|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 4, 2014 18:16:01 GMT
Everyone in their trenches again....wonder who will win? I'll be back next year to see how it ends Oops I forgot, they never end ![(lol)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/lvpvZ64EmrkLcuVniUmo.gif) Oh stop talking sense! You have to enjoy the ride sometimes too. Not just arriving at your destination (if you never get there)!
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 18:17:59 GMT
Still defending the rights of Fascists and bigots to deny immigrants and nay-sayers their human rights, I see.........no surprise there then. PS historical description, from Oxford Dictionaries, of Fascism for you.... "The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43); the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach" So yeah I'm really uncomfortable with my point of view its soooo unreasoned. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Just because your particular brand of totalitarian extremism is percieved to be on the left it does not make it any better. There was precious little difference living under Hitlers or Stalins boot. Your attitude towards those who you disagree with mark you out as being no different to those you purport to oppose. Ps........ as I remember you proved your credentials on the Di Canio thread. Denying someone employment because of their legal political beliefs is something IMO that most people in this country would disagree with. It smacks of extremism. Yeah keep justifying yourself..........read the definition above it explains itself to all but the most feeble minded. Fascists and all totalitarian mindsets have a philosophy that intrinsically denies those with other philosophies the right to their opinions and they routinely use violence and torture ( not words to achieve this end, as history proves ). This is a very dangerous philosophy indeed and needs to be opposed, that is unless you absolutely agree with it, which I certainly don't ....how about you? So yeah, DiCanio has a right to be Fascist, I just wouldn't want him anywhere near Stoke City FC because of them.....but you know that already.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 18:20:49 GMT
yes of course they have rights but the thing is that those philosophies deny everyone else their rights....so change Totalitarianism for Fascism and you have my point bang on....the specific reference to fascism was intended for The Count..... Hence my point about being within the law. I'm still failing to see what the Count has done wrong here? He seems to be defending freedom of speech not fascism? Justifying the poor treatment of immigrants in this Country after the war is one thing....you can read my response above if you like, there is a history to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 18:27:03 GMT
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Just because your particular brand of totalitarian extremism is percieved to be on the left it does not make it any better. There was precious little difference living under Hitlers or Stalins boot. Your attitude towards those who you disagree with mark you out as being no different to those you purport to oppose. Ps........ as I remember you proved your credentials on the Di Canio thread. Denying someone employment because of their legal political beliefs is something IMO that most people in this country would disagree with. It smacks of extremism. Yeah keep justifying yourself..........read the definition above it explains itself to all but the most feeble minded. Fascists and all totalitarian mindsets have a philosophy that intrinsically denies those with other philosophies the right to their opinions and they routinely use violence and torture ( not words to achieve this end, as history proves ). This is a very dangerous philosophy indeed and needs to be opposed, that is unless you absolutely agree with it, which I certainly don't ....how about you? So yeah, DiCanio has a right to be Fascist, I just wouldn't want him anywhere near Stoke City FC because of them.....but you know that already. I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 18:45:59 GMT
Yeah keep justifying yourself..........read the definition above it explains itself to all but the most feeble minded. Fascists and all totalitarian mindsets have a philosophy that intrinsically denies those with other philosophies the right to their opinions and they routinely use violence and torture ( not words to achieve this end, as history proves ). This is a very dangerous philosophy indeed and needs to be opposed, that is unless you absolutely agree with it, which I certainly don't ....how about you? So yeah, DiCanio has a right to be Fascist, I just wouldn't want him anywhere near Stoke City FC because of them.....but you know that already. I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Work isn't a basic human right now that is a misunderstanding of what human rights are. If one wants a job an interview process must be passed in order to get the job for which one one is applying. If the prospective employer doesn't give you the job because you are an arsehole is that denying this individual a "basic human right" ? Of course it isn't. Stopping someone applying for a job based upon political opinions or ethnicity ( as Fascists are want to do ), now that would be such a denial of rights. PS I find it interesting that you will not answer a simple question, but hey there you go.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jun 4, 2014 18:57:54 GMT
Yeah keep justifying yourself..........read the definition above it explains itself to all but the most feeble minded. Fascists and all totalitarian mindsets have a philosophy that intrinsically denies those with other philosophies the right to their opinions and they routinely use violence and torture ( not words to achieve this end, as history proves ). This is a very dangerous philosophy indeed and needs to be opposed, that is unless you absolutely agree with it, which I certainly don't ....how about you? So yeah, DiCanio has a right to be Fascist, I just wouldn't want him anywhere near Stoke City FC because of them.....but you know that already. I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Let's put this argument a little differently: The day comes when our beloved manager decides to move on, and the best manager for the job in terms of ability, has previously suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 14, as he finds 16 year old girls a little old for him. He's not said or done anything illegal, and has merely used his right for free speech to raise an issue he believes in. iglugluk goes on record as saying that he does not want that guy to be the next manager of our club. Would you still call iglugluk a hypocrite? Would you swim against the tide of overwhelming opinion to suggest that we should not deny him is basic rights because of his belief?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jun 4, 2014 19:07:39 GMT
I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Let's put this argument a little differently: The day comes when our beloved manager decides to move on, and the best manager for the job in terms of ability, has previously suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 14, as he finds 16 year old girls a little old for him. He's not said or done anything illegal, and has merely used his right for free speech to raise an issue he believes in. iglugluk goes on record as saying that he does not want that guy to be the next manager of our club. Would you still call iglugluk a hypocrite? Would you swim against the tide of overwhelming opinion to suggest that we should not deny him is basic rights because of his belief? So should we persecute anyone who has a view we don't agree with? Has the fictional person broken the law?
