They were all in the same boat

[Deleted member 63160]

Just remember, you don't have to be White or British, to be racist. Racism is a double edged sword. It's just a shame the authorities don't apply the law equally.

It's actually nothing to do with colour, race or nationality, it's to do with loss or perceived loss of advantage.
Thus indigenous people can be racist, but not migrants.

Well done. You've just exposed yourself for the prick you are. I was dumb enuff to take you of ignore and this is what you dish up. Pathetic. Night, night.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Thus indigenous people can be racist, but not migrants.

I see, so, which of these was racist?

The American Indians, the plantation owners or the slaves.

 

[longdogs]

Yes, you are a racist but not because you are a UKIP supporter.
You probably are a UKIP supporter because you are racist.
Cause and effect, not the other way round.

Fair enough if that's your opinion. you don't know me and you are hell-bent on spreading your anti-racism beliefs.

I think you are of mixed race and don't know where you stand but that's just my opinion. I don't know you.

He's not of mixed race. I know someone that actually knew him years ago. He's Asian.

 

[JBR]

Yes, you are a racist but not because you are a UKIP supporter.
You probably are a UKIP supporter because you are racist.
Cause and effect, not the other way round.

Fair enough if that's your opinion. you don't know me and you are hell-bent on spreading your anti-racism beliefs.

I think you are of mixed race and don't know where you stand but that's just my opinion. I don't know you.

He's not of mixed race. I know someone that actually knew him years ago. He's Asian.

I presume he was going under a different name then.

 

[RNReindeer]

Yes, you are a racist but not because you are a UKIP supporter.
You probably are a UKIP supporter because you are racist.
Cause and effect, not the other way round.

Fair enough if that's your opinion. you don't know me and you are hell-bent on spreading your anti-racism beliefs.

I think you are of mixed race and don't know where you stand but that's just my opinion. I don't know you.

He's not of mixed race. I know someone that actually knew him years ago. He's Asian.

I presume he was going under a different name then.

Aaah, blesss. The racists, such as Joe, Mitch, Squeaky, JBR, et al are either incapable of enunciating an intelligent reply or counter-argument so they resort, as usual, to silly insults, attempts to put words into my mouth, and guessing games.

I guess they don't do sensible debating at your schools.

BTW, the other 'isms also apply to the same criteria sometimes:
i.e. only men can be sexist in a patriarchal society. Females are described as fighting for equality and their attitudes given other 'names' such as feminists, womens' libbers, etc.
Only when, if females have the advantaged/privileged position can they be described as sexist if they behave as such.

Imagine a men only club/bar etc, it can be described as sexist, whereas the females fighting for entry cannot be described as sexist. By the same token the WI is not considered sexist because it doesn't totally exclude males.
Only if/when the females held the privileged position and the WI totally excluded males could it be described as sexist.
However, I believe the law does envisage situations where vacancy adverts, etc might unlawfully exclude males. So the law recognises equality between genders, even if that may not be the pragmatic situation.

 

[jockscott]

Just remember, you don't have to be White or British, to be racist. Racism is a double edged sword. It's just a shame the authorities don't apply the law equally.

It's actually nothing to do with colour, race or nationality, it's to do with loss or perceived loss of advantage.
Thus indigenous people can be racist, but not migrants, (until or unless the migrants have the advantaged/privileged position in society, e.g. USA and Australia) because the indigenous people perceive the loss of advantage so resort to racism. Therefore the disadvantaged can't be racist.
But that's a discussion for another time.

Utter bo**ocks.

 

[RNReindeer]

Just remember, you don't have to be White or British, to be racist. Racism is a double edged sword. It's just a shame the authorities don't apply the law equally.

It's actually nothing to do with colour, race or nationality, it's to do with loss or perceived loss of advantage.
Thus indigenous people can be racist, but not migrants, (until or unless the migrants have the advantaged/privileged position in society, e.g. USA and Australia) because the indigenous people perceive the loss of advantage so resort to racism. Therefore the disadvantaged can't be racist.
But that's a discussion for another time.

Utter bo**ocks.

Isn't it refreshing to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[longdogs]

Isn't it refreshing to have an intelligent discussion.

If only we could all have your intellect eh! It must be very lonely for you at the top with no one to share your super intelligence. Particularly as you are always right on every subject.

BTW, can you change a plug?

 

[noseall]

BTW, can you change a plug?

Butt plug?

 

[longdogs]

BTW, can you change a plug?

Butt plug?

Have you changed your user name again?

 

[jockscott]

Imagine a men only club/bar etc, it can be described as sexist, whereas the females fighting for entry cannot be described as sexist. By the same token the WI is not considered sexist because it doesn't totally exclude males.
Only if/when the females held the privileged position and the WI totally excluded males could it be described as sexist.

By your logic, Ann Summers must be sexist. (you just try booking a party.

 

[Brigadier]

Just remember, you don't have to be White or British, to be racist. Racism is a double edged sword. It's just a shame the authorities don't apply the law equally.

It's actually nothing to do with colour, race or nationality, it's to do with loss or perceived loss of advantage.
Thus indigenous people can be racist, but not migrants.

Well done. You've just exposed yourself for the p***k you are. I was dumb enuff to take you of ignore and this is what you dish up. Pathetic. Night, night.

He did the same thing a while ago (posted some utter tripe, spent page upon page defending it after he'd painted himself into a corner), then slunk off, to reinvent himself as Reindeer.
It was DC, in the Positive Action thread. And so it begins again.

 

[RNReindeer]

He did the same thing a while ago (posted some utter tripe, spent page upon page defending it after he'd painted himself into a corner), then slunk off, to reinvent himself as Reindeer.
It was DC, in the Positive Action thread. And so it begins again.

I don't voluntarily change my username.
If admin (Joe) disables your account, there's little choice.

And anyone who has experienced it will know that no reason is needed or given, no warnings are given. It just happens, I assume because some have fiends (Freudian slip ) in high places.

I'd be more than happy to discuss Positive Action, but it looks like it was well covered last time.

I'll post a screen capture, in a min', to prove that the account was disabled.
I'd like an explanation for it, if anyone can think of one.

Untitled

• RNReindeer
• 1 May 2015
• 1

As usual, you've joined the ranks of those that don't do intelligent debate and resort to petty responses.
Perhaps you can come up with anything that will support your hypothesis?
Or even address the topic of the thread, instead of attacking a contributor.

Aaah, blesss. The racists, such as Joe, Mitch, Squeaky, JBR, et al are either incapable of enunciating an intelligent reply or counter-argument so they resort, as usual, to silly insults, attempts to put words into my mouth, and guessing games.

I guess they don't do sensible debating at your schools.

 

[Brigadier]

He did the same thing a while ago (posted some utter tripe, spent page upon page defending it after he'd painted himself into a corner), then slunk off, to reinvent himself as Reindeer.
It was DC, in the Positive Action thread. And so it begins again.

I don't voluntarily change my username.
If admin (Joe) disables your account, there's little choice.

And anyone who has experienced it will know that no reason is needed or given, no warnings are given. It just happens, I assume because some have fiends (Freudian slip ) in high places.

I'd be more than happy to discuss Positive Action, but it looks like it was well covered last time.

I'll post a screen capture, in a min', to prove that my account was disabled.
I'd like an explanation for it, if anyone can think of one.

Untitled

• RNReindeer
• 1 May 2015
• 1

As usual, you've joined the ranks of those that don't do intelligent debate and resort to petty responses.
Perhaps you can come up with anything that will support your hypothesis?

Aaah, blesss. The racists, such as Joe, Mitch, Squeaky, JBR, et al are either incapable of enunciating an intelligent reply or counter-argument so they resort, as usual, to silly insults, attempts to put words into my mouth, and guessing games.

I guess they don't do sensible debating at your schools.

Intelligent debate takes intelligent input on both sides. What you posted was absolute dross. unless you retract that cobblers, any chance of intelligent debate on that vein ended right there.

 

[RNReindeer]

Intelligent debate takes intelligent input on both sides. What you posted was absolute dross. unless you retract that cobblers, any chance of intelligent debate on that vein ended right there.

That's your opinion of an intelligent response.