Eric Bristow

SexyGreyFox said:
I haven't argued that, I'm arguing the age me and Bristow were through that period.
In 1965 we would be 7/8 and wouldn't even know what a gay man was.
By the time we were young teenagers we were being 'brainwashed' into thinking that type of thing was OK.
Like I said, the problem in the 70s was still with the older generation and not ours but of course you'll always get the exception and Bristow was probably one.
Click to expand...

How on earth did you land on "brainwashed" in that sentence?

Taught
Learned
Told
Educated
Informed
Brought up to believe
Found out that
Didn't see the harm in
Had our eyes opened to
Discovered

and loads more are much less antagonistic and more like what you claim to have wanted to say than the utterly blatant negative connotations attached to "brainwashed".
 
Dj_Jestar said:
The first part isn't, the latter I couldn't comment on.

All (human, at least) fetuseseseses are female until about week 6.
Click to expand...

Not really, genetically they will still be male/female whatever they will eventuality become. That Y chromosome is their from the start.

A more accurate description would be a non sexual, as there wouldn't be any uniquely female organs. They aren't any more female than they are male.
 
EddScott said:
Reported as a "Hate Crime"?

Is it really?

Or just someone with an old fashioned view of how things should be handled?
Click to expand...

The definition of "hate crime" requires neither hate nor a crime. The phrase is a deliberate deception.

He used a word which someone has claimed is offensive to a legally privileged group identity. That's what "hate crime" actually means - someone being offended and claiming their offence is that of a legally privileged group identity either by claiming to be that group identity or speaking on behalf of it.

So, for example, attacking a random man because of a hatred of men is not a hate crime (despite being a crime motivated solely by hatred of a group) because men aren't a legally privileged group but using the word "poof" is a hate crime if someone says it is because homosexual men are a legally privileged group.

But hey, I can do it because I'm a poof. A double standard on top of a double standard. Par for the course since illiberal bigots have succeeded in corrupting and destroying liberalism and equality.
 
diamount said:
The only one having trouble grasping such a simple concept is yourself. The entire basis of being homosexual is having a willing and equally consensual partner, (just like being heterosexual). Children do not have the mental or legal capacity to form complex relationships like that, so how can they be willing partners?


Any more opposition from you with that terminology will get ignored, I cannot be bothered with your mental gymnastics. Poof is also a derogatory term by any sense of the word, if he actually wanted to use the correct one that would be 'nonce'
Click to expand...

While I agree that the term poof is being used in a derogatory and homophobic way I think you're also doing some mental gymnastics there.

Homosexual and Hetrosexual are just terms to say someone is attracted to the same or opposite sex. Nowhere in those definitions are there anything to do with consensual and willing.

It's not like a male that rapes a female is not heterosexual for example. Being a rapist or Paedophile does not negate a sexual preference for one (or both sexes). They are mutually exclusive terms.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
The first part isn't, the latter I couldn't comment on.

All (human, at least) fetuseseseses are female until about week 6.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. This isn't something that can be disputed, since human development has been studied in some detail. It's just propaganda from people who want to promote the idea that female is the default so female people are the true people and male people are just female people gone wrong.

In reality, humans start off as neuter. A single cell obviously can't have a sex. After several weeks, the foetus (which is still neuter) has developed to a roughly humanoid shape and has developed a structure that contains the basis of both types of primary sexual organ (Wolffian ducts and Mullerian ducts, if you want to look for more details). So it's now neuter with the potential to become either sex (or a mixture of both, but that's very rare in humans). As development progresses, one type of duct develops and the other atrophies, so either ovaries or testes are formed (or possibly both, in very rare cases) and the foetus becomes sexed with further development (usually but not always to match the primary sexual organ type).

So neuter, neuter with potential for either sex, sexed. Never female then either female or male. Not ever, let alone always. Humans just don't work that way. There is no in utero sex change.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
The first part isn't, the latter I couldn't comment on.

All (human, at least) fetuseseseses are female until about week 6.
Click to expand...

The latter makes sense. completely homosexual and completely heterosexual are just two extremes of the same chart. The majority of people are somewhere between them. I guess the question would be is where do you define "bisexual"? It is the 10% in the middle, or the middle 80% for example.

The same could probably be said for age attraction as well. The two extremes would be Paedophilia and Gerontophilia, with the majority of people sitting in the middle (Ephebophilia to ~50s - the fertile range of women) although there are probably a fair few spanning the entire range.

The distribution is probably much harder to work out though.
 
Amp34 said:
The latter makes sense. completely homosexual and completely heterosexual are just two extremes of the same chart. The majority of people are somewhere between them. I guess the question would be is where do you define "bisexual"? It is the 10% in the middle, or the middle 80% for example. [..]
Click to expand...