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 19:12:03 GMT
I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Let's put this argument a little differently: The day comes when our beloved manager decides to move on, and the best manager for the job in terms of ability, has previously suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 14, as he finds 16 year old girls a little old for him. He's not said or done anything illegal, and has merely used his right for free speech to raise an issue he believes in. iglugluk goes on record as saying that he does not want that guy to be the next manager of our club. Would you still call iglugluk a hypocrite? Would you swim against the tide of overwhelming opinion to suggest that we should not deny him is basic rights because of his belief? No. Almost everybody would be repulsed by his beliefs irrespective of their political leaning. Politics is the key here for me as this is a basic democratic right. Lowering the age of consent to suit yourself is not IMO.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jun 4, 2014 19:18:07 GMT
Let's put this argument a little differently: The day comes when our beloved manager decides to move on, and the best manager for the job in terms of ability, has previously suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 14, as he finds 16 year old girls a little old for him. He's not said or done anything illegal, and has merely used his right for free speech to raise an issue he believes in. iglugluk goes on record as saying that he does not want that guy to be the next manager of our club. Would you still call iglugluk a hypocrite? Would you swim against the tide of overwhelming opinion to suggest that we should not deny him is basic rights because of his belief? So should we persecute anyone who has a view we don't agree with? Has the fictional person broken the law? No laws have been broken, and I'm not advocating persecution. I simply feel that iglugluk is not being hypocritical, and by shifting the argument to something that most people will agree on, it shows that we all apply different standards to different subjects. The Count's point is absolute, therefore if his point is valid, then it is no less valid in my "shifted point".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 19:37:54 GMT
I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Let's put this argument a little differently: The day comes when our beloved manager decides to move on, and the best manager for the job in terms of ability, has previously suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 14, as he finds 16 year old girls a little old for him. He's not said or done anything illegal, and has merely used his right for free speech to raise an issue he believes in. iglugluk goes on record as saying that he does not want that guy to be the next manager of our club. Would you still call iglugluk a hypocrite? Would you swim against the tide of overwhelming opinion to suggest that we should not deny him is basic rights because of his belief? ![](http://cdn.gifbay.com/2012/12/oh_family_guy_youre_so_funny_sometimes-19363.gif)
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Jun 4, 2014 19:41:21 GMT
Let's put this argument a little differently: The day comes when our beloved manager decides to move on, and the best manager for the job in terms of ability, has previously suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 14, as he finds 16 year old girls a little old for him. He's not said or done anything illegal, and has merely used his right for free speech to raise an issue he believes in. iglugluk goes on record as saying that he does not want that guy to be the next manager of our club. Would you still call iglugluk a hypocrite? Would you swim against the tide of overwhelming opinion to suggest that we should not deny him is basic rights because of his belief? ![](http://cdn.gifbay.com/2012/12/oh_family_guy_youre_so_funny_sometimes-19363.gif) Well in that case, I'll take it all back.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 19:58:22 GMT
countofmontecristolugluk" source="/post/4319374/thread" timestamp="1401907559"] I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Work isn't a basic human right now that is a misunderstanding of what human rights are. If one wants a job an interview process must be passed in order to get the job for which one one is applying. If the prospective employer doesn't give you the job because you are an arsehole is that denying this individual a "basic human right" ? Of course it isn't. Stopping someone applying for a job based upon political opinions or ethnicity ( as Fascists are want to do ), now that would be such a denial of rights. PS I find it interesting that you will not answer a simple question, but hey there you go. [/quote] What question?
