Re: Aussies at it again! : Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:43 pm  

Widnes 'till i die wrote: You are aware the definitions used in the national curriculum arent just dreamt up by someone in whitehall, they generally use official definitions (for example all definitions from used in the national curriculum for PE are from the W.H.O). Anyway, this is irrelevant, the national curriculum wasnt the only source i quoted, i aslo quoted the OED, i assume you ignored this fact in a blatant attempt by you to detract away from the fact that you cannot defend your position. Where do you start? well you could start by answering my questions. You seem to either be an idiot, or to be purposely ignoring my questions(i presume this is the case, as you know you are wrong, but dont have the balls to admit it) so i'll make it easy for you. 1) Why do you feel you are qualified to call someone wrong, because they agree with the definition of racism used by the the U.N., the Oxford English Dictionary, The European Parliament, and the vast majority of the public? Do you accept that you were wrong to do this? 2) Can you please justify why you responded to a post of mine, which wasnt racist in the slightest, by calling me a racist? (im glad some of the other posters on here have seen right through you, and haven't fallen for your bull$hit tactics of dodging my questions, and calling me a racist, in response to a post which wasnt at all couldnt at all be interpreted (by a rational person) as racist) This is very easy! Ask yourself why you argue my point! And then ask some people who are in the minority and who are activists where the land lies! I gave you very simple grounds for why a minority can't be racist! I don't see what I have to answer as I already gave a full opinion! And you think i am wrong or the opinion is fauls I can introduce you to people who would be happy to give you far more facts than I can off the top of my head! I have no other motivation than equality.

Widnes 'till i die wrote: You are aware the definitions used in the national curriculum arent just dreamt up by someone in whitehall, they generally use official definitions (for example all definitions from used in the national curriculum for PE are from the W.H.O). Anyway, this is irrelevant, the national curriculum wasnt the only source i quoted, i aslo quoted the OED, i assume you ignored this fact in a blatant attempt by you to detract away from the fact that you cannot defend your position. Where do you start? well you could start by answering my questions. You seem to either be an idiot, or to be purposely ignoring my questions(i presume this is the case, as you know you are wrong, but dont have the balls to admit it) so i'll make it easy for you. 1) Why do you feel you are qualified to call someone wrong, because they agree with the definition of racism used by the the U.N., the Oxford English Dictionary, The European Parliament, and the vast majority of the public? Do you accept that you were wrong to do this? 2) Can you please justify why you responded to a post of mine, which wasnt racist in the slightest, by calling me a racist? (im glad some of the other posters on here have seen right through you, and haven't fallen for your bull$hit tactics of dodging my questions, and calling me a racist, in response to a post which wasnt at all couldnt at all be interpreted (by a rational person) as racist) This is very easy! Ask yourself why you argue my point! And then ask some people who are in the minority and who are activists where the land lies! I gave you very simple grounds for why a minority can't be racist! I don't see what I have to answer as I already gave a full opinion! And you think i am wrong or the opinion is fauls I can introduce you to people who would be happy to give you far more facts than I can off the top of my head! I have no other motivation than equality.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:56 pm  

J O N N Y wrote:

my point was that racism exists everywhere, not just in Australia as the thread title suggests. and that was the basis of my initial reply.

i started by asking why you thought that casual racism was something that was exclusive to Australia. to balance this i offered an example of my own experience (emile heskey).

you then accused me of being part of the problem, which i took exception to.

you then accussed someone else of being a nazi because they challenged your conception of racism, whilst offering their own, which several people took exception to.

i then tried to bring the topic back to the beginning by arguing that the racism you had highlighted (timanu tahus reaction to andrew johns racially abusing greg inglis) happens in england.

this thread literally has gone nowhere, which is a shame as you are clearly very passionate about the subject. however your over zealousness to demonstarte your anti-racist stance has hindered the debate, or lack there of.

to be honest we probably share very similar viewws, but it is the way you choose to offer these views that im currently having a problem with.