It's a good example of how forcing a spectrum into discrete groups is at best an inaccurate simplification and often completely wrong.

Sexual orientation is treated like the political system in this country - 2 and a bit groups with bisexuals being something of an afterthought, like the Liberal Democrats. I've been told no end of times that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that people who think they're bisexual are actually homosexual and pretending they're not or either homosexual or heterosexual but can't make up their minds which. I think that's a rather odd point of view, but it's a very common one because of the very strong pressure to squish everything into simple discrete groups and preferably only 2 of them.
 
Bristow is 59 not 89 and regardless of what he was brought up to believe he should move on with the rest of the world. He works in the media, he doesn't live in a cave sheltered from what is and isn't acceptable to say.

All he had to go when he went on tv was say that he got drunk and tweeted what he did and didn't know what he was thinking, then offer a full unreserved grovelling apology. People might not believe him but at least he would have addressed it. Instead he just confirmed what everyone actually thought of him.

Whatever the wrongs of what he said initially the way he handled it was stunningly inept for a man who works in the media.
 
So we are told to tolerate everyone... accept people who have views we don't like to hear...

Yes he was stupid for saying what he did but that's freedom of speech for you and right on!, you also have the freedom to ignore him and what he is saying.
 
J.T said:
So we are told to tolerate everyone... accept people who have views we don't like to hear...

Yes he was stupid for saying what he did but that's freedom of speech for you and right on!, you also have the freedom to ignore him and what he is saying.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say what you want, to who you want, on what platform you want and regardless of who your audience without consequence.

He is free to say these things, the government wont censor him but they come with consequences and it seems a drop in popularity and whatever sky decide is an appropriate outcome.

God so many use free speech term like it means people have to listen or agree with anyone who has something to say...
 
Avenged7Fold said:
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say what you want, to who you want, on what platform you want and regardless of who your audience without consequence.

He is free to say these things, the government wont censor him but they come with consequences and it seems a drop in popularity and whatever sky decide is an appropriate outcome.

God so many use free speech term like it means people have to listen or agree with anyone who has something to say...
Click to expand...

Yeah thanks for not actually reading what I posted and instead jumping to the conclusion I was offering Freedom of speech as a cop out!

I said you have the freedom to ignore him.

The right of freedom of speech does not mean you have the right be heard, it also doesn't mean you should be persecuted for what you say.

Or again is it only certain peoples views who should be heard?

And just for the record I also said he was stupid and by that I also mean I do not agree with what he said, but I don't suppose that matters does it...
 
Amp34 said:
The latter makes sense. completely homosexual and completely heterosexual are just two extremes of the same chart. The majority of people are somewhere between them. I guess the question would be is where do you define "bisexual"? It is the 10% in the middle, or the middle 80% for example.
Click to expand...

It might make sense within the context of your specious reasoning, but it's simply not true.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Well I apologize if that is not your mindset but casually dropping statements like 'girly boys' & 'brainwashed into thinking that type of thing was OK' when commenting about peoples sexuality is going to make people wonder what your true opinion actually is.

As for Eric Bristow, the blokes an idiot and I'm glad he got sacked! One less stupid bigot on TV is fine in my books :-)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that and I can see how you saw it but perhaps it's my bad grammar and explaining how I grew up.
And yes Bristow got everything he deserves.
 
itchy said:
But his generation and his parents taught him to hate blacks, gays, none Christians and the strange.
Click to expand...

Again I have to address the 'his generation' comment, it's nothing to do with generation, it was where he was bought up and who with.
I'm the same age as him and even though I was born in Nigeria we came straight to an area where the new Stoke Sixth Form College is now and that area is around 95% brown (I HAVE TO SAY BROWN BECAUSE MY WORKMATE GETS VERY ANNOYED BEING CALLED BLACK).
One side of us lived the Siddiqi's and their son was my mate, the other side were Satnam & Suqqdev Singh and I saw Suqq about 5 years ago. Along the street was my very best friend for years, his name was Garth Crooks, Google him if you don't know him.
Fair enough go 1 mile up the road to another area and they had never seen a black/brown face but please don't use the 'generation' excuse.

Dj_Jestar said:
How on earth did you land on "brainwashed" in that sentence?
Click to expand...

Agree, I'm not very good with words but my intentions were right.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Thanks for that and I can see how you saw it but perhaps it's my bad grammar and explaining how I grew up.
And yes Bristow got everything he deserves.
Click to expand...

I dont have to be told to like anyone. If im not keen on raging woofwoofs then I think that is my right.

Not explicity stating that you like a group of people is not a "phobia" its just called personal preference.

Gay people are free to do as they wish, good luck to them, I hold nothing against them, but they will not be friends of mine.

I also do not agree gay people should adopt, I think it warps the minds of young children and I think its wrong, again this does not make me a "Phobic", just a regular person with an opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom