View Full Version : And you thought your country was racist....
doc_bean
02-01-2007, 18:07
Recently there were nation wide city elections, leading to the first black 'city counciller' (don't know the exact term or if there even is a similar function in the UK or US system) (BTW the fact that it took so long probably isn't too racist in itself, black people are a really small minority here), part of his job is to wed couples (state and church marriage are seperated).
Now several couples refuse to be married by a black man.
That is so ****** up :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:
So: anywhere were I can apply for citizenship so I don't have to share a country with these ****wits anymore ????
No. Here is Nova Scotia we have 1 black member of the provincial legislature. And he's filed a grevance with the speaker of the house for what he calls racist behavior of his fellow members. The liberal and Tory MLA's (his party is NDP) won't sit with him at lunch and call him "Boss" (which he took as a racist comment). :rolleyes:
BTW how extreme a minority are sub-saharan african in Belgium?
KukriKhan
02-01-2007, 18:24
BTW how extreme a minority are sub-saharan african in Belgium?
4.4% non-euro nationalities in Belgium in 1999, according to this article (http://www.answers.com/topic/crime-in-belgium) . A smaller number of sub-saharan africans, probably, even now.
doc_bean
02-01-2007, 18:31
BTW how extreme a minority are sub-saharan african in Belgium?
Hard to say since I'm from a white suburb of Antwerp, the city has a very large immigrant population and an African neighbourhood, and live (most of the time) in a university city which contains all kinds of nationalities. It's fairly rare to see a black person outside of the cities.
Kukri: I'm not sure you should trust the statistics, we have over a million 'illegal' immigrants here (with a 'legal' population of around ten million).
' ' added because there's a lot of gray area
Right which town in Belgium, I feel like going there and start shouting, @#%$ racists. Except the fact that he's your city counciller or simply @#%$ move to another town.
pity I can't talk like Gordon Ramsay on this forum, I sometimes like using @#%$ as an article
doc_bean
02-01-2007, 18:40
Sint Niklaas (http://www.vrtnieuws.net/nieuwsnet_master/versie2/nieuws/details/070201ZwarteSchepen/index.shtml)
To be fair, it's only about three couples so far, and only one 'officially' cancelled because of his colour.
Still, *******
Retro-active abortions anyone?
Retro-active abortions anyone?
some people should just have been blowjobs
KukriKhan
02-01-2007, 19:03
Let's be careful of the language, Lads (directed generally, not aimed at any particular poster).
Thank you. :bow:
rory_20_uk
02-01-2007, 19:03
Erm, aren't we getting worked up if the number is 3? Hardly droves is it? And why is colour more important than gender or age? I am sure there are other areas of bias with greater numbers. More than 3 patients have refused to let me treat them on the basis of my gender in the last 6 months.
~:smoking:
Fisherking
02-01-2007, 19:35
Erm, aren't we getting worked up if the number is 3? Hardly droves is it? And why is colour more important than gender or age? I am sure there are other areas of bias with greater numbers. More than 3 patients have refused to let me treat them on the basis of my gender in the last 6 months.
~:smoking:
Oh Gosh! (I hope that isn't to borderline)
I just have to ask…. Is there something peculiar about your gender?
:clown:
But to the point it is hard to believe your talking about a First World Western European country in the 21st Century doc.
doc_bean
02-01-2007, 19:47
More than 3 patients have refused to let me treat them on the basis of my gender in the last 6 months.
Racial bias in hospitals is pretty common around here, it's also mentioned in the article. Gender bias is something totally different when it comes to 'intimate' stuff, if it wasn't about that then you're patients shouldn't have complained.
It's not just the couples though, it's the entire reaction to it, there is no outrage at those people, pretty much just acceptance, like it's okay what they did.
This is just so stupid :shame:
I really don't get it.
:no:
How can people be that stupid? I'm so ashamed to be belgian right now.
cegorach
02-01-2007, 20:46
Hmm...
Suprisingly in Poland blackmen were elected to the parliament and in local elections, even if their number here is almost not recognisable (about 1000 I think...).
Generally people still tend to stare at black people, but not because they are racists, they haven't seen one 'alive' that is all.:book:
Vladimir
02-01-2007, 21:17
I think you should all dial down the European guilt. Be ashamed of those people, not your country.
Whatever. Get upset at someone else's opinion all you want, you hippie.
Hosakawa Tito
02-01-2007, 23:49
Considering he was elected by popular vote, and must have garnered a large percentage of non-minority ethnic votes, certainly shows that overt racism is in the minority. I doubt that racism will ever be totally eliminated. Having stupid opinions based on gender,ethinicity,skin color, appearance,religion,etc...is not illegal. The best way to combat them is through peer pressure.
This is just so stupid :shame:
I really don't get it.
:no:
How can people be that stupid? I'm so ashamed to be belgian right now.
I bet you they were worried about having a dark skinned man in the wedding photos
HA HA HA
seriously - there are very few un-racist places in the world, dont come down under we're currently going through a anti islamic ethnic cleansing
and this on the back of our anti-asian
anti-slavic
oh yeh and there was the white Australia policy - Belge ever had one of those
But then when I was in Kenya I had dudes yelling at me across the street calling me a white lieing B@@#$^&
the world is full of inanely stupid people - get used to it
GOD SAVE ME FROM THE UNWASHED MASSES
doc you could always come to the states -
Fisherking
02-02-2007, 08:20
I bet you they were worried about having a dark skinned man in the wedding photos
HA HA HA
seriously - there are very few un-racist places in the world, dont come down under we're currently going through a anti islamic ethnic cleansing
and this on the back of our anti-asian
anti-slavic
oh yeh and there was the white Australia policy - Belge ever had one of those
But then when I was in Kenya I had dudes yelling at me across the street calling me a white lieing B@@#$^&
the world is full of inanely stupid people - get used to it
GOD SAVE ME FROM THE UNWASHED MASSES
A very valid point. Some times I think each group (spare me from group think) has to have someone else to hate.
It doesn't matter much if it is skin colour or political views or religion, they will find someone or make someone fit the bill…
I was born a white American, so most of the world hates me. Thank goodness I don't feel the need to hate them back…I don't have that much time or energy.
I base my likes and dislikes on individuals and for some reason I find very few that I dislike immediately…I don't like sorting people into groups so much. It doesn't seem to tell me much.
Look at this group…Gamers….does anyone think we are all a cookie cutter image of each other…yet some people would class us that way.
Ja'chyra
02-02-2007, 09:15
So three couples cancelled their weddings with only one stating it was because he was black, so what?
It's hardly the first step to ethnic cleansing, and to be perfectly honest, if 2 people don't want to be married by a black man, who cares it's their choice, and as much as it might offend other peoples sensibilities as long as they are not campaigning for him to lose his post because he's black or protesting about black people in office then it is their personal choice and should be accepted.
Papewaio
02-02-2007, 09:28
Meh! The only thing 3 pair make is a 6 pack.
You would have to paint with a very broad brush to say what 6 does, all do... in fact you would have to suffer from the same problem racists have... sterotyping / applying the actions of a few to a much larger group / over generalisation.
So I would say you have a win here for the non-racists. Vastly more people voted for him to do his job then the amount that don't want him to do it.
Sounds like a whole lot of noise over nothing to me, makes for a good story of course.
Nothing?
My god, this is pure racism, if you read the article 2 couples atleast refused to get married by a black man.
So I would say you have a win here for the non-racists. Vastly more people voted for him to do his job then the amount that don't want him to do it.
True :2thumbsup:
Maybe I should feel pity with those racist couples. It is indeed sad that there is no cure against stupidity.
Nothing?
My god, this is pure racism
What can I say it exists
What can I say it exists
Yeah, and you can actually do something about it ... by arresting those people for racism for example. They say they won't want to be married by a black man, which is racism
I'm sure our Southern Neighbours have something like this:
(art 1, Grondwet)
"Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan"
(art 90, Wetboek van Strafrecht)
"Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolge kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijk leven, wordt te niet gedaan of aangetast."
(Algemene Wet Gelijke Behandeling)
ALGEMENE WET GELIJKE BEHANDELING
Wet van 2 maart 1994, houdende algemene regels ter bescherming tegen discriminatie op grond van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat
Wij Beatrix, bij de gratie Gods, Koningin der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, enz. enz. enz.
Allen, die deze zullen zien of horen lezen, saluut! doen te weten:
Alzo Wij in overweging genomen hebben, dat het wenselijk is om, mede in verband met artikel 1 van de Grondwet, ter bevordering van de deelneming op gelijke voet aan het maatschappelijk leven bescherming te bieden tegen discriminatie op grond van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat, dat het daarom wenselijk is behoudens wettelijke uitzonderingen onderscheid op deze gronden te verbieden en dat het in verband met de handhaving van dit verbod wenselijk is een Commissie gelijke behandeling in te stellen;
Zo is het, dat Wij, de Raad van State gehoord, en met gemeen overleg der Staten-Generaal, hebben goedgevonden en verstaan, gelijk Wij goedvinden en verstaan bij deze:
Hoofdstuk 1. Gelijke behandeling van personen ongeacht hun godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat
§ 1. Algemene bepalingen
Artikel 1
1. In deze wet en de daarop berustende bepalingen wordt verstaan onder:
a. onderscheid: direct en indirect onderscheid, alsmede de opdracht daartoe;
b. direct onderscheid: onderscheid tussen personen op grond van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat;
c. indirect onderscheid: onderscheid op grond van andere hoedanigheden of gedragingen dan die bedoeld in onderdeel b, dat direct onderscheid tot gevolg heeft.
2. Onder direct onderscheid op grond van geslacht wordt mede verstaan onderscheid op grond van zwangerschap, bevalling en moederschap.
Artikel 1a
1. Het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van onderscheid houdt mede in een verbod van intimidatie.
2. Onder intimidatie als bedoeld in het eerste lid wordt verstaan: gedrag dat met de hoedanigheden of gedragingen, bedoeld in artikel 1, eerste lid, onderdeel b, verband houdt en dat tot doel of gevolg heeft dat de waardigheid van de persoon wordt aangetast en dat een bedreigende, vijandige, beledigende, vernederende of kwetsende omgeving wordt gecreëerd.
3. Op het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van intimidatie zijn niet van toepassing de artikelen 2, 5, tweede tot en met zesde lid, 6a, tweede lid, en 7, tweede en derde lid.
§ 2. Algemene uitzonderingen
Artikel 2
1. Het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van onderscheid geldt niet ten aanzien van indirect onderscheid indien dat onderscheid objectief gerechtvaardigd wordt door een legitiem doel en de middelen voor het bereiken van dat doel passend en noodzakelijk zijn.
2. Het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van onderscheid op grond van geslacht geldt niet:
a. in gevallen waarin het geslacht bepalend is en
b. in gevallen waarin het de bescherming van de vrouw betreft, met name in verband met zwangerschap en moederschap.
3. Het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van onderscheid geldt niet, indien het onderscheid een specifieke maatregel betreft die tot doel heeft vrouwen of personen behorende tot een bepaalde etnische of culturele minderheidsgroep een bevoorrechte positie toe te kennen ten einde feitelijke nadelen verband houdende met de gronden ras of geslacht op te heffen of te verminderen en het onderscheid in een redelijke verhouding staat tot dat doel.
4. Het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van onderscheid op grond van ras geldt niet:
a. in gevallen waarin uiterlijke kenmerken die samenhangen met het ras van een persoon bepalend zijn, mits het doel legitiem en het vereiste evenredig aan dat doel is;
b. indien het onderscheid betrekking heeft op uiterlijke kenmerken die samenhangen met het ras van een persoon en vanwege de aard van de betrokken specifieke beroepsactiviteit of de context waarin deze wordt uitgeoefend, een wezenlijk en bepalend beroepsvereiste vormt, mits het doel legitiem is en het vereiste evenredig aan dat doel is.
5. Het in deze wet neergelegde verbod van onderscheid op grond van nationaliteit geldt niet:
a. indien het onderscheid is gebaseerd op algemeen verbindende voorschriften of geschreven of ongeschreven regels van internationaal recht en
b. in gevallen waarin de nationaliteit bepalend is.
6. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur worden de in het tweede, vierde en vijfde lid, onderdeel b, bedoelde gevallen nader omschreven.
Artikel 3
Deze wet is niet van toepassing op:
a. rechtsverhoudingen binnen kerkgenootschappen alsmede hun zelfstandige onderdelen en lichamen waarin zij zijn verenigd, alsmede binnen andere genootschappen op geestelijke grondslag;
b. het geestelijk ambt.
Artikel 4
Deze wet laat onverlet:
a. de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen;
b. de artikelen 646, 647, 667 en 670 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek.
§ 3. Bepalingen op het terrein van de arbeid en het vrije beroep
Artikel 5
1. Onderscheid is verboden bij:
a. de aanbieding van een betrekking en de behandeling bij de vervulling van een openstaande betrekking;
b arbeidsbemiddeling;
c. het aangaan en het beëindigen van een arbeidsverhouding;
d. het aanstellen tot ambtenaar en het beëindigen van het dienstverband van een ambtenaar;
e. arbeidsvoorwaarden;
f. het laten volgen van onderwijs, scholing en vorming tijdens of voorafgaand aan een arbeidsverhouding;
g. bevordering;
h. arbeidsomstandigheden.
2. Het eerste lid laat onverlet:
a. de vrijheid van een instelling op godsdienstige of levensbeschouwelijke grondslag om eisen te stellen, die gelet op het doel van de instelling, nodig zijn voor de vervulling van een functie, waarbij deze eisen niet mogen leiden tot onderscheid op grond van het enkele feit van politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat;
b. de vrijheid van een instelling op politieke grondslag om eisen te stellen, die gelet op het doel van de instelling, nodig zijn voor de vervulling van een functie, waarbij deze eisen niet mogen leiden tot onderscheid op grond van het enkele feit van ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat en
c. de vrijheid van een instelling van bijzonder onderwijs om eisen te stellen over de vervulling van een functie, die, gelet op het doel van de instelling, nodig zijn voor de verwezenlijking van haar grondslag, waarbij deze eisen niet mogen leiden tot onderscheid op grond van het enkele feit van politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat.
3. Het eerste lid is niet van toepassing op eisen, die, gelet op het privé-karakter van de werkverhouding in redelijkheid aan een werkverhouding kunnen worden gesteld.
4. Het eerste lid is niet van toepassing op eisen met betrekking tot de politieke gezindheid die in redelijkheid kunnen worden gesteld in verband met de vervulling van functies in bestuursorganen en adviesorganen.
5. Het eerste lid is niet van toepassing op eisen met betrekking tot de politieke gezindheid die in redelijkheid kunnen worden gesteld in verband met de vervulling van vertrouwensfuncties.
6. Het eerste lid, onderdeel e, is niet van toepassing op onderscheid op grond van burgerlijke staat met betrekking tot nabestaandenpensioen-voorzieningen en met betrekking tot aanspraken op pensioen die vóór de datum van inwerkingtreding van artikel I, onderdeel B, van de wet van 21 december 2000, houdende wijziging van de Pensioen- en spaarfondsenwet en enige andere wetten in verband met het recht van keuze voor ouderdomspensioen in plaats van nabestaandenpensioen en gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen (Stb. 625), zijn opgebouwd.
Artikel 6
Onderscheid is verboden met betrekking tot de voorwaarden voor en de toegang tot het vrije beroep en de mogelijkheden tot uitoefening van en ontplooiing binnen het vrije beroep.
Artikel 6a
1. Onderscheid is verboden bij het lidmaatschap van of de betrokkenheid bij een werkgevers- of werknemersorganisatie of een vereniging van beroepsgenoten, alsmede bij de voordelen die uit dat lidmaatschap of uit die betrokkenheid voortvloeien.
2. Het eerste lid laat onverlet:
a. de vrijheid van een op godsdienstige of levensbeschouwelijke grondslag gebaseerde organisatie of vereniging om eisen te stellen, die gelet op haar doel, nodig zijn voor de verwezenlijking van haar grondslag, waarbij deze eisen niet mogen leiden tot onderscheid op grond van het enkele feit van politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat en
b. de vrijheid van een op politieke grondslag gebaseerde organisatie of vereniging om eisen te stellen, die gelet op haar doel, nodig zijn voor de verwezenlijking van haar grondslag, waarbij deze eisen niet mogen leiden tot onderscheid op grond van het enkele feit van ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat.
§ 4. Overige bepalingen op sociaal-economisch terrein
Artikel 7
1. Onderscheid is verboden bij het aanbieden van of verlenen van toegang tot goederen of diensten en bij het sluiten, uitvoeren of beëindigen van overeenkomsten ter zake, alsmede bij het geven van loopbaanoriëntatie en advies of voorlichting over school- of beroepskeuze, indien dit geschiedt:
a. in de uitoefening van een beroep of bedrijf;
b. door de openbare dienst;
c. door instellingen die werkzaam zijn op het gebied van volkshuisvesting, welzijn, gezondheidszorg, cultuur of onderwijs of
d. door natuurlijke personen die niet handelen in de uitoefening van een beroep of bedrijf, voor zover het aanbod in het openbaar geschiedt.
2. Het eerste lid, onderdeel c, laat onverlet de vrijheid van een instelling van bijzonder onderwijs om bij de toelating en ten aanzien van de deelname aan het onderwijs eisen te stellen, die gelet op het doel van de instelling nodig zijn voor de verwezenlijking van haar grondslag, waarbij deze eisen niet mogen leiden tot onderscheid op grond van het enkele feit van politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, nationaliteit, hetero- of homoseksuele gerichtheid of burgerlijke staat. Onderscheid op grond van geslacht is alleen toegestaan, indien de eigen aard van de instelling dit eist en voor leerlingen van beide geslachten gelijkwaardige voorzieningen aanwezig zijn.
3. Het eerste lid, onderdelen a en d, is niet van toepassing op eisen die gelet op het privé-karakter van de omstandigheden waarop de rechtsverhouding ziet in redelijkheid kunnen worden gesteld.
Artikel 7a
1. Onverminderd artikel 7 is onderscheid op grond van ras verboden bij sociale bescherming, daaronder begrepen sociale zekerheid, en sociale voordelen.
2. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur kunnen de begrippen sociale bescherming, sociale zekerheid en sociale voordelen, bedoeld in het eerste lid, worden omschreven. De voordracht voor een krachtens de eerste volzin vast te stellen algemene maatregel van bestuur wordt niet eerder gedaan dan vier weken nadat het ontwerp aan beide kamers der Staten-Generaal is overgelegd.
§ 5. Bescherming en handhaving
Artikel 8
1. Beëindiging van de arbeidsverhouding door de werkgever in strijd met artikel 5, wegens de omstandigheid dat de werknemer in of buiten rechte een beroep heeft gedaan op artikel 5 of terzake bijstand heeft verleend, is vernietigbaar.
2. Onverminderd hoofdstuk 8 van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht, vervalt twee maanden na de beëindiging van de arbeidsverhouding de bevoegdheid van de werknemer een beroep te doen op de vernietigingsgrond, bedoeld in het eerste lid. Het beroep op de vernietigingsgrond geschiedt door kennisgeving aan de werkgever. Artikel 55 van Boek 3 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek is niet van toepassing.
3. Een rechtsvordering in verband met de vernietiging verjaart door verloop van zes maanden na de dag waarop de arbeidsverhouding is geëindigd.
4. De beëindiging, bedoeld in het eerste lid, maakt de werkgever niet schadeplichtig.
Artikel 8a
Het is verboden personen te benadelen wegens het feit dat zij in of buiten rechte een beroep hebben gedaan op deze wet of ter zake bijstand hebben verleend.
Artikel 9
Bedingen in strijd met deze wet zijn nietig.
Artikel 10
1. Indien degene die meent dat in zijn nadeel een onderscheid is of wordt gemaakt als bedoeld in deze wet, in rechte feiten aanvoert die dat onderscheid kunnen doen vermoeden, dient de wederpartij te bewijzen dat niet in strijd met deze wet is gehandeld.
2. Het eerste lid is van overeenkomstige toepassing op vorderingen als bedoeld in artikel 305a van Boek 3 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en op beroepen ingesteld in bestuursrechtelijke procedures door belanghebbenden in de zin van artikel 1:2, derde lid, van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht.
Hoofdstuk 2. De commissie gelijke behandeling
Artikel 11
1. Er is een Commissie gelijke behandeling, hierna te noemen: de Commissie.
2. De Commissie kan uit haar midden kamers vormen voor het vervullen van haar taak.
Artikel 12
1. De Commissie kan op schriftelijk verzoek onderzoeken of een onderscheid is of wordt gemaakt als bedoeld in deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen of artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek, en haar oordeel daaromtrent kenbaar maken. Voorts kan de Commissie uit eigen beweging onderzoeken of zodanig onderscheid stelselmatig wordt gemaakt en haar oordeel daarover kenbaar maken.
2. Een schriftelijk verzoek als bedoeld in het eerste lid, kan worden ingediend door:
a. degene die meent dat te zijnen nadele een onderscheid is of wordt gemaakt als bedoeld in deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen of artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek;
b. de natuurlijke persoon, de rechtspersoon of het bevoegd gezag, die wensen te weten of zij een onderscheid maken als bedoeld in deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen of artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek;
c. degene die belast is met de beslissing over een geschil met betrekking tot onderscheid als bedoeld in deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen of artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek;
d. een ondernemingsraad, die meent dat in de onderneming waarvoor deze is ingesteld, onderscheidenlijk een met die ondernemingsraad vergelijkbaar medezeggenschapsorgaan, dat meent dat in het organisatorisch samenwerkingsverband waarvoor het is ingesteld, onderscheid wordt gemaakt als bedoeld in deze wet, in artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek of in de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen;
e. een vereniging met volledige rechtsbevoegdheid of stichting, die in overeenstemming met haar statuten de belangen behartigt van diegenen in wier bescherming deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen of artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek beoogt te voorzien.
3. In het geval een schriftelijk verzoek als bedoeld in het tweede lid, onderdelen d en e, personen noemt ten nadele van wie zou zijn gehandeld, dan wel indien een onderzoek ingesteld uit eigen beweging, betrekking heeft op zodanige personen, stelt de Commissie deze personen op de hoogte van het voornemen tot onderzoek. De Commissie is niet bevoegd in het onderzoek en de beoordeling personen als bedoeld in de eerste volzin te betrekken die schriftelijk hebben verklaard daartegen bedenkingen te hebben.
Artikel 13
1. De Commissie stelt een onderzoek in en brengt haar oordeel schriftelijk en met redenen omkleed ter kennis van de verzoeker, van degene die het onderscheid zou maken, alsmede, in voorkomend geval, van degene, jegens wie het onderscheid zou worden gemaakt.
2. De Commissie kan bij het ter kennis brengen van haar oordeel aan degene die het onderscheid zou maken, aanbevelingen doen.
3. De Commissie kan haar oordeel ter kennis brengen van Onze Ministers wie het aangaat, van naar haar mening in aanmerking komende organisaties van werkgevers, van werknemers, uit het beroepsleven of van overheidspersoneel, van eindgebruikers van goederen of diensten en van betrokken overlegorganen.
Artikel 14
1. De Commissie stelt geen onderzoek in, indien:
a. het in artikel 12, tweede lid, bedoelde verzoek kennelijk ongegrond is;
b. het belang van de verzoeker of het gewicht van de gedraging kennelijk onvoldoende is;
c. sinds het in artikel 12 bedoelde onderscheid een zodanige termijn is verstreken dat in redelijkheid geen onderzoek meer kan plaatsvinden.
2. Indien zich gevallen als bedoeld in het eerste lid voordoen, doet de Commissie daarover aan verzoeker schriftelijk en met redenen omkleed mededeling.
