be murder if the defendant went way beyond necessary to protect themselves or appeared to be pretty vengeful in their actions. Sentencing depends on a case by case basis. They may not even be found guilty, depending on evidence.

The use of the word "murder" suggests it was a criminal killing of a person by another person. That's where it becomes black and white in my argument.

We don't have different jurisdictions in the same way as America. We also don't have different degrees of murder. Scotland has different laws. Wales and England are tried the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ugby 123Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

O o O oo

Oh that wasn't me

It was someone else - I was picking up in his points

It doesn't bother me I was picking up on the irony "

I know it wasn't you, that's why I quoted the post whos it was and answered that one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rinking-in-laCouple over a year ago

Bristol

"People seem to get very offended by other people being offended.

There wasn't and the attackers were sexist, not racist. Victims were from all backgrounds.

Their common feature was their sex.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)