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 4, 2014 20:16:09 GMT
countofmontecristolugluk" source="/post/4319374/thread" timestamp="1401907559"] I don't need to justify myself Iggy. It was YOU who advocated denying a man his basic rights because of his beliefs. And as I added above - if you can't see the hypocrisy of your position theres no helping you. Work isn't a basic human right now that is a misunderstanding of what human rights are. If one wants a job an interview process must be passed in order to get the job for which one one is applying. If the prospective employer doesn't give you the job because you are an arsehole is that denying this individual a "basic human right" ? Of course it isn't. Stopping someone applying for a job based upon political opinions or ethnicity ( as Fascists are want to do ), now that would be such a denial of rights. PS I find it interesting that you will not answer a simple question, but hey there you go. What question? [/quote] look for the ?
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Jun 4, 2014 21:41:35 GMT
countofmontecristolugluk" source="/post/4319374/thread" timestamp="1401907559"]Work isn't a basic human right now that is a misunderstanding of what human rights are. If one wants a job an interview process must be passed in order to get the job for which one one is applying. If the prospective employer doesn't give you the job because you are an arsehole is that denying this individual a "basic human right" ? Of course it isn't. Stopping someone applying for a job based upon political opinions or ethnicity ( as Fascists are want to do ), now that would be such a denial of rights. PS I find it interesting that you will not answer a simple question, but hey there you go. What question? look for the ? [/quote] You answered the question yourself - and I didn't mean human rights (as in the act) rather just basic rights to be able to hold a political view without fear of persecution - my fault for the confusion. I personally wouldn't have wanted Di Canio at Stoke precisely because he's a bit of an arsehole. You on the other hand advocated that someone else shouldn't give him a job because you didn't agree with his legal political views. You then spout about tolerance. I'm sure theres a name for that sort of thing........ .......that's my last word - I'm sure we'll find ourselves here again in the future.....but I'll try not to!
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 5, 2014 12:33:51 GMT
You answered the question yourself - and I didn't mean human rights (as in the act) rather just basic rights to be able to hold a political view without fear of persecution - my fault for the confusion. I personally wouldn't have wanted Di Canio at Stoke precisely because he's a bit of an arsehole. You on the other hand advocated that someone else shouldn't give him a job because you didn't agree with his legal political views. You then spout about tolerance. I'm sure theres a name for that sort of thing........ .......that's my last word - I'm sure we'll find ourselves here again in the future.....but I'll try not to![/quote] Almost right, but subtly wrong too, I was actually advocating that someone who publicly states an allegiance to a particular (evil) philosophy ( look at the Oxford definition above for other notable fascists and tell me if you like the list of names mentioned? ) therefore invites others into the debate that they themselves have initiated. Once the information is in the public arena my powers of discernment tell me that they are not a good thing for either Stoke City or an open and free society ( again look to the underlying principles of a fascists philosophy ). Reaching a decision doesn't equal being prejudiced it implies using one's mind to reach a reasoned conclusion. Also do not be confused I'm not Peter Coates so it wasn't within my gift to deny this individual employment anyway. I did have an opinion though and I am glad he wasn't in the running for both the reasons of his professionalism and his widely reported inflammatory political views. ......so there you go that is now my last word too.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 5, 2014 12:51:31 GMT
the problem with immigration is there has been no integration - and the integration should come from all sides just playing devils advocate but why should it? no one should be told how they must live their lives as long as they are law abiding surely!?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 5, 2014 14:40:24 GMT
the problem with immigration is there has been no integration - and the integration should come from all sides just playing devils advocate but why should it? no one should be told how they must live their lives as long as they are law abiding surely!? im talking integration from the start - we brought (by their own free will) thousands of asian and caribeaan immigrants to a new country, different culture etc and just let everyone get on with it with nothing in place to make it work properly. is it any wonder 60 years on we are where we are. that has had a knock on effect of everything that has happened since
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 5, 2014 21:30:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 21:44:54 GMT
I bet those old soldiers never thought they'd see the day when signs like this were erected by such shit . A country which in many cases they gave their lives for. An absolute insult .
|
|