Artikel 15
1. De Commissie kan in rechte vorderen dat een gedraging die in strijd is met deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen of artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek onrechtmatig wordt verklaard, dat deze wordt verboden of dat een bevel wordt gegeven om de gevolgen van die gedraging ongedaan te maken.
2. Een gedraging kan niet ten grondslag worden gelegd aan een vordering als bedoeld in het eerste lid, voor zover degene die door deze gedraging wordt getroffen, daartegen bedenkingen heeft.
Artikel 16
1. De Commissie bestaat uit negen leden, onder wie een voorzitter en twee ondervoorzitters. Voorts kunnen plaatsvervangende leden worden benoemd.
2. De voorzitter en de ondervoorzitters moeten voldoen aan de bij of krachtens artikel 1d van de Wet rechtspositie rechterlijke ambtenaren gestelde vereisten voor benoembaarheid tot rechterlijk ambtenaar.
3. De benoeming van de leden en de plaatsvervangende leden geschiedt door Onze Minister van Justitie, in overeenstemming met Onze Ministers van Binnenlandse Zaken, van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen en van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur.
4. De artikelen 46c, 46d, tweede lid, 46f, 46g, 46i, met uitzondering van het eerste lid, onderdeel c, 46j, 46l, eerste lid, met uitzondering van onderdeel c, en derde lid, 46m, 46n, 46o en 46p van de Wet rechtspositie rechterlijke ambtenaren zijn van overeenkomstige toepassing, met dien verstande dat:
a. de disciplinaire maatregel, bedoeld in artikel 46c, eerste lid, ten aanzien van de leden van de Commissie door de voorzitter van het College wordt opgelegd;
b. het in artikel 46c, eerste lid, onderdeel b, genoemde verbod zich in een onderhoud of een gesprek in te laten met partijen of haar advocaten, procureurs of gemachtigden of een bijzondere inlichting of schriftelijk stuk van hen aan te nemen niet op de leden van de Commissie van toepassing is.
5. De benoeming van de leden en van de plaatsvervangende leden geschiedt voor een tijdvak van ten hoogste zes jaar. Herbenoeming is terstond mogelijk. Op eigen verzoek worden zij door de Minister van Justitie ontslagen.
Artikel 17
1. Aan de Commissie staat ter ondersteuning van haar taak een bureau ten dienste.
2. Onze Minister van Justitie benoemt, bevordert, schorst en ontslaat, op voordracht van de Commissie, de personen die tot het bureau behoren. Onze Minister van Justitie bepaalt in welke gevallen zij worden benoemd, bevorderd, geschorst en ontslagen.
Artikel 18
1. De Commissie kan zich bij de uitoefening van haar taak doen bijstaan door daartoe door Onze Minister wie het aangaat aangewezen ambtenaren.
2. De Commissie kan zich bij de uitoefening van haar taak doen bijstaan door een of meer personen ten einde haar de inlichtingen te verschaffen die voor de vervulling van de taak van de Commissie nodig zijn.
Artikel 19
1. De Commissie en de in artikel 17 bedoelde personen die door de Commissie daartoe zijn aangewezen, kunnen alle inlichtingen en bescheiden vorderen die voor de vervulling van de taak van de Commissie redelijkerwijze nodig zijn.
2. Een ieder is verplicht, behoudens verschoning wegens ambts- of beroepsgeheim, de ingevolge het eerste lid gevorderde inlichtingen en bescheiden volledig en naar waarheid te verstrekken, een en ander op de wijze en binnen de termijn door of namens de Commissie vast te stellen. Deze verplichting geldt niet, indien een persoon daardoor of zichzelf of een van zijn bloed- of aanverwanten in de rechte lijn of in de zijlijn in de tweede of de derde graad of zijn echtgenoot of eerdere echtgenoot dan wel geregistreerde partner of eerdere geregistreerde partner aan het gevaar van een strafrechtelijke veroordeling ter zake van een misdrijf zou blootstellen.
Artikel 20
1. De Commissie brengt jaarlijks verslag uit van haar werkzaamheden en maakt dit verslag openbaar. Zij zendt dit verslag in ieder geval aan Onze Ministers wie het aangaat en aan de adviesorganen die het aangaat.
2. De Commissie stelt, te rekenen vanaf het tijdstip waarop deze wet in werking is getreden, telkens na verloop van vijf jaar een rapport op van haar bevindingen ten aanzien van de werking in de praktijk van deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen en artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek. Zij zendt dit rapport aan Onze Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken.
Artikel 21
1. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur worden nadere regels gesteld omtrent de werkwijze van de Commissie, waaronder in ieder geval regels betreffende:
a. de wijze van behandeling;
b. hoor en wederhoor;
c. de openbaarheid van zittingen;
d. de openbaarmaking van haar oordeel, bedoeld in artikel 13, derde lid.
2. De leden van de Commissie genieten een bezoldiging voor hun werkzaamheden. Over hun rechtspositie worden nadere regels gesteld bij algemene maatregel van bestuur. Deze regels hebben in ieder geval betrekking op aanstelling en loopbaanvorming, bezoldiging, toelagen, toeslagen, vergoedingen, rechten en plichten bij reorganisaties, disciplinaire straffen, schorsing en ontslag.
3. De plaatsvervangende leden genieten een zittingsgeld voor hun werkzaamheden, alsmede een vergoeding van reis- en verblijfkosten.
Hoofdstuk 3. Slotbepalingen
Artikel 22 [Vervallen per 01-09-1994]
Artikel 23 [Vervallen per 01-09-1994]
Artikel 24 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 25 [Vervallen per 01-04-1997]
Artikel 26 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 27 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 28 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 29 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 30 [Vervallen per 05-05-1995]
Artikel 31 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 32 [Vervallen per 01-01-2005]
Artikel 33
Onze Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken zendt in overeenstemming met Onze Ministers van Justitie, van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen en van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur zo spoedig mogelijk na de ontvangst van het in artikel 20, tweede lid, bedoelde rapport, aan de Staten-Generaal een verslag over de werking in de praktijk van deze wet, de Wet gelijke behandeling van mannen en vrouwen en artikel 646 van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek.
Artikel 34
Deze wet treedt in werking met ingang van de eerste dag van de zesde kalendermaand na de datum van uitgifte van het Staatsblad waarin zij wordt geplaatst. Bij koninklijk besluit kan een eerder tijdstip van inwerkingtreding worden vastgesteld.
Artikel 35
Deze wet wordt aangehaald als: Algemene wet gelijke behandeling.
Lasten en bevelen dat deze in het Staatsblad zal worden geplaatst en dat alle ministeries, autoriteiten, colleges en ambtenaren wie zulks aangaat, aan de nauwkeurige uitvoering de hand zullen houden.
Gegeven te 's-Gravenhage, 2 maart 1994
Beatrix
De Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken, E. van Thijn
De Minister van Justitie, E. M. H. Hirsch Ballin
De Staatssecretaris van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, J. Wallage
De Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, J. M. M. Ritzen
De Minister van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur, H. d’Ancona
Uitgegeven de eenendertigste maart 1994
De Minister van Justitie a.i.,
E. van Thijn
Yeah, and you can actually do something about it ... by arresting those people for racism for example. They say they won't want to be married by a black man, which is racism
And what is arresting them going to do, nothing. If they don't like blacks that's up to them. I don't believe it's even possible(if it is it shouldn't be), these laws are there for companies and other organisations as far as I know.
Well no, that man is being discriminating.
See it like this:
You're black and you want to take the train, but you're not allowed to sit with all the blank people
You're Jewish and you want to be a barber, but you're not allowed because you're Jewish
that's racism, as this is racism
In these cases their rights are being denied, just as these people's rights would be denied if they can't have the wedding the way they want it. Not the governments job to enforce the love.
Incongruous
02-02-2007, 10:24
Uhuh, three couples...
This is nothing but overeaction, and some people are calling for nothing but a witch hunt.
This is nothing but overeaction
I know m8, but 3 couples are 3 couples, while in this age there shouldn't need to be such racism.
just as these people's rights would be denied if they can't have the wedding the way they want it
There's a difference between rights being denied, for example being forced to wed in church and racism, YOU don't want to be wedded by a black man. Did that man ever do anything against you? You ofcourse can simply say that you don't want to be wedded anymore and don't give a reason, but these people are actually giving a reason
There's a difference between rights being denied, for example being forced to wed in church and racism, YOU don't want to be wedded by a black man. Did that man ever do anything against you? You ofcourse can simply say that you don't want to be wedded anymore and don't give a reason, but these people are actually giving a reason
Maybe the bubba's stole his lunchbox when he was a kid :laugh4:
Not saying that they are not racist, seems obvious enough that they are, but why care about all that? You want them to be arrested because of their preference, I'll take the existance of 3 racist couples over a government that can actualy do that quite happily.
You want them to be arrested because of their preference
Well not necessarily, I have a far better punishment:
Just don't allow them to be married at all, either the black man or nothing, their choice
and but them on a black list so they can't get married anywhere else ~D
Well not necessarily, I have a far better punishment:
Just don't allow them to be married at all, either the black man or nothing, their choice
and but them on a black list so they can't get married anywhere else ~D
Now that is just scary :dizzy2:
Ja'chyra
02-02-2007, 12:37
I find this:
Yeah, and you can actually do something about it ... by arresting those people for racism for example. They say they won't want to be married by a black man, which is racism
and this:
Well not necessarily, I have a far better punishment:
Just don't allow them to be married at all, either the black man or nothing, their choice
Every bit as disturbing as this:
At least three couples from the East Flemish city of Sint-Niklaas have refused to be married in the local Town Hall because the Alderman who would be in charge of the ceremony is black.
Shouldn't you be free to choose who carries out the ceremony at your own wedding? As far as I can see the only thing they are guilty of is smallmindedness, but you get idiots everywhere.
Shouldn't you be free to choose who carries out the ceremony at your own wedding?
Well no, if you marry you are married by the city councillor, as he is the only one allowed to do it (unless you marry in church) ... atleast that's how it works in Holland
doc_bean
02-02-2007, 13:10
Okay, it's not so much those couples who pissed me off, it's their opinion and there will always be racist idiots and they do appear to be a small minority here.
But the general acceptance of such behaviour is quite disturbing imo, the biggest (depending on your definition) party in Flanders has 'no comment' on the situation. At least say that it's racist and if they don't like it they should move somewhere where there wasn't a black guy doing the weddings, sheesh.
Kralizec
02-02-2007, 13:38
Shouldn't you be free to choose who carries out the ceremony at your own wedding? As far as I can see the only thing they are guilty of is smallmindedness, but you get idiots everywhere.
Yes, for a church/whatever ceremony should you want one. But marriage is also a civil contract, wich is what this is about.
Okay, it's not so much those couples who pissed me off, it's their opinion and there will always be racist idiots and they do appear to be a small minority here.
But the general acceptance of such behaviour is quite disturbing imo, the biggest (depending on your definition) party in Flanders has 'no comment' on the situation. At least say that it's racist and if they don't like it they should move somewhere where there wasn't a black guy doing the weddings, sheesh.
Here on this side of the border, Geert Wilders (I assumed you heard of him) was decent enough to denounce neo-nazis when it turned out many of them supported him, rather then "not comment" on it.
Here Geert, have a balloon :balloon2:
As for the couples, gah. Now they can either not marry, or they'll have to move elsewhere just to get a simple formality on paper. Serves them right.
How are the other parties and media responding to this?
Strike For The South
02-02-2007, 18:13
This is pretty minor. They couldve broken into his house and beaten him to death while he was asleep. You Europeans cant even be proper racists.
Vladimir
02-02-2007, 21:09
This is pretty minor. They couldve broken into his house and beaten him to death while he was asleep. You Europeans cant even be proper racists.
Oh really (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433030&in_page_id=1770)?
Attacks on Britain's Jews have risen to the highest level since records began.
A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.
The findings prompted the report's authors to warn of a "wave of hatred" against Jews.
The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year.
Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005.
Incidents ranged from the unprovoked stabbing of a Jewish man in north London to the sending of hate mail and the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues.