Well if you have a problem with me fair enough! If you have a problem with what I post regarding others fair enough!

I didn't question you at all apart from you talikng about your work place! Which sounds a nightmare

as I said I talk about oz because I spend so much time there it's central to the sport these boards are based on?

[Wheels]

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:11 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

no I was been diplomatic!

Being.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:30 am  

I used to work with a black fella who introduced himself as chalky, was he racist?

I now work with Greek australians who call each other wogs but if a white chap does they play up.

Australians alson have a cheese named coon.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:41 am  

sgtwilko wrote: This is very easy! Ask yourself why you argue my point! And then ask some people who are in the minority and who are activists where the land lies! I gave you very simple grounds for why a minority can't be racist! I don't see what I have to answer as I already gave a full opinion! And you think i am wrong or the opinion is fauls I can introduce you to people who would be happy to give you far more facts than I can off the top of my head! Why do i argue your point? maybe it has something to do with the fact that i dont like people falsely telling others they are incorrect, there are few things more annoying to me than an ignorant 'know it all' The only reason we are still arguing is because you seem unable to own up to the blatantly obvious fact that you were wrong. Your next sentence is nonesensical , if you fancy re-phrasing it in English, i may be able to respond . Lets get one thing straight before i address your next baseless assertion. If you want to know the definition of a word, you look in dictionaries. All respected dictionaries (eg the Oxford English dictionary, which i posted a link for you earlier) go against your statement that a member of an ethnic or racial minority can't be racist. As the term has legal connotations, you may want to base the definiton, on the accepted definition used by say the UN or the European parliament - both of which i posted a link to earlier, showing that the defintion they use goes against the definition you have been using. Furthermore, you could argue that definitions of words change over time, therefore the definition that the majority of the population accept, is the true definition for the word, but again, this goes against your statement that a member of a minority cannot be a racist (can you see the pattern yet? ). Which ever way you look at it, your definition wasnt true. Therefore when you told a poster he was wrong, becasue his point was contradicted by your made up definition, you were wrong. As soon as you accept this we can move on. I ask you again, do you accept you were wrong? (please dont make another pi$$ poor attempt at dodging my questions, its getting a bit embarrasing. You did not give me simple grounds for why a minority can't be a racist. You were using circular 'reasoning' (i use the term very loosely - you did little more than simply rephrase your original assertion). If you base an argument on the premise, that using any definition for the word 'racist' other than yours, is wrong (i.e. a false premise, as explained above) then the whole argument which is based on this premise is irrelevant (although as i have already said, the word argument may be stretching it a bit, no matter how much you want it to, re hashing your original asertion, is by no stretch of the imagination a supporting explanation). I can't give a toss how many facts, these people could tell me, you cannot escape the fact (no matter how much you try and dance around the point at hand) that using the definition of a word agreed upon by (amongst many others) the U.N., the Oxford English Dictionary, The European Parliament, and the vast majority of the public, should be seen as, by no stretch of the imagination, incorrect. Labelling it as such (as you did) is a ridiculous (and incorrect) thing to do. Do you finally understand why? sgtwilko wrote: I quoted what I was taught! I believe it because it was from people who have lived under oppression! Why would they lie? Please tell me?If you don't agree or don't like? that's fine. I didn't like the party line the poster was peddeling! It was all too familiar! There is defo a common feal to these comments. A reluctance I find compelling No you didnt, you said that by other posters, not agreing with what you have being taught, they were wrong. This is what people are taking exception to. I would have no issue with someone stating: i was taught x, y and z. You however said: you are incorrect, i know i am right because i was taught x, y and z. There is a massive difference (especially when, as is in this case, all the evidence points to x,y and z not being true) What line was i peddling which you didnt like? which line was i peddeing which led to you calling me a nazi? Why are you again changing the subject and claiming my posts have a common feel to them? (how can they have a common feel to them? do you often tell people they are wrong, for using the correct definition of a word, and then adamently stick to your statement, without using any evdence to back it up, ultimately resorting to dodging questions left right and centre, and calling people nazi's. If so, then i can see why responses to you have this 'feel' to them... its the ' why the hell am i trying to debate a moron' feel)

