Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:44 am  

Era of the Biff wrote:

Looks like sgtwilko has been handed his ar5e to me.

Looks more like he explained the procedures from his workplace, a place that he was willing to name so that we were in no doubt that he did not just make it up, and then some foot-stomping and scweeming started.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:46 am  

Maybe its just me and how I have been brought up but why on earth do people judge someone by their skin colour?!

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:05 am  

Lawrie L wrote:

Maybe its just me and how I have been brought up but why on earth do people judge someone by their skin colour?!

and/or height and/or hair colour. It's just wrong.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:33 am  

McLaren_Field wrote:

Looks more like he explained the procedures from his workplace, a place that he was willing to name so that we were in no doubt that he did not just make it up, and then some foot-stomping and scweeming started.

that's all I did and we all can see the reactions it gets! the comment I through in last night only inflamed things and was daft and naughty. But what some can't see is all I offered is how racism works in the real world. which is very different to a text book or EU guide lines.

Which brings back on topic. johns had to go. it's very high profile and hope it sends a message especially to the kids of oz. as MCfield mentioned it's with kids where fight can be won!

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:35 am  

Era of the Biff wrote:

Looks like sgtwilko has been handed his ar5e to me.

it wouldnt be the first time perp! But not this time. Some people just don't get it.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:05 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) defo should not have suggested you were a Nazi. it was a poor troll. but on the subject Im not wrong. twist it how you like. It's very simple. racism is about oppression. in modern society White people are not oppressed by their ethnicity. how can we possibly suffer racial oppression when the White majority are the power brokers. just because there is a black man in the White house doesn't mean equal opportunities for all ethinicities. chris rock tells a great joke which sums it up really well "I'm black, I'm rich, I'm famous but their ante a white man on earth who would trade places with me"

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) defo should not have suggested you were a Nazi. it was a poor troll. but on the subject Im not wrong. twist it how you like. It's very simple. racism is about oppression. in modern society White people are not oppressed by their ethnicity. how can we possibly suffer racial oppression when the White majority are the power brokers. just because there is a black man in the White house doesn't mean equal opportunities for all ethinicities. chris rock tells a great joke which sums it up really well "I'm black, I'm rich, I'm famous but their ante a white man on earth who would trade places with me"

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:09 am  

So, you don't see the incongruity of labeling someone a Nazi and suggesting that an entire nation is racist against your stance on racial prejudice?

I don't see it as "foot stomping", simply responding to idiocy when I come across it.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:16 am  

Ronzy wrote:

So, you don't see the incongruity of labeling someone a Nazi and suggesting that an entire nation is racist against your stance on racial prejudice?

I don't see it as "foot stomping", simply responding to idiocy when I come across it.

that comment was a pure late night poor dig which inflamed the topic! it was uncalled for. but the priciple of my posts stands strong. surley you agree with that.

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:32 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

that comment was a pure late night poor dig which inflamed the topic! it was uncalled for. but the priciple of my posts stands strong. surley you agree with that.

I am glad that you have acknowledged that the comment was ill judged. To me, the term Nazi is nearly as offensive as directly racist language. There are people I know who witnessed what the Nazis were capable of first hand, to use the term so readily lessens the sheer horror of what these people brought upon fellow humans.

I agree with your stance against racism, I agree that it is more probable that the majority always have the greater propencity to oppress but, I disagree entirely that is always the case. If you don't believe me, get some good history books and read more than the synopsis.

Oh, I also agree that Chris Rock is a comic genius!

Re: Aussies at it again! : Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:20 pm  

tvoc wrote:

and/or height and/or hair colour. It's just wrong.

and so unnecessary.....