The Anti-Semitic Incidents Report 2006, compiled by the Community Security Trust (CST), responsible for combating anti-Semitism in the UK, blames the huge rise on a number of factors ranging from Israel's invasion of Lebanon last summer to the jailing of the historian David Irving in Austria for denying the Holocaust.
The threatened suspension of Ken Livingstone as Mayor for comments made to a Jewish Evening Standard reporter triggered 11 anti-Semitic incidents, according to the report.
When the figures were first compiled in 1984, there were just 154 reported incidents, about a quarter of the total for last year.
Mark Gardner, CST spokesman said of the level of hate crimes: "This is unacceptable racism, that many Jews had hoped and believed was a thing of the past.
"Today's anti-Semitism is a wave of hatred, intimidation and abuse against British Jews, who are stupidly blamed and randomly attacked over international tensions for which they bear no responsibility."
Incidents last year include:
•
An Orthodox Jew punched in the face and almost pushed off a Tube platform by an Arab man who screamed: "Get back to Stamford Hill, I want to kill you all"
•
A Jewish man walking to synagogue with his two young sons suffered a broken leg after being punched and kicked by a white man shouting "f***ing Jew"
•
Seventy incidents of desecration and damage to synagogues, cemeteries, Jewish schools and private homes with attacks including swastikas daubed on walls
•
Savage assault of a 12-year-old Jewish girl Jasmine Kranat, who was beaten unconscious on a north London bus by two teenage girls who asked her first if she was Jewish.
The physical descriptions of perpetrators in 205 of the incidents show 96 were by white people, 28 by black people, 60 by Asians and 16 by Arabs. The report has been passed to ministers.
I need a subscription to Daily Mail.
KukriKhan
02-02-2007, 21:18
Does Brit = European? Many Brits would disagree (and a few Europeans). Nevertheless, the original poster decried racism in his country, which isn't part of the UK.
Friends, Org-goers, brothers, sisters, and so on.
Racism, or any form of negative human discrimination, should be dealt with swiftly and effectively. If reeducating, changing people to think differently for the good, etc., isn't going to work (and it probably won't work), then the only solution left is a very extreme thought: an iron fist in some form.
Make such people pay dearly by law and make new laws even if necessary. Put them in jail or even under the ******* jail, or a general supervised place to make them feel pain. For instance the kind of pain they inflict on others so they'll understand faster. Logic, reasoning, and the likes, have no (positive) effect on these people, so an iron fist is the only thing left. In the really bad cases, I'd even go as far as saying to simply "get rid of them." The only language they understand is emotion, pain, etc., so that must be used to change their minds, to facilitate peaceful coexistence.
But notice that I'm discriminating against discriminators, even implying hard FORCE, so one might stupidly argue I should be "taken care of" too, heh heh :P
It's true that in Holland there're some laws against discrimination, but they aren't really worth jack. Police officers are hardly seen on the streets here, and nobody cares about those laws. I have the idea it's the same in many other countries as well (about the law thing).
Ah, whatever. We'll generally always remain a bunch of ignorant fools. I wouldn't necessarily be ashamed of being Dutch, Belgian, American, Asian, or whatever place you come from: I'd be ashamed of being human.[/rant]
You try that when these people are around:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Joerg_haider-juli2006.JPG/150px-Joerg_haider-juli2006.JPG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1960000/images/_1964443_dewinter150.jpg
http://www.vrijspreker.nl/vs/media/itemthumbnails/20060302-wilders.jpg
Every country has racists, so maybe it would help by simply stop funding their parties. The Dutch SGP isn't funded because they won't allow women in the party (well it's a bit different, but that's too difficult to explain in English, but it's the essence). How about stop funding racist parties, like Groep Wilders, because what they say is against the law. They say that there shouldn't come anymore muslims to Holland, well that's just plain descrimination and racism.
Argh!! My eyes! My eyes! Water to soothe my eyes, somebody! Those pictures, it's just-- arrggh! :dizzy:
I don't know about halting their fundings. There's always something to get in the way. Those laws and such are just there for show or something, like a formality of some sort.
What we need is an accepted multicultural leader. A leader who has the best of all the worlds. A person who is not only Dutch, but who also has many other origins and understandings about different cultures, places, politics, justice, etc. A good-hearted well-minded visionary.
I must ask you kindly, Stig, not to show any more pictures like that. Do you wish me dead? :smash:
I must ask you kindly, Stig, not to show any more pictures like that. Do you wish me dead? :smash:
Well in that case I think you should never visit Fragony, I bet he has them as wallpapers on his walls :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Incongruous
02-04-2007, 23:19
What you are infact condoning is a ban on freedom of thought. Now I don't give a damn what kind of thoughts these people have, it's their right to have such thoughts. Reeducate? Uhuh, thats completley absurd and rather scary.
or a general supervised place to make them feel pain. For instance the kind of pain they inflict on others so they'll understand faster
That's actually quite sick, I hope, I really do, that you are joking.
Thank god for modernity in mainland Europe!
I'd even go as far as saying to simply "get rid of them."
Yes, why not! there must be loads of concentration camp enthusiasts on the continenet! Just phone them up.:2thumbsup:
Or, just up-root them and chuck them out of their homes:2thumbsup:
I have to say, it's enlightened thinking:yes:
I know m8, but 3 couples are 3 couples, while in this age there shouldn't need to be such racism.
I know m8, but a witch hunt is a witch hunt...
I take it you are fans of totalitarianism?
What you are infact condoning is a ban on freedom of thought.
No no no
Yes there's a freedom of speech, however it is not allowed to discriminate in every possible matter.
in other words: you're allowed to think that all negro's should die because they're bad as they're negro's, but you aren't allowed to say so
@Bopa the Magyar
Well, rough people require rough handling. Freedom of thought? Give me a break, they don't have any freedom of thought and many people don't. They are led by their surrounding's influence, their past, others' pasts, peers, raising, commercials, propaganda, news, etc. They are programmed beings to react in typical ways, and that's just it.
You could say I'm just joking around a bit, and yeah, I am. But many jokes have some underlying thing to carefully consider.
I am a "pacifist" myself basically in the raw sense, though I think a certain kind of policy should be in place sometimes for certain situations, if we were to achieve peace, my goal, and I hope other people's goal as well. However, such action would only perform the opposite thereof to some extent, I admit, but still-- then it COULD be necessary, to achieve this goal, if it'd work. If the peaceful way of logic, reasoning, understanding, etc., doesn't work, and it doesn't, then what's left? To leave this piece-of-**** world the way it is, hm?
Racists, or general negative discriminators, do not further peace, but merely extend the opposite, freedom of speech or thought aside (it's actually still a matter whether they express it with their freedom of speech, but if the truth is that they are racist, then that's enough to know).
Anyway, Bopa, I speak to thee with great seriousness. Feelst ye not the need to further peace? Racists are against it, it's as simple as that. Therefore, I think they must be battled in some way.
So take my previous post with a grain of salt or do so even tongue-in-cheek, as you've done, but don't totally dismiss it either. Freedom of speech/thought, sure, but only positively I say. And racism isn't positive, or wouldst ye like to oppose this claim, saying it IS positive?
If you allow them being racist 'cause of "freedom of thought" (which is a stupid lie anyway, but that's for another subject), then you allow evil to exist. Think about it.
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 01:30
Uhuh...
These people are not evil, I have yet to read about them slaughtering non-whites yet. PM when they do of course.
What is so funny about freedom of speech? They are not condoning murder or violence.
You disagree with them, that's fine, but calling for something akin to a totalitarian, lefty-style witch hunt begs a rsponse such as mine.
You most certainly are not a pacifist, you condone confrontation to the utmost it seems in order to further you're own social and political agenda.
You see, you cannot only have Freedom of speech and thought in a posotive sense, it defeats the purpose.
You make a rather large and high-horsed asuumption in you're statement that most people have no real freedom of speech. This really isn't an issue requiring itellectual philosophy.
Again, you seem to wan't to infringe on freedom of thought and speech.
Which is far more abhorrent than this minor incident of racism.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 01:35
Racism, when you think about it, basically infringes on other peoples' basic rights - up to and including the very right to exist in the extreme forms.
And it's pretty much the raison d'étre of the modern Rechtstaat to keep its citizens from walking over each others' rights, isn't it ?
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 01:53
These couples have not harmed him, they simply did not wish to be married by him. Yeah, I guess they may have hurt his feeling. But hey, when people mocked in third form when I suffered from acne and refused to play with me, it hurt my feelings, but I did not call for them to be locked up, hurt or anything. I got on with it and simply found a group of people who would accept me. I expect that if, I as a twelve year old could handle it, that this man, whom is obviously an adult of the highest calibre, should be able to accept it and turn the other cheek. As should everyone else.
There are far more pressing matters in this world, and I'm sure the mayor would agree with me.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 02:19
I don't see where most of that relates to the topic anymore. Anyway, by declining to be wed by a black man holding the office of a mayor they're basically denying the legitimacy of his office on the basis of his skin colour - and by extension the right of black people to hold office, no ? That's pretty categorically rude if you ask me.
'Course, they have the right to decline and far as I can tell are not guilty of any overt racial insults, but that doesn't change the fact their attitude sucks rocks.
...not that Bijo's stance was exactly the most agreeable I've seen either mind you...
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 02:35
No what they did was make a choice based on a personal preference. Did they say that they wanted him out of office? Are they launching a crusade? No.
No matter what you may think of a persons personal opinion, it's their right to have it, it's a non-issue politically, indeed, it does not even need to be a social problem. Its six people, hardly a nation in arms. He was elected by a popular vote. Calling for these people to be dealt with by pain and then calling you'reself a passifist is quite ludicrous and extreme.
in other words: you're allowed to think that all negro's should die because they're bad as they're negro's, but you aren't allowed to say so
HAHAHAHA
Watchman
02-05-2007, 02:46
"Personal preference" which pretty obviously does not recognize a black mayor as "good enough" for the purpose of taking care of their wedding. Learn to read the implications.
Tribesman
02-05-2007, 02:59
I need a subscription to Daily Mail.
Now that story is wierd Vladimir , since two weeks ago the Israeli foriegn ministry together with the prime ministers office and the Jewish agency released its annual report on anti semitism .
And in that the number of incidents in Britain had gone down slightly ,from 321 to 312 .
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 03:01
What implications? That they are racist? Are they violent racists? It does not seem so. Infringing on their rights to personal choice for the sake of the respect that one beleives should be given to a govt. office is not right in any way.
We have to learn to be tolerent of the intolerent, in the end racism will most likley die out as more people are exsposed to each other. Hunting them down through the political system ( a witch hunt) is not how Europe should dignify itself with a big proud NON-RACIST banner. If it did, then I would pesonally be rather disgusted.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 03:07
What implications? That they are racist?This one you got right. The rest I do not recall voicing.
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 03:09
I do not undertand. They make it fairly clear they are racist, that does not really inply anything than they do not like black people and refuse to socialise with them beyon what is required to live.
It is a non issue, there is nothing that can be done politically about it without denying people their basic freedoms.
Since it is just six people, it is hardly a social issue either.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 03:18
Among the things it implies is that they regard the issue they have with the mayor's skin color as overriding the authority and function of his official position in their eyes. Which is pretty much the exact same as those religious diehards we have here who refuse to recognize female clergy.
Betcha they'd be far more cooperative with black cops though. Wonder why ?
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 03:26
They decided not to get married by a black man because THEY ARE RACIST. They are not crying for his resignation.
Deciding not to get married by a black man is completley legal, whereas refusing to be arrested by an officer with good cause because they are black is, and wuold be treated as resising arrest which carries a penalty, I am fine with that as, people are usually only arrested when they put the general public at risk.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 03:39
They are not crying for his resignation.Where does this become even remotely relevant ?
Incongruous
02-05-2007, 03:59
It is very relevent, they are being rather passive about their choice, they seem to be accepting his election to office.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 04:14
I'm pretty sure campaigning to get him out of office on the basis of his skin colour would net you a trip to the courts on charges of, I dunno, racial slurs and slander and whatever, under most legislations so that point is pretty moot. Even the parties that make up the present crop of heirs in spirit of the NSDAP don't try something that stupid, precisely for those reasons.
Well in that case I think you should never visit Fragony, I bet he has them as wallpapers on his walls :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
More into expressionist art, a few aquarels of industrial complexes. No, not these kind of industrial complexes. Anyway, you know I don't vote for the extreme right so shut it.
Ja'chyra
02-05-2007, 10:44
Where does this become even remotely relevant ?
Err, here
Anyway, by declining to be wed by a black man holding the office of a mayor they're basically denying the legitimacy of his office on the basis of his skin colour - and by extension the right of black people to hold office, no ?
I probably wouldn't want to be married by someone with Tourettes, just think of the video :laugh4: , does that mean I don't recognise the authority of the Registrar (*sp).
I think with this story we see the extremes of pc, they don't like black people, so what? Their choice, doesn't mean they should be re-eductaed, prosecuted, interred or have their gonads wired up to a car battery. WHile their opinion, in my view, is pretty stone age and really quite baffling, it is their opinion and when you come right down to it doesn't differ too much from some of the opinions expressed in this thread. They didn't harm the guy in any way, neither are they disputing his authority, so live and let live.
This is pretty minor. They couldve broken into his house and beaten him to death while he was asleep. You Europeans cant even be proper racists.
Lol, once again SFTS wins the post of the thread award.
Doc_bean, come in and make yourselve comfortable,
http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2007/02/belgen_willen_trouwen_bij_zwar.html
Outrage is a way too valuable resource to spend on the unimportant.
doc_bean
02-05-2007, 15:46
Doc_bean, come in and make yourselve comfortable,
http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2007/02/belgen_willen_trouwen_bij_zwar.html
Outrage is a way too valuable resource to spend on the unimportant.
It's less frustrating than wasting it on important matters.
Uhuh...
These people are not evil, I have yet to read about them slaughtering non-whites yet. PM when they do of course.
What is so funny about freedom of speech? They are not condoning murder or violence.
You disagree with them, that's fine, but calling for something akin to a totalitarian, lefty-style witch hunt begs a rsponse such as mine.
You most certainly are not a pacifist, you condone confrontation to the utmost it seems in order to further you're own social and political agenda.
You see, you cannot only have Freedom of speech and thought in a posotive sense, it defeats the purpose.
You make a rather large and high-horsed asuumption in you're statement that most people have no real freedom of speech. This really isn't an issue requiring itellectual philosophy.
Again, you seem to wan't to infringe on freedom of thought and speech.
Which is far more abhorrent than this minor incident of racism.
Well, I don't care so much about your kind of response herein :)
Anyway, I should've known not to go into discussion with you before: your emotional responses are-- emotional.
The "rather large assumption" you speak of was a general thing, and truthful even if you don't like it, and I've already stated it was another matter, so you including this within your post was futile already to begin with. But that don't matter to me.
How am I to "(want to) infringe on freedom of speech and/or thought", if they have no true freedom of speech or thought to start with? You dismiss this so-called "intellectual philosophy" or however one's to call it, even if it's very important.
They are lemmings, they are robots, mindless creatures who think they aren't mindless and think they're free. They are controlled by their egos, that have been severely influenced by their environments, and they act accordingly, racist or non-racist alike. Do you call this "free?" I don't, but whatever we call it, it's NOT FREEDOM.
Now, accept this unpalatable truth, and let us then include it (again) within the discussion. I don't deal with subjectivity if it's not necessary, only objectivity, facts, truth, logic. And if it's true that there's no true freedom, and this is true, then my method would not infringe on their freedom, for the obvious reason they don't have it. Simple logic.
One might call my approach totalitarian, but let's be frank here. What (possibly) works, (possibly) works, whatever label you give it.
Are you to tell me you don't mind racism? Are you okay therewith? Is humanity not be to united? Just because you are for-- "freedom" (:smash:), well... let's just say it's a silly reason to let these people go about their business if they're racist just because of so-called FREEDOM OF SPEECH/THOUGHT.
There is GOOD, and there is EVIL. And evil, heh: racism falls thereunder, and that's a simple fact (subjectivity aside). So as I've stated before: you are basically allowing evil to continue by allowing these racists to continue.
And again, as said before: if the peaceful way of logic, reasoning, etc. (the GOOD) has no effect on the BAD (racism, etc.), then we have two simple options left, and they are as follows. We either do nothing (your choice), or we do something (my choice).
PS: please do something about your spelling. It's that I'm so calm and mostly rational, otherwise I would've taken it as an insult if you didn't even take th'effort to spell right :laugh4: ...."posotive"
How am I to "(want to) infringe on freedom of speech and/or thought", if they have no true freedom of speech or thought to start with? You dismiss this so-called "intellectual philosophy" or however one's to call it, even if it's very important.
They are lemmings, they are robots, mindless creatures who think they aren't mindless and think they're free. They are controlled by their egos, that have been severely influenced by their environments, and they act accordingly, racist or non-racist alike. Do you call this "free?" I don't, but whatever we call it, it's NOT FREEDOM.
Now, accept this unpalatable truth, and let us then include it (again) within the discussion. I don't deal with subjectivity if it's not necessary, only objectivity, facts, truth, logic. And if it's true that there's no true freedom, and this is true, then my method would not infringe on their freedom, for the obvious reason they don't have it. Simple logic.
Alright, let me pick up the slack and drop the "freedom" jargon. No, you wouldn't be violating their freedoms under that logic, but. Edited BG.
One might call my approach totalitarian, but let's be frank here. What (possibly) works, (possibly) works, whatever label you give it.
I'm going to assume that "works" in this case is a proverb for "mental and moral correction". Correct?
Are you to tell me you don't mind racism? Are you okay therewith? Is humanity not be to united? Just because you are for-- "freedom" (:smash:), well... let's just say it's a silly reason to let these people go about their business if they're racist just because of so-called FREEDOM OF SPEECH/THOUGHT.
Even though that's not what he's saying, why is that a silly reason? Why bother to go out of one's way to crush something that doesn't actually bother him?
There is GOOD, and there is EVIL. And evil, heh: racism falls thereunder, and that's a simple fact (subjectivity aside). So as I've stated before: you are basically allowing evil to continue by allowing these racists to continue.
And again, as said before: if the peaceful way of logic, reasoning, etc. (the GOOD) has no effect on the BAD (racism, etc.), then we have two simple options left, and they are as follows. We either do nothing (your choice), or we do something (my choice).
The crux of the issue: that your position is one of moralism - your morals supercede those of others, even in this case where they don't actually pertain to you at all (unless you're the black mayor in question...are you?). Returning, now, to your bit about how freedom doesn't really exist, how can you be so sure that your environment was and is so superior to theirs, referring to its ability to produce such obviously enlightened individuals? I'm going to assume that you can't, so I'm going to continue along, but feel free to rebuke me later.
Anyway, if racism is obviously evil, how can it be that these people go about their day practicing it (even assuming that they do)? Are they inherently evil, even in part? Is it because of their environment that made them evil? If so, should their environment be molded to your design so that no more evil people are ever produced? Isn't totalitarianism evil?
Banquo's Ghost
02-05-2007, 21:11
Gentlemen, there may be a serious divergence of opinion in this thread, but that is no excuse to get personal. Please confine your remarks to the arguments, not the person making them.
:bow:
scooter_the_shooter
02-05-2007, 21:25
Racial bias in hospitals is pretty common around here, it's also mentioned in the article. Gender bias is something totally different when it comes to 'intimate' stuff, if it wasn't about that then you're patients shouldn't have complained.
It's not just the couples though, it's the entire reaction to it, there is no outrage at those people, pretty much just acceptance, like it's okay what they did.
It's perfectly ok to do what they did. If they don't want to be married by a black man they don't have to.
Freedom is a two way street.
Watchman
02-05-2007, 21:30
You forgot the part about others' freedom to form and present opinions on how someone expresses hers or his though...
Ser Clegane
02-05-2007, 22:20
It's perfectly ok to do what they did.
How do you define "OK" in this context?
Legally "OK", meaning that they have the right to reject being married by a black man or morally "OK" in a sense that you do not see anything wrong with their line of thought?
Ja'chyra
02-06-2007, 09:09
How do you define "OK" in this context?
Legally "OK", meaning that they have the right to reject being married by a black man or morally "OK" in a sense that you do not see anything wrong with their line of thought?
Ok as in the fact that, even in this day and age, you still have the right to make choices, even if those choices don't hold with the popular views on morality, what you don't have the right to do is persecute others because of those opinions. I don't believe that these couples persecuted anyone by refusing to be wed by a black man.
I would argue that few things in this world are truely evil, things like child abuse and genocide are disliking someone because of the colour of their skin, while being more than a little baffling, is not.
On another note, I don't post for a couple of weeks and all of a sudden Banquo's is a mod and Ser is admin :dizzy2: Gratz guys.
Returning, now, to your bit about how freedom doesn't really exist, how can you be so sure that your environment was and is so superior to theirs, referring to its ability to produce such obviously enlightened individuals? I'm going to assume that you can't, so I'm going to continue along, but feel free to rebuke me later.
You're putting the words into my mouth: did I say my environment was/is superior to theirs? Or did I even refer to the ability to produce enlightened individuals in here? If so, point me to it, 'cause I didn't see it in the related quote of some of my words, and I don't remember uttering them myself even :bow:
The crux of the issue: that your position is one of moralism - your morals supercede those of others, even in this case where they don't actually pertain to you at all (unless you're the black mayor in question...are you?).
When one's reading my words carefully, one would know the answer already, and in a way you've already said it yourself: it's about moralism, but mainly, the bigger picture, about the establishment of peace. This falls thereunder, and due to the fact I'm not the person in question... well, it's no reason to dismiss it; that would be a bit selfish.
Can you stand nearby opposite of me, look me in the eye, and say with a straight serious TRUE face that you'd allow racism to continue?
I don't think about totalitarianism, dictatorship, democracy, or WHATEVER kind of system or "nice term" one could apply: I look at the moral/social thing with good pragmatism, and a sense of good, excluding its opposite, evil.
'talmost seems as if some of you - who have opposed my words and generally argue with me - think my idea to be moral, social, good, to have peace is illegal, or even OUTRAGEOUS.
The thing about "totalitarianism" is an important point (but to me nothing but a nice-sounding term to besmirch people), indeed, but I'm not saying that it MUST be the way. But then I'd point you to the following again: if the peaceful way doesn't work, and it mostly likely wilt not, what hath one left?
Please, give me another "alternative", hm?
:bow:
PS: I'm actually that black man in question, yes :P
PS2: I agree mostly with the following:
Gentlemen, there may be a serious divergence of opinion in this thread, but that is no excuse to get personal. Please confine your remarks to the arguments, not the person making them.
Indeed, attack the arguments, not the messenger: an important rule of legal debate.
:bow:
You're putting the words into my mouth: did I say my environment was/is superior to theirs? Or did I even refer to the ability to produce enlightened individuals in here? If so, point me to it, 'cause I didn't see it in the related quote of some of my words, and I don't remember uttering them myself even :bow:
Apparently, you're incapable of interpreting the implications of your own logic. Here; take my hand, sprinkle some fairy dust and let us fly to Nonsenseland:
You refuse to call these racists 'free', and maintain that it is not their 'freedom' to be a racist, because they are just acting as products of their environments. You, too, are a product of your environment - you are not free any more than they are. It's obvious that you're different people, and therefore your environments are not the same, but since these people are evil for practicing racism, your environment must be superior in some way because your morals are obviously correct.
When one's reading my words carefully, one would know the answer already, and in a way you've already said it yourself: it's about moralism, but mainly, the bigger picture, about the establishment of peace. This falls thereunder, and due to the fact I'm not the person in question... well, it's no reason to dismiss it; that would be a bit selfish.
So, to be frank, it's better for everyone to think like you because it would bring peace? Yes, no?
Can you stand nearby opposite of me, look me in the eye, and say with a straight serious TRUE face that you'd allow racism to continue?
Yes, but if I were in your presence after your little spiel, I doubt I'd spend any more time within earshot.
