Chances of UKIP winning General Election?

[elmarko]

Absolutely. You should be able to criticise anyone for any choice they make. Sex, sexuality, and race are not choices.

Indeed.

I'd even be inclined to take it one step further, just criticise actions for the harm they cause or socially damaging behaviours. If people simply followed the above homophobia, racism & sexism all break down.

Homosexuality is not even a moral issue, as for it to classify as one there would need to a reason to consider them more harm inducing than heterosexual ones - it's a misallocation from the get go.

 

[mmj_uk]

I know a number of men in their late 30's to 50's who use food banks because their £70 odd a week dole doesn't cover food, power, clothing and bus fare, I've done the maths their giro just doesn't cover the basics let alone luxuries, I would go so far as to say anyone living longish term on the dole has to be a criminal to have plasma TV's nice clothes or food 7 days a week.

Yep, but because of the thoroughly evil Iain Duncain Smith, the DWP and the compliant media they have created an image that everyone on benefits is living it large, the ignorant masses lap it up and then go along with the practically genocidal policies... and yet this very same government is making the private sector richer than ever by selling off public assets for peanuts, funneling money into them via contracting out work they should be doing and giving corporations tax reductions etc.

The largest DWP expenditure is pensions but this government seems ideologically hell bent on punishing the disabled and unemployed, ie. the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.

 

[AtreuS]

Absolutely. You should be able to criticise anyone for any choice they make. Sex, sexuality, and race are not choices.

I agree but that raises a problem. If sexuality is not a choice then that means that we should not criminalize someone for having certain sexual desires? what about paedophiles and other so called "deviants".... or are you saying sexuality is not a choice UNLESS it offends society?

 

[Orionaut]

I agree but that raises a problem. If sexuality is not a choice then that means that we should not criminalize someone for having certain sexual desires? what about paedophiles and other so called "deviants".... or are you saying sexuality is not a choice UNLESS it offends society?

You more or less beat me too it.

Logically, regardless of how one considerers these different conditions, one HAS to treat them all the same!

However, Being a Paedophile is not actually unlawful. And being a Homosexual never was! What WAS unlawful was "Acts of Gross indecency" and what IS unlawful is Sexual activity with under-age children and possession/creation and distribution of certain materials!

 

[spudbynight]

Absolutely. You should be able to criticise anyone for any choice they make. Sex, sexuality, and race are not choices.

It shouldn't need to be spelled out for people but clearly it does.

Criticising a religion - OK
Criticising someone purely because they are a member of a religion - not OK.

If someone starts making derogatory comments about people because of their religion then they are prejudiced and they are inciting hatred.

Some examples :

Muslims are terrorists - inciting hatred.
Christians are slavers - inciting hatred.
Atheists are paedophiles - inciting hatred.

Anyone who makes these sort of comments is breaking "Wheaton's Law"

 

[elmarko]

You more or less beat me too it.

Logically, regardless of how one considerers these different conditions, one HAS to treat them all the same!

However, Being a Paedophile is not actually unlawful. And being a Homosexual never was! What WAS unlawful was "Acts of Gross indecency" and what IS unlawful is Sexual activity with under-age children and possession/creation and distribution of certain materials!

It's what I touched on earlier, by opposing behaviours & actions it accounts for this.

Not that it's a huge problem, most people don't opposite paedophilia on the grounds it's a choice, they do so because of the suffering it causes.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

You more or less beat me too it.

Logically, regardless of how one considerers these different conditions, one HAS to treat them all the same!

However, Being a Paedophile is not actually unlawful. And being a Homosexual never was! What WAS unlawful was "Acts of Gross indecency" and what IS unlawful is Sexual activity with under-age children and possession/creation and distribution of certain materials!

Actually, yes. I've thought about this at length, and as mark says, you can't criticise someone for being a paedophile until (if) they act on their desires. I think there are a hell of a lot of hidden paedophiles who go through their whole lives never acting on it, and good on them.

It shouldn't need to be spelled out for people but clearly it does.

Criticising a religion - OK
Criticising someone purely because they are a member of a religion - not OK.

If someone starts making derogatory comments about people because of their religion then they are prejudiced and they are inciting hatred.

Some examples :

Muslims are terrorists - inciting hatred.
Christians are slavers - inciting hatred.
Atheists are paedophiles - inciting hatred.

Anyone who makes these sort of comments is breaking "Wheaton's Law"

I appreciate what you're saying, but it's kind of the equivalent of saying you hate a policeman because he's in the police. Well, actually, you might hate him because he's going to arrest you if you're breaking the law, but it's the potential for what they might do, and the consideration that if you are part of a certain group then you MAY act in a certain way as a consequence.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I suggest you read up on what it was like in a faith schools in the UK years ago.

How far back do you suggest I research? The term "faith school" is a comparatively modern one and relates to a school which has specific links to religion or is characterised by a particular religious approach. Church schools on the other hand have existed for much longer. My understanding was, however, that both church and faith schools tended to teach their religious beliefs to the children but there's a good chance my understanding is incomplete in this area.

Perhaps you could direct me to a link or resource which describes what it is you mean?

Sorry but what part of "Just don't teach religion job done. Let the person chose when they are older" don't you understand?

A school they should teach all sides of religion. The right, the wrong and the truth.

I'm afraid that those two sentences are simply contradictory so if you'd be so kind as to clarify your position then it would be easier to understand what point you are trying to make.

 

[zyzzyzus]

If it wasn't for church schools the primary school I would have had to go to would have been pretty bad. It was the best state school in the area and the rest were pretty rough.

