C
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
- Status
R
RedHerring2
Please, do explain how understanding the semantics of words means that those words can be used to describe oneself.
I understand what it means to be multi-lingual, and I wish I was, but sadly, knowing what it means does not make me multi-lingual.
If, what you suggest is true, we would all be very clever fellows indeed, as well as rogues, criminals, immigrants, indigenous, and loads of other contradictory descriptions.
J
joinerjohn
What get's me though is the guarded way newspapers have to report certain things. For example, someone is mugged in some London suburb, the newspaper isn't prohibited from mentioning race or colour, but often leave these out of the report (probably for fear of being called racist). I can remember some years ago, a deputy chief constable of the Metropolitan Police mentioned in a speech that something like 75% of muggings in London were committed by black youths. Next day in the papers he was lambasted for mentioning the word black and accused of racist stereotyping. Simply for reporting facts 
Seems we have become slightly reticent to mention anything to do with race, colour, religion, sexuality etc.
Surely we should be able to report things and mention colour/creed/religion etc without fear of being cast as racists/ religious bigots.
Seems we have become slightly reticent to mention anything to do with race, colour, religion, sexuality etc.
Surely we should be able to report things and mention colour/creed/religion etc without fear of being cast as racists/ religious bigots.
Please, do explain how understanding the semantics of words means that those words can be used to describe oneself.
I understand what it means to be multi-lingual, and I wish I was, but sadly, knowing what it means does not make me multi-lingual.
If, what you suggest is true, we would all be very clever fellows indeed, as well as rogues, criminals, immigrants, indigenous, and loads of other contradictory descriptions.
I was merely pointing out an 'on topic' exception to the flaw you picked out in Merlins post.
Simple as that.
R
RedHerring2
I totally agree, jj, we should be able to report and discuss issues, however sensitive they may be, in a calm and sensitive way.
But there's a world of difference between discussing sensitive issues and attempting to spread what Okoronkwo terms "moral panic"
http://www.internetjournalofcrimino... of Black Youth Crime and Media Reporting.pdf
An equivalent misdeed is using issues or incidents to attempt to spread racial or religous intolerance.
To approximately quote Joe, when the posters resort to abuse and name calling they've lost the plot.
But there's a world of difference between discussing sensitive issues and attempting to spread what Okoronkwo terms "moral panic"
http://www.internetjournalofcrimino... of Black Youth Crime and Media Reporting.pdf
An equivalent misdeed is using issues or incidents to attempt to spread racial or religous intolerance.
To approximately quote Joe, when the posters resort to abuse and name calling they've lost the plot.
C
cantaloup63
It's an interesting paradox. It's the intent that is the key issue and yet ignorance is no defence. Maybe this is the logical conclusion that merlin was referring to 
R
RedHerring2
Sorry canta ooha, I don't see it as an interesting paradox.
If you post something that incites racial intolerance it's unacceptable. A claim to have done so light heartedly is invalid, IMO. There was no such claim, as far as I am aware. There were, however, others who joined in the 'banter'. Thereby contributing to the 'incitement'.
I don't agree with Merlin either, the understanding of a word's meaning does not imply that one automatically fits the description.
However, if I'm wrong, please do call me a hero, a master-builder, a plumber, ('cos that's the next role I'll be fulfilling), etc.
If you post something that incites racial intolerance it's unacceptable. A claim to have done so light heartedly is invalid, IMO. There was no such claim, as far as I am aware. There were, however, others who joined in the 'banter'. Thereby contributing to the 'incitement'.
I don't agree with Merlin either, the understanding of a word's meaning does not imply that one automatically fits the description.
However, if I'm wrong, please do call me a hero, a master-builder, a plumber, ('cos that's the next role I'll be fulfilling), etc.
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,655
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
I think that would depend on what you were 'thinking' of. If you're a pedo then yes, I'd agree with Jimmy.Mind you, wasn;t it Jimmy Carter who once said that thinking about sinning is itself a sin. Or something like that
Anyway, he had Geordie relatives so he's a good'un in my book. Anyone want to argue with that I'm more than willing to meet up for a chat about it. Ohhhh! Sinner that I am!
C
cantaloup63
Regardless of anyone else's opinion, if your intention is to incite hatred then indeed that breaks laws. The alternative I refer to isn't a defence of a "humorous" statement, but more the problem of not even knowing (through genuine ignorance) that what one has posted may have the same effect.
It relates to another question once asked during a philosophy lecture I once attended - "is something a problem only when someone decides that it is a problem?"
Do you per chance read the Guardian?
So just because YOU deem something to be incitement does that justify you have that post removed, I don't agree with what a lot is said, but it's all mostly opinion.
Would you like a step ladder to help you down off your high horse?
So just because YOU deem something to be incitement does that justify you have that post removed, I don't agree with what a lot is said, but it's all mostly opinion.
Would you like a step ladder to help you down off your high horse?
C
cantaloup63
To whom are you talking?Do you per chance read the Guardian?
So just because YOU deem something to be incitement does that justify you have that post removed, I don't agree with what a lot is said, but it's all mostly opinion.
Would you like a step ladder to help you down off your high horse?
Where was this incitement occurring? I like a good read!
Redfish
R
RedHerring2
I can accept your argument, canta ooha, to a certain extent. Rather like the example that jj quoted, of the Met police stating certain facts, but as could be seen by others as spreading moral panic. In the example this afternoon, it could hardly have been ignorance, but if it was, I think that person's keyboard should be confiscated ''cos they don't appear to be able to distinguish between right and wrong.
Your suggestion that something is only a problem when someone decides it is, is valid, but not in the instance that occurred this afternoon, IMO, it was bordering on the illegal.
To Handy man, I hope that that it was not just my opinion and that mods read posts before deleting them.
Moreover, it's possible that the offending poster has been expelled 'cos I haven't seen anything from him/her since.
Another, possibly important point, the poster had only been here for about six days.
Your suggestion that something is only a problem when someone decides it is, is valid, but not in the instance that occurred this afternoon, IMO, it was bordering on the illegal.
To Handy man, I hope that that it was not just my opinion and that mods read posts before deleting them.
Moreover, it's possible that the offending poster has been expelled 'cos I haven't seen anything from him/her since.
Another, possibly important point, the poster had only been here for about six days.
C
cantaloup63
Ah. Now I might have missed the thread in question so am writing without the benefit of context 
- Status