'talmost seems as if some of you - who have opposed my words and generally argue with me - think my idea to be moral, social, good, to have peace is illegal, or even OUTRAGEOUS.
"I just want peace!" Even without entering into the moral aspect of the argument, one has to ask, "peace at what cost?" Evidently, too great a cost, as you seem to ambiguously be endorsing some king of Brave New World.
The thing about "totalitarianism" is an important point (but to me nothing but a nice-sounding term to besmirch people), indeed, but I'm not saying that it MUST be the way. But then I'd point you to the following again: if the peaceful way doesn't work, and it mostly likely wilt not, what hath one left?
Peaceful way of what? You're not exactly making sense.
Please, give me another "alternative", hm?
I have plenty of suggestions for you, but you'll have to be more specific about what you want to hear.
Indeed, attack the arguments, not the messenger: an important rule of legal debate.
This isn't a legal debate.
PS:
hath
Grow up.
Incongruous
02-06-2007, 21:28
Bijo.
Perhaps a real argument could be formed if you ceased using, cryptic-pseudo philosophy.
This matter is sadly based in the real world of law, not moralistic eutopian assemblies.
You do seem to be condoning totalitarianism and violence, which completley undermines you're use of morality.
Watchman
02-06-2007, 22:53
Evidently, too great a cost, as you seem to ambiguously be endorsing some king of Brave New World.More of Clockwork Orange I would say. :pimp2:
Apparently, you're incapable of interpreting the implications of your own logic. Here; take my hand, sprinkle some fairy dust and let us fly to Nonsenseland:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Agree with Bopa, how about we deal with how it is and not with how we like to see it. Funny how willing multicultists are to accept total governmental mindcontrol and advocate reducing fundamental rights when it comes to their funny little social experiment, Bijo and Stig leading the way towards a facist state.
Incongruous
02-07-2007, 11:11
Ha, it's kind of like Shrek, where Farquad wan'ts the perfect Fairytale Kingdom, but has to get rid of all the Creatures in it first.
Haha:laugh4:
Heh, the use of petty jokes..... Anyway....
I have plenty of suggestions for you, but you'll have to be more specific about what you want to hear.
What I want to hear is not the point: just give me your suggestions about the matter, and we'll see.
Grow up.
Unnecessary personal attack.
Peaceful way of what? You're not exactly making sense.
No, I am. It's just that you're not making any sense out of it.
Normal, peaceful ways, such as convincing them with words, moralism, changing their minds the non-violent way, etc., are most likely to fail, because their behaviour is PROGRAMMED into 'em. They simply are racist, and that's it. How are you going to convince them of their wrong like that, eh?
If it WOULD work, it would take lots of time, lots of effort, lots of money which could all easily be wasted, to potentially have no desired effect at all eventually.
The rest of that post is not even to be addressed.
Agree with Bopa, how about we deal with how it is and not with how we like to see it.
There is a way it is, and there should be a way we'd like to see it, in order to deal with it the way it is, in order to change the way it currently is.
So basically I'm being told in here that having a vision of something is not needed? If you have no vision, it depends on factors such as luck and others to get somewhere. The vision gives you the big picture, and the details will pragmatically follow to fill it in.
Anyway, that thing said about violence was already known as a "tongue-in-cheek" remark anyway, as I've already addressed it before, and even told you it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE the way. Of course this leads me to ask again about those suggestions, GoreBag.
But okay then, let's drop this continuing back-and-forth stuff, and concentrate on-- "the real world of law", eh, as you want. Your turn (still), tell me: how is one to approach these racists? Must I again ask for suggestions, ideas, etc., from you people, different than the "totalitarianism" thing, which you are so "eagerly" speaking of as if that is the only idea on my mind? Drop it already, it's been addressed, and it's been understood longtime.
And let's not resort to petty jokes, and personal attacks that contribute nothing.
But I think I'd still like to address this:
You refuse to call these racists 'free', and maintain that it is not their 'freedom' to be a racist, because they are just acting as products of their environments. You, too, are a product of your environment - you are not free any more than they are. It's obvious that you're different people, and therefore your environments are not the same, but since these people are evil for practicing racism, your environment must be superior in some way because your morals are obviously correct.
I refuse to call them free, simply because it's the truth. And I wasn't just talking about racists, just in case if you'd forgotten.
And does it even matter if it's about me? Why are you focusing energy on my person in this way? Don't talk about me and/or my environments.
The Stranger
02-07-2007, 21:48
People will always be a bit racsict...
It won't be gone until you try to point out a person to someone (one is white, the other black) and instead of saying the black one overthere you say the guy with the red shirt and white sneakers...
What I want to hear is not the point: just give me your suggestions about the matter, and we'll see.
I still don't know what 'matter' that is.
Unnecessary personal attack.
Did I offend you, muffin?
No, I am. It's just that you're not making any sense out of it.
Normal, peaceful ways, such as convincing them with words, moralism, changing their minds the non-violent way, etc., are most likely to fail, because their behaviour is PROGRAMMED into 'em. They simply are racist, and that's it. How are you going to convince them of their wrong like that, eh?
If it WOULD work, it would take lots of time, lots of effort, lots of money which could all easily be wasted, to potentially have no desired effect at all eventually.
Ohhh, now I understand. You mean suggestions regarding how one is supposed to change others to suit their preferences, like them not being racist, for example. I wouldn't. My dick is plenty large.
The rest of that post is not even to be addressed.
You've just addressed it.
So basically I'm being told in here that having a vision of something is not needed? If you have no vision, it depends on factors such as luck and others to get somewhere. The vision gives you the big picture, and the details will pragmatically follow to fill it in.
Basically, you're being told that your "vision" is insane.
Anyway, that thing said about violence was already known as a "tongue-in-cheek" remark anyway, as I've already addressed it before, and even told you it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE the way. Of course this leads me to ask again about those suggestions, GoreBag.
I really don't think it was tongue-in-cheek. "If the peaceful method doesn't work, blah blah blah," you've repeated a few times now. What I love about this is that you seem to okay with the idea of someone killing you because you refuse to see the potential reason in their ideas.
But okay then, let's drop this continuing back-and-forth stuff, and concentrate on-- "the real world of law", eh, as you want. Your turn (still), tell me: how is one to approach these racists? Must I again ask for suggestions, ideas, etc., from you people, different than the "totalitarianism" thing, which you are so "eagerly" speaking of as if that is the only idea on my mind? Drop it already, it's been addressed, and it's been understood longtime.
"The real world of law", haha. There's no such thing. More to the point, why do racists need to be approached?
And let's not resort to petty jokes, and personal attacks that contribute nothing.
Well, you haven't stopped being pretentious, but you didn't type out 'hath' this time, so I think I can swallow this for now.
But I think I'd still like to address this:
I refuse to call them free, simply because it's the truth. And I wasn't just talking about racists, just in case if you'd forgotten.
And does it even matter if it's about me? Why are you focusing energy on my person in this way? Don't talk about me and/or my environments.
Because you're the one with the half-baked ideas, you're the one who advocates changing people so that they fit a mold suitable to you. I bring up your 'environment' only because you brought up theirs - something had to make them racist, like you said (to reinforce that it's not free thought), and therefore, something had to make you desire to change what is really none of your business.
Banquo's Ghost
02-07-2007, 22:25
Did I offend you, muffin?
Well, you haven't stopped being pretentious, but you didn't type out 'hath' this time, so I think I can swallow this for now.
:beadyeyes2:
OK chaps, last call on the personal attacks issue.
Any more of this and warnings will follow.
With respect, BG, it is not me resorting to personal attacks. Just wanted to point it out just in case :bow:
As for you, GoreBag, let me start by using your kind of language then if mine doesn't suit you, it might be easier to understand: I don't give one single flying **** about your insults, and other useless remarks. It only shows you're not fit to debate/discuss properly, as you've even openly put aside the possibility of having proper debate :)
Now, on to the point.
You've still not addressed the matter, and you're (probably) playing dumb too, and judging by the manner in which you post, well.... just forget about it.
Continuously you keep referring to the "insane idea", which has been addressed numerous times, has been understood numerous times, and was only repeated by me, in response to you, 'cause it was repeated by you and Bopa.
You ask about the matter? Well, 'tis quite a nice tactic - if one doesn't know or should I spell 'doth not know' just for you(?) - you apply, which I mentioned before; playing dumb. The basic matter is this: deal with racists.
Sure, my idea is extreme, and as said it's acknowledged (can't you get it through your brain that it is?). Seems you like to keep on pressing this, merely to besmirch one's name? If so, what a dirty tactic, you should be a politician! Or a lawyer or something.
So now, again, for the-- eh, I lost count, heh heh.... give me your suggestions of which you spoke earlier. Your suggestions to remedy racism. Do not tell me you don't understand the point, because you do. And if you still don't, go see a doctor.
Now....
If I advocate changing people, it's not for me only. It's for everybody, and it's for the good. Do you understand the word 'good'? Well, let me-- heh, clarify this for you then to be sure you get the picture: peace = good; virtuous acts = good; racism = evil; evil = opposite of good; evil = baaaaad :smash:
Now, to repeat something I asked Bopa, but now to you, and keep that above paragraph in mind: do you understand you are helping EVIL when you allow racists to continue, "freedom of speech" aside?
And if I want to change this-- hah, "matter".... it IS my business. It is YOUR business, it's EVERYBODY'S business. Why? Human-social responsibility: something you and many others lack. You'd rather say: "Ah, it's not my business, just let it go. I mean... why care about racism, eh? We don't have to put effort into making things better."
Therefore I direct you to the question posed to you earlier. Do you remember the word suggestions, or don't you want to? It shows you've been avoiding it for a while now. Is there a particular reason for it (as I'm prepared for the worst)?
So far I've been the calm logical one here, while you resort to the simple way. And some others have resorted to uselessness in the sense of petty jokes, etc., contributing jack with it.
GoreBag, what you should do is look up the term fallacy. You might learn some good stuff. And if you already know this good stuff, well.... then shame on you :P
While I understand the wishes to improve the world by outlawing racism (in all forms). Unfortunately you cant start forcing people not to be racist. You can prosecute them for racially motivated crimes.
We all understand that the tendrils causing these people to act this way run deep, it may not even be their choice but something they learned subconciously from their families, forefathers etc. and mimiced without understanding the 'greater evil' that lies behind their motivations.
You can educate and explain to people why this is not a rational way to behave, and you can reason with them that this is not the way forward for peoples peaceful coexistance - but you cannot force them to accept it. We can only hope that with time human tribalism will lessen.
As for you, GoreBag, let me start by using your kind of language then if mine doesn't suit you, it might be easier to understand: I don't give one single flying **** about your insults, and other useless remarks. It only shows you're not fit to debate/discuss properly, as you've even openly put aside the possibility of having proper debate :)
Yeah, sure you don't. That's why you had to make sure I knew you weren't offended.
Now, on to the point.
Finally?
You've still not addressed the matter, and you're (probably) playing dumb too, and judging by the manner in which you post, well.... just forget about it.
Unless by 'the matter', you mean 'how to change racists into non-racists', then you're still just being dodgy on purpose. "If you can't figure it out, I'm not going to tell you!"
Continuously you keep referring to the "insane idea", which has been addressed numerous times, has been understood numerous times, and was only repeated by me, in response to you, 'cause it was repeated by you and Bopa.
I'm pretty sure I said 'insane' once.
You ask about the matter? Well, 'tis quite a nice tactic - if one doesn't know or should I spell 'doth not know' just for you(?) - you apply, which I mentioned before; playing dumb. The basic matter is this: deal with racists.
Are you incapable of being frank? It would seem that you're the one more interested in using 'tactics', as if this is some kind of game where one of us wins, with your ambiguous wording and apparent refusal to speak your mind in plain terms. You want people to stop being racists, and you're okay with 'using force' to do it. What this means, really, I'm not sure. Torture them until they agree to think differently? Brainwash them? Kill them off if it doesn't work? You tell me, you're the moral leader.