I may live amongst hillbillies now but I grew up in teh 'hood. (too many American shows)

Seriously though, parts of where I lived in London were pretty rough but where I lived it wasn't too bad until the last few years before I got out.

But going back to church schools, my experience was of a better than average state education for the area. I only wish I had gone to a secondary one too.

This comes from an atheist btw so all teh brainwashing was for nothing!

If only all schools could provide equal education but that just isn't how it is. I can't say if all church schools are better or it is just because the truly 'rough' kids don't go to them normally.

Edit:
I don't really know the difference between church and faith schools. At the school I went to we had to sing hymns every day and had to learn a lot about the Bible.

 

[spudbynight]

I appreciate what you're saying, but it's kind of the equivalent of saying you hate a policeman because he's in the police. Well, actually, you might hate him because he's going to arrest you if you're breaking the law, but it's the potential for what they might do, and the consideration that if you are part of a certain group then you MAY act in a certain way as a consequence.

In England and Wales the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 makes it a criminal offence to incite hatred against someone based on their religion.

 

[krooton]

If it wasn't for church schools the primary school I would have had to go to would have been pretty bad. It was the best state school in the area and the rest were pretty rough.

I may live amongst hillbillies now but I grew up in teh 'hood. (too many American shows)

Seriously though, parts of where I lived in London were pretty rough but where I lived it wasn't too bad until the last few years before I got out.

But going back to church schools, my experience was of a better than average state education for the area. I only wish I had gone to a secondary one too.

This comes from an atheist btw so all teh brainwashing was for nothing!

If only all schools could provide equal education but that just isn't how it is. I can't say if all church schools are better or it is just because the truly 'rough' kids don't go to them normally.

Edit:
I don't really know the difference between church and faith schools. At the school I went to we had to sing hymns every day and had to learn a lot about the Bible.

I went to a private Christian secondary school, even though I had been agnostic since about the age of 10. They were ok with me being agnostic, and only there on academic grounds, but I still had to go to mass, bleh.

 

[deuse]

Trying to compromise that's all.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Trying to compromise that's all.

More power to you

I would concentrate on letting the kids discuss what is good about religion (being nice to each other, charity, etc.) and what is bad (misuse by power-seekers, used to achieve other agendas, etc.) and why these bad things can happen (written word is open to interpretation, originally religions wanted to increase the number of followers, etc.).

 

[bitslice]

You should be able to criticise anyone for any choice they make.

Criticising someone purely because they are a member of a religion - not OK.

People choose to follow a religion, I don't see why that absolves them from criticism for that choice, surely they are responsible for the sins of that religion?

Like Scientology is a cult but some idiot countries have classed it as a religion, yet members promoting a cult which does verificable harm to its followers and ex-followers must surely warrant criticism?

I would concentrate on letting the kids discuss what is good about religion (being nice to each other, charity, etc.)

People don't become, say Christians because they feel like being nice to each other, they believe in a God and what that God said.
Describing a religion in those terms isn't teaching the concept of religion, you could be talking about the WI

 

[spudbynight]

People choose to follow a religion, I don't see why that absolves them from criticism for that choice, surely they are responsible for the sins of that religion?

It really doesn't matter what you see - inciting hatred against people because of their religion is a criminal offence. As I mentioned earlier it is also a clear breach of "Wheaton's Law"

 

[bitslice]

Yep I get that you've found something on the internet and you want to tell everyone about it,
this doesn't answer the point raised though.

 

[estebanrey]

I agree but that raises a problem. If sexuality is not a choice then that means that we should not criminalize someone for having certain sexual desires? what about paedophiles and other so called "deviants".... or are you saying sexuality is not a choice UNLESS it offends society?

I don't agree with your premise. Peadophilia isn't a 'sexuality' so it does not then follow we should regard all sexual desires the same as an orientation.

Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex but like heterosexuals they are attracted to the person, not just the fact they have the same bits as them.

Paedophiles (and I'm talking about the clinical definition not the Daily Mail use of anyone who sex with someone under 16) are attracted to the fact the person is a child first, they are not attracted to the person itself.

Gay men aren't turned on by all men, only those they fancy. Peadeophiles on the other hand are attracted to all children.

 

[deuse]

How far back do you suggest I research? The term "faith school" is a comparatively modern one and relates to a school which has specific links to religion or is characterised by a particular religious approach. Church schools on the other hand have existed for much longer. My understanding was, however, that both church and faith schools tended to teach their religious beliefs to the children but there's a good chance my understanding is incomplete in this area.

In the 50-80s we called them faith schools. And the catholic priest used bellow out about how we
was going to hell if we sinned ect. And the nuns wasn't as nice as you think.

I'm afraid that those two sentences are simply contradictory so if you'd be so kind as to clarify your position then it would be easier to understand what point you are trying to make.

I posted after

Trying to compromise that's all.

 

[FoxEye]

I don't agree with your premise. Peadophilia isn't a 'sexuality' so it does not then follow we should regard all sexual desires the same as an orientation.

Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex but like heterosexuals they are attracted to the person, not just the fact they have the same bits as them.

Paedophiles (and I'm talking about the clinical definition not the Daily Mail use of anyone who sex with someone under 16) are attracted to the fact the person is a child first, they are not attracted to the person itself.

Gay men aren't turned on by all men, only those they fancy. Peadeophiles on the other hand are attracted to all children.

Pretty much all of this is completely wrong. I don't know where to start.

 

[Gilly]

Deuse, you were around in the 50s?