Acid Attacks / Stabbings / Drugs

  • Thread starter Deleted member 18243
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have discussed, or at least I have posted my explanation of what is considered acceptable abuse, and what is or should be considered unacceptable.

In essence my explanation was:
Abuse used as a tactic to belittle, undermine or prove an argument is pointless and counter-productive.
Abuse used as a public rebuke could be considered acceptable (justified even), if the offence or behaviour warranted it.

Abuse from you and notch, (and others) falls into the first category.
Abuse from BAS arguably falls into the second category, that of public rebuke because the offence or behaviour warrants it.
As I said, your yardstick is wonky.
Let me explain it in easier terms:

You accept abuse aimed at other people but not any to yourself. Simples (y)
 
Sponsored Links
There was that Atilla the Hun bloke he caused a bit of chaos in his day

Any Way that Mao bloke sorted out China's drug problem he executed all the addicts
He executed all drug dealers.
Today China still executes drug dealers because it is aware of its own history and how it's civilisation was destroyed by Western countries who forced China to allow the importation of massive amounts of opium.
The same Western countries who today accuse China of human rights abuses just because the Chinese want to eradicate the scum who would destroy their society.
 
Black is black and white is white and always will be.
Your attempt to misdefine the laws of race won't work.
Please explain the scientific basis for the "laws of race", and how skin colour relates to them.
 
Please explain the scientific basis for the "laws of race", and how skin colour relates to them.

Can you explain why Woman of colour is considered acceptable, yet Couloured woman is not ok
No one has yet come up with a descent answer
 
Sponsored Links
Can you explain why Woman of colour is considered acceptable, yet Couloured woman is not ok
No one has yet come up with a descent answer
It has been explained. If you choose to not read it, disregard it, or dismiss it, that is your choice.
But to claim a reason has not been presented is disingenuous.
'People of colour' unites people. It unites all the 'non-white' people. It is not considered offensive. Martin Luther King referred to 'citizens of colour'.
'Coloured' referred to the black people of mainly the southern states of USA, and came to be understood as derogatory.
Coloured in South Africa did indeed refer to the non-white, non-black people.​

If you did read it, and chose to dismiss it, then please present your counter-arguments, or support your claim that it is not a decent answer.
Maybe the discussion will experience a descent into a typical circular round of arguments.
 
It has been explained. If you choose to not read it, disregard it, or dismiss it, that is your choice.
But to claim a reason has not been presented is disingenuous.
'People of colour' unites people. It unites all the 'non-white' people. It is not considered offensive. Martin Luther King referred to 'citizens of colour'.
'Coloured' referred to the black people of mainly the southern states of USA, and came to be understood as derogatory.
Coloured in South Africa did indeed refer to the non-white, non-black people.​

If did read it, and chose to dismiss it, then please present your counter-arguments, or support your claim that it is not a decent answer.
Maybe the discussion will experience a descent into a typical circular round of arguments.


So I'm pink and I'm excluded.
Yet Black is not a colour, and is included in that description

What about Chinese are they allowed to consider them selfs of colour
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I'm pink and I'm excluded.
You're not a 'person of colour'. That is correct. But it is not correct that you are excluded from anything else.
Yet Black is not a colour, and is included in that description
Black people are included in the phrase 'people of colour', as are other ethnicities, irrespective of their actual colour.

What about Chinese are they aloud to consider them selfs of colour
Yes, Chinese are allowed in the description of 'people of colour'. It includes all non-white people.

Why is it so important? It's just skin colour.
You don't (I assume) place so much importance on the colour of peoples' hair, eyes, etc.

If you want to be included, I'm sure no-one would mind. Just declare yourself a person of colour.
 
Yes, Chinese are allowed in the description of 'people of colour'. It includes all non-white people.

Some Japanese are very pale skinned are they not allowed.

If you want to be included, I'm sure no-one would mind. Just declare yourself a person of colour.

I am pink so I should be able to. Because pink is a colour and black is not a colour
 
Perhaps that is why Abbott is upset. Perhaps she does not like 'people of colour' either

and, of course, she is not really black, as I am not really white, but that is the result of rendering the language virtually meaningless.



Out of interest, does anyone regard Meghan as black?
 
I think the discussion has descended into silliness and absurdities.

No doubt notch will claim that I have no answer, have lost the plot or some other silly suggestion.
The floor is all his............
 
Can you explain why Woman of colour is considered acceptable, yet Couloured woman is not ok
No one has yet come up with a descent answer
Person of colour is an American term, it means any Woman that is non white.

However that just lumps all different types of people together. Quite often a Black person will prefer to be described as a Black person.
 
I think the discussion has descended into silliness and absurdities.

No doubt notch will claim that I have no answer, have lost the plot or some other silly suggestion.
The floor is all his............

It is silly. As is Diane Abbot silly.

As are the idiots who keep moving the goal posts. But that's society
 
Person of colour is an American term, it means any Woman[person] that is non white.
I suppose I'll be in trouble with the mods now.

However that just lumps all different types of people together. Quite often a Black person will prefer to be described as a Black person.
As most people would probably prefer to described as English, British, European, or whatever description is most suitable.
If some people insist on differentiating people by their colour, then it has become a sad discussion.
But when it is required to refer to people of a different ethnicity, one should expect people to know and understand the correct terminology, especially such high profile people as the previous Home Secretary, now the Welfare and Pensions Secretary.

MOD: There is no rule excluding tedious pedantry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As are the idiots who keep moving the goal posts. But that's society
Goal posts is an inaccurate term to describe socially constructed concepts.
Society varies, it changes, it evolves, so do the socially constructed concepts. Innit though. Wicked!
 
If some people insist on differentiating people by their colour, then it has become a sad discussion.


Now Jason I agree. Hence why the black Police association is wrong and any other club that excludes people because of their colour.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top