Sure, my idea is extreme, and as said it's acknowledged (can't you get it through your brain that it is?). Seems you like to keep on pressing this, merely to besmirch one's name? If so, what a dirty tactic, you should be a politician! Or a lawyer or something.
It should be fairly obvious by now that your 'name' (you're on the internet, bud) doesn't need my help to be ruined.
So now, again, for the-- eh, I lost count, heh heh.... give me your suggestions of which you spoke earlier. Your suggestions to remedy racism. Do not tell me you don't understand the point, because you do. And if you still don't, go see a doctor.
Geez, you're clever. Those "suggestions" I mentioned earlier were a polite (and evidently too eloquent) way of saying that you should take a hike. A doctor, eh? I didn't realize that any comprehension problems one might have sifting your pseudo-philosophical drivel would be a medical issue.
Now....
If I advocate changing people, it's not for me only. It's for everybody, and it's for the good. Do you understand the word 'good'? Well, let me-- heh, clarify this for you then to be sure you get the picture: peace = good; virtuous acts = good; racism = evil; evil = opposite of good; evil = baaaaad :smash:
Now, to repeat something I asked Bopa, but now to you, and keep that above paragraph in mind: do you understand you are helping EVIL when you allow racists to continue, "freedom of speech" aside?
HAHAHA! Is this a personal attack, BG? The weird kid on the other side of the schoolyard called me evil.
And if I want to change this-- hah, "matter".... it IS my business. It is YOUR business, it's EVERYBODY'S business. Why? Human-social responsibility: something you and many others lack. You'd rather say: "Ah, it's not my business, just let it go. I mean... why care about racism, eh? We don't have to put effort into making things better."
Yeah, right. Big Crusader over here, riding into a sea of infidels, curing the world of all evil.
Therefore I direct you to the question posed to you earlier. Do you remember the word suggestions, or don't you want to? It shows you've been avoiding it for a while now. Is there a particular reason for it (as I'm prepared for the worst)?
You just can't take a hint.
So far I've been the calm logical one here, while you resort to the simple way. And some others have resorted to uselessness in the sense of petty jokes, etc., contributing jack with it.
Oh, I'm calm. I don't need to be excited to spot foolishness.
GoreBag, what you should do is look up the term fallacy. You might learn some good stuff. And if you already know this good stuff, well.... then shame on you :P
Deal. I'll refresh my memory on the word 'fallacy', and you can look up 'inferiority complex', which BG previously erased for the sake of keeping the Backroom safe.
Blodrast
02-08-2007, 02:55
Now, to repeat something I asked Bopa, but now to you, and keep that above paragraph in mind: do you understand you are helping EVIL when you allow racists to continue, "freedom of speech" aside?
But that's the point, Bijo, you can not leave aside freedom of speech. Because that IS the whole point here.
If you agree that the solution you proposed is far-fetched, then why do you keep supporting it?
Are you aware that forcing people to think they way you think is "good", or "healthy", or for "the greater good of society", is a trait that can be found in practically all totalitarian regimes ?
You simply can NOT do that. Everybody here agrees that racism is bad. However, your proposed solution is NOT acceptable, except perhaps in an Orwellian world, which I hope you realize was not a desirable thing.
Do you disagree with the fact that your solution is *wrong*, or do you concede that it is wrong, but you don't see why, or do you agree that is wrong, and you understand why, but you think that overall the benefits outweigh the cost, so it's still worth implementing ?
Incongruous
02-08-2007, 11:51
It seems Bijo, that either you ARE a polotician, or you love smoke and mirrors.
Or maybe you're a philosophy student.
I'm sorry, but i turned to a joke because it was the onloy thing that would keep this thread sane after certain "philosphies" and Psuedo-Prophetic meanderings found their way into it.
Again, you don't seem to understand, I am completley and outright opposed to you're train of thought. It is based upon a set of personal morals and has a blatant disregard for everyone else living on the planet.
Why do we need to deal with THIS racism, it was non-violent.
Of course when racism forces someone to break the law then it is a problem and is/ should be dealt with. According to the LAW.
Sudden off-topic thought:
Hmm, for a moment there I thought I sensed something. Must've been a fly, or the wind, or both. Yeah, it's kinda chilly in here, I should close the window, 'fore any more rubbish comes flying in. 'specially those **** flies, you know. They are the worst. Heck, one of 'em comes sitting on your food, and you can throw it away. Not that they're necessarily around in this time of the year maybe, but whatever, you gotta be sure, ya know. Ain't takin' no chances.[/end of off-topic thought]
[on topic]
Anyway....
@Blodrast and Bopa
Yep, I do understand, which is what I've been saying for about four times now, but you're all too shocked previously to understand that I understand, which shouldn't be so hard to understand, or is it? Or would you also like to keep pressing this issue, and with that ignoring the fact that I understand, and have been doing so for quite some time?
Blodrast, you propose some good questions in your last paragraph. I know, indeed, that this solution is wrong, but, as I've said earlier sometime in the thread, I doubt other ways would actually help. I've always been open to any suggestions here, but nobody really knows of any, it seems. Maybe YOU can give any suggestions to counter and totally get rid of racism?
And what we must understand as well is that even if such a conflict/solution would be evil, and it is indeed, this would be the kind of evil necessary to rid another, for the purpose of good, IF, I stress IF, there's no other way, which is why I kept asking for any suggestions so we could brainstorm about it. I do not like it if my "solution" was to be, because it would indeed contradict my wish for peace, and it would undermine morality, but I also recognize that sometimes it simply has to be.
Humanity has come so far in terms of technology, science, but in terms of society, morality, etc., we're too far behind, as if it only has degraded, instead of improved. Or it has stood still for too long, but you get the point. Anybody nowadays who is racist, or is still lacking heightened senses of morality, is-- well, simply lacking an important quality. And if you the idea I'm lacking this important quality, I refer you to what you just read in the previous paragraph.[/end of déja vu]
Blodrast, I've sufficiently responded to you, I think, so hopefully your questions are answered. I wouldn't wish for another repetition of this - have had enough déjà vus already.
Why do we need to deal with THIS racism, it was non-violent.
Of course when racism forces someone to break the law then it is a problem and is/ should be dealt with. According to the LAW.
I think I've mentioned it earlier in a post, but just in case I'll respond to this anyway. We need to deal with it, 'cause it's simply our responsibility. Not just the black guy who was refused by some couples, but all of racism, including this case.
Just because it's non-violent is no reason to just discard it, possibly because the law says this or says that, bada-bing, and bada-boop. We know that acts of racism, non-violent ones, have the potential to lead to physical violent acts, and general unrest with people, before, during, and after. Include emotional pain and struggles of people, and so on.
Why just let the law take care of it when PHYSICAL VIOLENCE comes in, logically assuming physical violence is the kind of violence you spoke of? Racism directed at people is a form of aggression, mental or psychological attacks, etc., and this is NOT GOOD.
It might also be kept on a person's thoughts personally, and not openly directed at anybody, but that's not good enough: racism simply must not be. And this cropping up of these evil thoughts/emotions, not directing it at anybody, would at some time explode and unleash something worse than hell (possible exaggeration with the word hell :P).
Laws, heh. Some text written on a piece of paper, accepted by many. Laws should be of the good kind, and they are generally. But most of all, they should be based on GOOD MORALITY. First comes good morality, then comes the law based thereon, you get the point I'm trying to show you. And even then 'tis still the question whether the law is upheld. Which leads me again to the subject of humans that is in need of reeducation to sharpen their moralities. Which begs the repeated question related: have you any suggestions to deal with this racism?
Incongruous
02-09-2007, 06:05
Ok.... Take a deep breath and understand.
WE (or maybe just me) see no need to hunt out and reform racists, it is their choice to feel that way, just that it is you're choice to feel that they all must be murdered.
Racism will eventually come to an end as different cultures and ethnicities come into more contact, it's only a matter of time.
Racism will eventually come to an end as different cultures and ethnicities come into more contact, it's only a matter of time.
amen
And you people wonder why I call it multicultism, this is how they are freshly delivered after being mauled by the machine for 6 years, not that they can help it, there they have learned that tulips are really Turkish and potatoes are from Peru. A carefully cultivated deep contempt for anything dutch and the pavlov reaction of calling for a lynchingparty whenever something isn't in line with the great leap forward. In the worst case scenario they go study in Amsterdam afterwards, only a handfull recover.
Bopa is right again, the only way is time, not force.
Bopa is right again, the only way is time, not force.
Not entirely true.
Have you ever seen Puberruil, Frag?
If not I suggest you watch it sometime. Most of the episodes are about some right wing farmerson swapping with an allochtoon. When you watch it you see those foreigners are actually open to Dutch culture, they want to learn, but those "real" Dutch see this now and think: "Hey, they're not that bad afterall."
Most of our right winged Dutch friends think like this:
"They're not Dutch so they're bad."
But they never even talked with the foreigners, they just see them and think:
"That's on of those fanatics who likes to do suicide bombing."
If you actually talk to them you see they're open to new things, they're not like most Dutch people think they are, ofcourse 1 in 10 maybe aren't open, but the same goes for the Dutch themselves, they just don't want to face it, that's the problem, you say it takes time, well it takes more then time, as it already took us 400 years.
Never seen it, cable died two months ago and I left it like that. It's virtualy impossible not to come in contact with foreigners nowadays so I don't know about that. No the only solutions are time, and equal treatment. The little rascalls think they can get away with everything just because they can. They are taught that the natives are afraid of them, there is no anger after all only fear, the inevitable conclusion in any multicultural debate that is held at any school. But then they find out that it are the adults that are afraid, afraid to correct them, the schools, the police, all equally terrified of twelve year olds. There is nothing wrong with demanding, and there is everything wrong with making up excuses we would never allow for our own.
They are taught that the natives are afraid of them
And the natives are taught they should be afraid of them, ever sought the problem with the Dutch themselves? We asked the Turks, the Moroccans and all the others to come here, to help us out with the jobs we didn't want to do. They were happy they could clean our sewers, they were happy they could build our houses, and how do we thank them?
Watchman
02-09-2007, 11:57
One does feel the need to point out that clamoring after "equal treatment" may also quite well in practice amount to actually wishing to preserve an existing and unfair status quo without doing anything to rectify the situation...
:blank2:
That's really just stating the obvious, but I had a hunch a reminder would be appropriate.
And the natives are taught they should be afraid of them, ever sought the problem with the Dutch themselves? We asked the Turks, the Moroccans and all the others to come here, to help us out with the jobs we didn't want to do. They were happy they could clean our sewers, they were happy they could build our houses, and how do we thank them?
By giving them exactly the same rights and oppertunities? It isn't like there was much future for them where they are from, I think it's they that should thank us for giving them that, and it isn't like they are such good guests.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 12:05
Yeah, the ingrates. They should be thanking us on their knees.
:dozey:
Mr. Christian, punish this man. :whip:
Feel superior much ?
By giving them exactly the same rights and oppertunities?
We do? mmmm reading this thread made me thinking differently. Why are so much 16-18 year old Moroccans hanging around on the streets? Because we don't give them the same opportunities.
and it isn't like they are such good guests.
They aren't? What have they ever done to you?
We do? mmmm reading this thread made me thinking differently. Why are so much 16-18 year old Moroccans hanging around on the streets? Because we don't give them the same opportunities.
Or because they don't grab the opportunities offered?
I just want to say that it is not a black/white story (hmmm... I produced a nice pun, didn't I?).
It's not a story about evil europeans taking advantage of the poor immigrants nor a story about the evil immigrants robbing our welfare and being ungrateful. Integration has to come from both sides.
Sometimes, in the heat of debate, one might forget what is crystal clear. No harm in stating it as a reminder...
We do? mmmm reading this thread made me thinking differently. Why are so much 16-18 year old Moroccans hanging around on the streets? Because we don't give them the same opportunities.
What makes you think that? They just aren't allowed to come home untill late.
They aren't? What have they ever done to you?
Well apart from rampant crimenumbers and disgusting behaviour towards women and the constant robberies of the elder and disabled, not that much. The occasional fight in town, I am not on their menu.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 12:22
Right. Like the issues didn't tend to start from stiff-necked native majorities.