sgtwilko wrote: This is very easy! Ask yourself why you argue my point! And then ask some people who are in the minority and who are activists where the land lies! I gave you very simple grounds for why a minority can't be racist! I don't see what I have to answer as I already gave a full opinion! And you think i am wrong or the opinion is fauls I can introduce you to people who would be happy to give you far more facts than I can off the top of my head! Why do i argue your point? maybe it has something to do with the fact that i dont like people falsely telling others they are incorrect, there are few things more annoying to me than an ignorant 'know it all' The only reason we are still arguing is because you seem unable to own up to the blatantly obvious fact that you were wrong. Your next sentence is nonesensical , if you fancy re-phrasing it in English, i may be able to respond . Lets get one thing straight before i address your next baseless assertion. If you want to know the definition of a word, you look in dictionaries. All respected dictionaries (eg the Oxford English dictionary, which i posted a link for you earlier) go against your statement that a member of an ethnic or racial minority can't be racist. As the term has legal connotations, you may want to base the definiton, on the accepted definition used by say the UN or the European parliament - both of which i posted a link to earlier, showing that the defintion they use goes against the definition you have been using. Furthermore, you could argue that definitions of words change over time, therefore the definition that the majority of the population accept, is the true definition for the word, but again, this goes against your statement that a member of a minority cannot be a racist (can you see the pattern yet? ). Which ever way you look at it, your definition wasnt true. Therefore when you told a poster he was wrong, becasue his point was contradicted by your made up definition, you were wrong. As soon as you accept this we can move on. I ask you again, do you accept you were wrong? (please dont make another pi$$ poor attempt at dodging my questions, its getting a bit embarrasing. You did not give me simple grounds for why a minority can't be a racist. You were using circular 'reasoning' (i use the term very loosely - you did little more than simply rephrase your original assertion). If you base an argument on the premise, that using any definition for the word 'racist' other than yours, is wrong (i.e. a false premise, as explained above) then the whole argument which is based on this premise is irrelevant (although as i have already said, the word argument may be stretching it a bit, no matter how much you want it to, re hashing your original asertion, is by no stretch of the imagination a supporting explanation). I can't give a toss how many facts, these people could tell me, you cannot escape the fact (no matter how much you try and dance around the point at hand) that using the definition of a word agreed upon by (amongst many others) the U.N., the Oxford English Dictionary, The European Parliament, and the vast majority of the public, should be seen as, by no stretch of the imagination, incorrect. Labelling it as such (as you did) is a ridiculous (and incorrect) thing to do. Do you finally understand why? sgtwilko wrote: I quoted what I was taught! I believe it because it was from people who have lived under oppression! Why would they lie? Please tell me?If you don't agree or don't like? that's fine. I didn't like the party line the poster was peddeling! It was all too familiar! There is defo a common feal to these comments. A reluctance I find compelling No you didnt, you said that by other posters, not agreing with what you have being taught, they were wrong. This is what people are taking exception to. I would have no issue with someone stating: i was taught x, y and z. You however said: you are incorrect, i know i am right because i was taught x, y and z. There is a massive difference (especially when, as is in this case, all the evidence points to x,y and z not being true) What line was i peddling which you didnt like? which line was i peddeing which led to you calling me a nazi? Why are you again changing the subject and claiming my posts have a common feel to them? (how can they have a common feel to them? do you often tell people they are wrong, for using the correct definition of a word, and then adamently stick to your statement, without using any evdence to back it up, ultimately resorting to dodging questions left right and centre, and calling people nazi's. If so, then i can see why responses to you have this 'feel' to them... its the ' why the hell am i trying to debate a moron' feel)

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:20 am  

Widnes 'till i die wrote:

If you can point out exactly what i said, which you interpreted as a hissy fit i'd appreciate it...im very confused

You wouldn't see it anyway, but its on the previous two pages in abundance.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:48 am  

Widnes 'till i die wrote: Why do i argue your point? maybe it has something to do with the fact that i dont like people falsely telling others they are incorrect, there are few things more annoying to me than an ignorant 'know it all' The only reason we are still arguing is because you seem unable to own up to the blatantly obvious fact that you were wrong. Your next sentence is nonesensical , if you fancy re-phrasing it in English, i may be able to respond . Lets get one thing straight before i address your next baseless assertion. If you want to know the definition of a word, you look in dictionaries. All respected dictionaries (eg the Oxford English dictionary, which i posted a link for you earlier) go against your statement that a member of an ethnic or racial minority can't be racist. As the term has legal connotations, you may want to base the definiton, on the accepted definition used by say the UN or the European parliament - both of which i posted a link to earlier, showing that the defintion they use goes against the definition you have been using. Furthermore, you could argue that definitions of words change over time, therefore the definition that the majority of the population accept, is the true definition for the word, but again, this goes against your statement that a member of a minority cannot be a racist (can you see the pattern yet? ). Which ever way you look at it, your definition wasnt true. Therefore when you told a poster he was wrong, becasue his point was contradicted by your made up definition, you were wrong. As soon as you accept this we can move on. I ask you again, do you accept you were wrong? (please dont make another pi$$ poor attempt at dodging my questions, its getting a bit embarrasing. You did not give me simple grounds for why a minority can't be a racist. You were using circular 'reasoning' (i use the term very loosely - you did little more than simply rephrase your original assertion). If you base an argument on the premise, that using any definition for the word 'racist' other than yours, is wrong (i.e. a false premise, as explained above) then the whole argument which is based on this premise is irrelevant (although as i have already said, the word argument may be stretching it a bit, no matter how much you want it to, re hashing your original asertion, is by no stretch of the imagination a supporting explanation). I can't give a toss how many facts, these people could tell me, you cannot escape the fact (no matter how much you try and dance around the point at hand) that using the definition of a word agreed upon by (amongst many others) the U.N., the Oxford English Dictionary, The European Parliament, and the vast majority of the public, should be seen as, by no stretch of the imagination, incorrect. Labelling it as such (as you did) is a ridiculous (and incorrect) thing to do. Do you finally understand why? No you didnt, you said that by other posters, not agreing with what you have being taught, they were wrong. This is what people are taking exception to. I would have no issue with someone stating: i was taught x, y and z. You however said: you are incorrect, i know i am right because i was taught x, y and z. There is a massive difference (especially when, as is in this case, all the evidence points to x,y and z not being true) What line was i peddling which you didnt like? which line was i peddeing which led to you calling me a nazi? Why are you again changing the subject and claiming my posts have a common feel to them? (how can they have a common feel to them? do you often tell people they are wrong, for using the correct definition of a word, and then adamently stick to your statement, without using any evdence to back it up, ultimately resorting to dodging questions left right and centre, and calling people nazi's. If so, then i can see why responses to you have this 'feel' to them... its the ' why the hell am i trying to debate a moron' feel) An excellent and informative rebuttal Widnes. I suspect it'll upset some of the more excitable on here here.