It's a common knowledge that foreigners are discriminated when apply for a job. If they don't have a job, what else can they do all day? Hang around with friends or lock themselves indoors, what would you do if you have those 2 choices?
Well apart from rampant crimenumbers and disgusting behaviour towards women and the constant robberies of the elder and disabled, not that much. The occasional fight in town, I am not on their menu.
http://www.nu.nl/news/968557/122/rss/Meisjes_duwen_67-jarige_man_in_sloot.html
are those foreigners as well? Dutch do those things as well you know, it just never reaches the news at the same level.
If what I read on Geennstijl is true then that wasn't the most convenient example for your case. And most of the foreign violence never reaches the news, because in the larger city's policemen aren't allowed to talk about to the media when it concerns a foreigner, like in amsterdam for example under strict orders of Cohen.
I am from Amersfoort, which is pretty calm
http://www.pim-fortuyn.nl/pfforum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=34386&whichpage=1
And this is why I don't apreciate them
In Rotterdam foreigners are even responsible for 99% of the streetrobberies, nice.
If what I read on Geenstijl is true then that wasn't the most convenient example for your case.
need I say more, geenstijl you named it, our most objective source for news
http://www.pim-fortuyn.nl/pfforum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=34386&whichpage=1
Ah, what a nice forum, it really shows how nice we Dutch are. Seriously
Watchman
02-09-2007, 12:51
...just out of curiosity Frag, but are we supposed to take that as credible even on general principles...?
...just out of curiosity Frag, but are we supposed to take that as credible even on general principles...?
Of course not
http://www.politicsinfo.net/forum/about1217.html&highlight=
sorry forum link, here is article
http://krant.telegraaf.nl/krant/archief/20020123/teksten/bin.rotterdam.werden.straatroven.html
Ah the Telegraaf, our very own Bild Zeitung, our very own The Sun ... especially for all our right-winged friends ... who most of the time are worse then any foreigner I know.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 13:06
I must regretfully inform you I was not able to become literate in Dutch in the intervening ten minutes. :shame:
...although I still seem to remember enough of my high-school German to be able to make out the general idea.
:blank2:
So ?
I've never been particularly impressed by the touting of symptoms if the actual disease isn't even mentioned.
I've never been particularly impressed by the touting of symptoms if the actual disease isn't even mentioned.
Very well said m8, very well said
I
I've never been particularly impressed by the touting of symptoms if the actual disease isn't even mentioned.
Blind multiculturalism is the disease, crime is the symptome.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 13:12
Very well said m8, very well said
Well, it always reeks of cheap and sensationalist populism. And most of the time has little to offer in the way of meaningful solutions.
Plus I am studying Political Science in the damn university. I'm conditioned to think ill of shortcomings in background analysis.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 13:13
Blind multiculturalism is the disease, crime is the symptome.The second part is correct. The first part is pure populist BS.
Well, it always reeks of cheap and sensationalist populism.
It is cheap and sensational populism:
Pim Fortuyn gets shot about 2 days before the elections -> he gets 26 seets in parliament and gets chosen to Greatest Dutchmen all time.
Theo van Gogh is killed -> The ultimate Right Wing party Groep Wilders would have gotten 30 seets if elections would be held at that time. Now they only have 8, since the storm has passed us.
The second part is correct. The first part is pure populist BS.
Why? You are a shining example, desperatily trying to to find out what it is we did wrong making foreigners behave in such a way. You want to hear social exclusion, poverty, racism, anything as long as it doesn't concern personal responsibity of said population.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 13:28
Heh.
http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/edustaja/kuvat/763.jpg
May I present Tony Halme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Halme), until some time ago an MP representing the - surprise surprise - right-wing, nationalistic and xenophobic True Finns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns) populist party.
We get these even in better families.
The party's leader is incidentally equally photogenic:
http://www.eduskunta.fi/fakta/edustaja/kuvat/767.jpg
Is it in these guys' job description they have to look like total rednecks...? Thankfully, they're small fries and widely regarded as a bad joke (a popular rendition of the party's Finnish name "Perussuomalaiset" is "Perushumalaiset", "True Drunks"...).
Watchman
02-09-2007, 13:32
Why? You are a shining example, desperatily trying to to find out what it is we did wrong making foreigners behave in such a way. You want to hear social exclusion, poverty, racism, anything as long as it doesn't concern personal responsibity of said population.Yes. Because it's those kinds of things that shape peoples' perspective on the world, themselves, others, the society, relationships between them, values, morals, opportunities... No man is an island, after all.
I'm no hardcore structuralist, but I find the notion people were not greatly shaped by their surroundings quite absurd. It's a dynamic relationship.
Yes. Because it's those kinds of things that shape peoples' perspective on the world, themselves, others, the society, relationships between them, values, morals, opportunities... No man is an island, after all.
I'm no hardcore structuralist, but I find the notion people were not greatly shaped by their surroundings quite absurd. It's a dynamic relationship.
You have already made up your mind and discuss from an assumtion, you think only of victims, in true multiculturalist tradition. It is indeed absurd that people aren't shaped by their surroundings, and you shape one where they can get away with everything they do because people like you will always try to put the blame elsewhere.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 14:01
It is indeed absurd that people aren't shaped by their surroundings, and you shape one where they can get away with everything they do because people like you will always try to put the blame elsewhere.Hah. And what would you shape for them ? A system that pins the blame for structural problems on the very individuals suffering from them ?
You speak of the "personal responsibility of said population". Very well. Then please explain to me in a logically coherent fashion why exactly they are choosing to behave that way, and for that matter why in the world are these "blind multicultists" you so like to blame for it letting it happen ? Analyze it. Problematize it. Go into the whys and hows of the matter and argue from those, instead of spouting vaguely xenophobic and altogether too simplistic populist slogans.
You have already made up your mind and discuss from an assumtion, you think only of victims, in true multiculturalist tradition.This is a very puzzling statement. Why shouldn't I be primarily concerned with the victims ? They're the ones in trouble after all. Implicitly you are also stating that this is a characteristically "multiculturalist" thing to do, which, given your fervent anti-"multiculturalism", begs the question of who you then think of if not the victims...?
You speak of the "personal responsibility of said population". Very well. Then please explain to me in a logically coherent fashion why exactly they are choosing to behave that way, and for that matter why in the world are these "blind multicultists" you so like to blame for it letting it happen ? Analyze it. Problematize it. Go into the whys and hows of the matter and argue from those, instead of spouting vaguely xenophobic and altogether too simplistic populist slogans.
Quite simple, human nature. Since you are that hot on science, remember the Milgram experiment. Take people's responsibilities and they will go all the way. That is what you do, you take the responsiblity, you say that they really can't help it, it's society that is flawed, and with that you excuse them. All in the dynamics.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 14:27
Have you noticed you keep excusing the whole "native" population except for the "multicultists" of all responsibility in the situation, quite in spite of that silent majority very much forming the fabric of society into which the "foreigners" are supposed to try to fit in ?
Your analysis thus far leaves much to be desired, Grasshopper.
No I haven't noticed, where exactly do I do such a thing?
Watchman
02-09-2007, 14:43
Implicitly, pretty much all the time. The problem, according to your line of argumentation, is the "foreigners" being criminal scum and "multicultists" letting them get away with it and/or having created the circumstances for it to begin with.
Or that is in any case the gist that gets communicated to me. Feel free to correct my impression.
In any case nowhere is there to be found even a hint that there might have been problems in the "natives'" attitude towards the "foreigners" to begin with, which is pretty much quaranteed to be a deeply flawed assumption if I know anything about these things. Heck, I've had a front seat watching such developements around here for the past decade plus, and mutatis mutandis they match quite well with what I know of similar developements everywhere at different times. I've no reason the assume the Netherlands to be an exception.
Implicitly, pretty much all the time. The problem, according to your line of argumentation, is the "foreigners" being criminal scum and "multicultists" letting them get away with it and/or having created the circumstances for it to begin with.
Or that is in any case the gist that gets communicated to me. Feel free to correct my impression.
If you added the words 'are allowed' before 'being criminal scum' then there is no need to correct your impression. I never said anything about natives, sure there are problems there as well, but real racism is pretty much non-existant in the Netherlands, a few flagwaving neo-nanny's, that is pretty much it.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 14:58
*sigh*
Frags, allow me to be blunt - you are a brilliant example of exactly the sort of attitude that's the major problem. The genuinely problematic "real racism" isn't of the boorish skinhead sort; it's just the kind of insidious hostility you've been consistently expressing for, oh, the last page or two.
And you're apparently not even aware of it.
"It isn't like there was much future for them where they are from, I think it's they that should thank us for giving them that, and it isn't like they are such good guests." Remember ? You wrote this, and it makes for a very good Specimen A of the kind of hostility and feeling of unquestioned superiority that so effectively alienates and embitters "them" in the first place.
*sigh*
Frags, allow me to be blunt - you are a brilliant example of exactly the sort of attitude that's the major problem. The genuinely problematic "real racism" isn't of the boorish skinhead sort; it's just the kind of insidious hostility you've been consistently expressing for, oh, the last page or two.
And you're apparently not even aware of it.
"It isn't like there was much future for them where they are from, I think it's they that should thank us for giving them that, and it isn't like they are such good guests." Remember ? You wrote this, and it makes for a very good Specimen A of the kind of hostility and feeling of unquestioned superiority that so effectively alienates and embitters "them" in the first place.
There we go again, the kind of hostility that embitters *them* in the first place, maybe it was the other way around, who knows, there you go assuming again. That being said, anyone who takes me for a fan of the multiculture hasn't been paying attention over the years, no I am indeed not a fan of this multiculture, for all the reasons I expressed in this thread. But, I have little intention of destroying it, or harming these people, if I am the worst they will ever encounter they should consider theirselves very lucky to be here indeed.
I'm sorry Frag but I think I have to agree to Watchmans last post ... and that is what I've been trying to say for a couple of pages ... sorry :hide:
Yes there are people that are far worse then the people from "your kind", Lonsdale Youths for example ... remember Tilburg where, after the murder of Van Gogh 1 mosque and 1 Primary School were 'attacked' by the White youth, with the only reason that it was against their way of thinking
Ok.... Take a deep breath and understand.
WE (or maybe just me) see no need to hunt out and reform racists, it is their choice to feel that way, just that it is you're choice to feel that they all must be murdered.
Racism will eventually come to an end as different cultures and ethnicities come into more contact, it's only a matter of time.
Well, I get what you're saying, but that's just not good enough, though of course you have your idea, which is fine for you. But the thing is that you should see the need to reeducate/reform negative discriminators for the purpose of good. Think of the fruits of victory when many unite and do serious effort to rid this. There's honour in the will to pacify.
And your words of "me wanting to murder" are not in order; you simply could've just avoided it after all the back-and-forth stuff, so I must regard this as an inconsiderate quick-stab (but feel free to counter this if it's untrue). Whether it was me or somebody else doesn't matter either; it was logic stating a possible necessity, a possible cold effective solution, how hard it may be, nothing else.
It might be that time will take proper care of racism, but truly if we just let "time" take care of it, we're not worthy at all, and it's not sure if it will work. It's just too easy to say this from our side if we choose this, to not apply any effort.
I think I'm done with this thread. I'll just follow Watchman's and Fragony's discussion.
Incongruous
02-10-2007, 04:45
Again, you really cannot help the psuedo-rhetoric crap can you?
Who are you to tell me I'm not worthy of anything?
Anyway, you called for their murder (their being these non-violent racists couples) if they did not reform. Who are you or anyone to decide whom lses their lives because they don't agree with you're morals? Sounds a bit like a few dictators I read about..
Don't take it personal, Bopa. It's not personal, it's general. I have no need to become personal in discussions really, but I very well understand people might take things personally due to the way I express words sometimes. I used the word 'we' before as a general meaning, of course. It was not at all specifically directed at you, even though it was a response, and a general one at that, related to your words I quoted. No hard feelings, eh? :)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.