Widnes 'till i die wrote: Why do i argue your point? maybe it has something to do with the fact that i dont like people falsely telling others they are incorrect, there are few things more annoying to me than an ignorant 'know it all' The only reason we are still arguing is because you seem unable to own up to the blatantly obvious fact that you were wrong. Your next sentence is nonesensical , if you fancy re-phrasing it in English, i may be able to respond . Lets get one thing straight before i address your next baseless assertion. If you want to know the definition of a word, you look in dictionaries. All respected dictionaries (eg the Oxford English dictionary, which i posted a link for you earlier) go against your statement that a member of an ethnic or racial minority can't be racist. As the term has legal connotations, you may want to base the definiton, on the accepted definition used by say the UN or the European parliament - both of which i posted a link to earlier, showing that the defintion they use goes against the definition you have been using. Furthermore, you could argue that definitions of words change over time, therefore the definition that the majority of the population accept, is the true definition for the word, but again, this goes against your statement that a member of a minority cannot be a racist (can you see the pattern yet? ). Which ever way you look at it, your definition wasnt true. Therefore when you told a poster he was wrong, becasue his point was contradicted by your made up definition, you were wrong. As soon as you accept this we can move on. I ask you again, do you accept you were wrong? (please dont make another pi$$ poor attempt at dodging my questions, its getting a bit embarrasing. You did not give me simple grounds for why a minority can't be a racist. You were using circular 'reasoning' (i use the term very loosely - you did little more than simply rephrase your original assertion). If you base an argument on the premise, that using any definition for the word 'racist' other than yours, is wrong (i.e. a false premise, as explained above) then the whole argument which is based on this premise is irrelevant (although as i have already said, the word argument may be stretching it a bit, no matter how much you want it to, re hashing your original asertion, is by no stretch of the imagination a supporting explanation). I can't give a toss how many facts, these people could tell me, you cannot escape the fact (no matter how much you try and dance around the point at hand) that using the definition of a word agreed upon by (amongst many others) the U.N., the Oxford English Dictionary, The European Parliament, and the vast majority of the public, should be seen as, by no stretch of the imagination, incorrect. Labelling it as such (as you did) is a ridiculous (and incorrect) thing to do. Do you finally understand why? No you didnt, you said that by other posters, not agreing with what you have being taught, they were wrong. This is what people are taking exception to. I would have no issue with someone stating: i was taught x, y and z. You however said: you are incorrect, i know i am right because i was taught x, y and z. There is a massive difference (especially when, as is in this case, all the evidence points to x,y and z not being true) What line was i peddling which you didnt like? which line was i peddeing which led to you calling me a nazi? Why are you again changing the subject and claiming my posts have a common feel to them? (how can they have a common feel to them? do you often tell people they are wrong, for using the correct definition of a word, and then adamently stick to your statement, without using any evdence to back it up, ultimately resorting to dodging questions left right and centre, and calling people nazi's. If so, then i can see why responses to you have this 'feel' to them... its the ' why the hell am i trying to debate a moron' feel) An excellent and informative rebuttal Widnes. I suspect it'll upset some of the more excitable on here here.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:12 am  

wakey wakey!

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:18 am  

J O N N Y wrote:

my point was that racism exists everywhere, not just in Australia as the thread title suggests. and that was the basis of my initial reply.

i started by asking why you thought that casual racism was something that was exclusive to Australia. to balance this i offered an example of my own experience (emile heskey).

you then accused me of being part of the problem, which i took exception to.

you then accussed someone else of being a nazi because they challenged your conception of racism, whilst offering their own, which several people took exception to.

i then tried to bring the topic back to the beginning by arguing that the racism you had highlighted (timanu tahus reaction to andrew johns racially abusing greg inglis) happens in england.

this thread literally has gone nowhere, which is a shame as you are clearly very passionate about the subject. however your over zealousness to demonstarte your anti-racist stance has hindered the debate, or lack there of.

to be honest we probably share very similar viewws, but it is the way you choose to offer these views that im currently having a problem with.

I have spent plenty of time in Australia and with Australians. In my view the average working class white Australian is no more racist than the average white working class resident of the UK. However, I will concede that the media in this country are far more likely to be outraged by racist acts, and quite rightly too.

What I find quite staggering from certain posters on here is that they find racist abuse offensive but, feel quite comfortable to label someone else a Nazi without any justification whatsoever. Ignorant of human diversity they may not be but, the rest of their knowledge leaves a lot to be desired.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:21 am  

Looks like sgtwilko has been handed his ar5e to me.