Haydos Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 Well I'm afraid this is the downside of free speech, the internet and anyone being allowed to use it. I'd love to see DT banned because he's a cvnt but technically, he's not doing anything wrong. At the end of the day, it is just a ifferent opinion, no matter how wrong rational people think it is. Of course, if Mark just doesn't like him he can do what he likes I wish I could just ban people from facebook, there's about 100 DTs on my newsfeed. Free speech doesn't come into it though. If the owners/admins/people that run a website think someone's crossed the line they can ban people from using that site. I'd say exactly the same if someone was being sexist or racist to the same degree and I think there'd be a bit more of a fuss if he was.
Strokes Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 Free speech doesn't come into it though. If the owners/admins/people that run a website think someone's crossed the line they can ban people from using that site. I'd say exactly the same if someone was being sexist or racist to the same degree and I think there'd be a bit more of a fuss if he was.How very intolerant of you.
Haydos Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 How very intolerant of you. Reckon he thinks anyone with a disability should be kept behind closed doors?
Strokes Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 Reckon he thinks anyone with a disability should be kept behind closed doors?I dont know, but if he gets banned we cant educate him otherwise. People do hold the views he expresses, some of them were alive when it was illegal to practice it. Its not as cut and dry as you may think, but just banning people and branding them makes you no better.
Mark_w Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 I'd love to see DT banned because he's a cvnt but technically, he's not doing anything wrong. Actually he is... You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. DT constantly posts material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing and invasive. I'm not saying he should be banned, anyone who's going to be offended by the kind of things that DT posts doesn't need to be on the internet. But he absolutely does break several forum rules fairly regularly.
BoneDog Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 Are you going to start quoting the bible? Or telling us that God Hates Fags? Just curious. The religions don't actually hate 'fags' as some like to believe. Some Christians have twisted the message they're supposed to be following and the same can be said of some Muslims. Both groups get alot of airtime for some reason. In the Muslim book it does say that if you catch two gay people having sex in public they should be punished, but it says the same about anyone having sex in public. It has happened for hundreds of years and the book tells people not to do it, but it also says that what two gay people do behind closed doors is their own business and only God (if you believe in one) is to judge, not humans. The Bible and Koran say to live and let live and you should only intervene in the public sex, so any follower of those religions who persecutes others just for being gay are not following their books. I'm sure they are. But you don't live in countries where they are beaten, arrested or even murdered for being homosexual so you cannot use that as an argument to claim that there is no persecution. With that logic it's probably a good thing that you weren't around during the Holocaust. 'What are these fvcking Jews moaning about now? They're not persecuted. Look how rich they are', says El Empty Head as Hitler chambers another million. I wish people would just stick DT on ignore, or at least not quote his homophobic bile. Odious creature. This campaign is to do with attitudes in Britain and nothing to do with Iran or the Saudi regime that is backed, kissed and in bed with our Western leaders. I don't think we need another campaign in Britain as the gays I've known are not persecuted by anybody. Perhaps you could get onto your MP if you're concerned for Saudis gays and tell them you don't like our government supporting regimes like theirs. On a side note, most Muslims would love to topple the Saudi regime and they think they're as despicable as you probably do. Thanks for the nazi comments, didn't you get bummed today or what? Do you think it was only Jews who were complaining about nazis or something? I'm pretty sure there were just as many non-Jewish people killed in the death camps outside of Germany.
lgfualol Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 The religions don't actually hate 'fags' as some like to believe. I was just referencing Westboro Baptist Church
Kitchandro Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 The religions don't actually hate 'fags' as some like to believe. Some Christians have twisted the message they're supposed to be following and the same can be said of some Muslims. Both groups get alot of airtime for some reason. In the Muslim book it does say that if you catch two gay people having sex in public they should be punished, but it says the same about anyone having sex in public. It has happened for hundreds of years and the book tells people not to do it, but it also says that what two gay people do behind closed doors is their own business and only God (if you believe in one) is to judge, not humans. The Bible and Koran say to live and let live and you should only intervene in the public sex, so any follower of those religions who persecutes others just for being gay are not following their books. This campaign is to do with attitudes in Britain and nothing to do with Iran or the Saudi regime that is backed, kissed and in bed with our Western leaders. I don't think we need another campaign in Britain as the gays I've known are not persecuted by anybody. Perhaps you could get onto your MP if you're concerned for Saudis gays and tell them you don't like our government supporting regimes like theirs. On a side note, most Muslims would love to topple the Saudi regime and they think they're as despicable as you probably do. Thanks for the nazi comments, didn't you get bummed today or what? Do you think it was only Jews who were complaining about nazis or something? I'm pretty sure there were just as many non-Jewish people killed in the death camps outside of Germany. Sorry but this is nonsense. Those governments are repressive because their culture is repressive. Their people, to some extent at least, condone the backwardness, lack of freedom and bigotry that is so prevalent in Islamic nations. Their countries will always have despicable regimes and laws. Those beliefs are the core of their legal system.
BoneDog Posted 22 September 2013 Posted 22 September 2013 Sorry but this is nonsense. Those governments are repressive because their culture is repressive. Their people, to some extent at least, condone the backwardness, lack of freedom and bigotry that is so prevalent in Islamic nations. Their countries will always have despicable regimes and laws. Those beliefs are the core of their legal system. It's not nonsense at all. Arabs condone the backwardness? I don't think so. I'm not sure which populations under a brutal regime you think condone the behaviour. None of the Bahraini's for the past two years or so seem to condone their regime and are putting themselves at great risk in saying so. Saudis will do the same sooner or later. You're right though, their countries will probably always have despicable regimes because in most cases they are put into power by stronger regimes in The West and are then propped up until they lose their worth, when they are usually replaced with nothing better. Most of those mad mullahs you see on tv are also 'owned' by different intelligence agencies. It's a fact.
Formidable Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Strange that other professions don't feel the need for gimmicks to promote homosexuality. Clearly a whim that someone has thought up and the powers that be are too fearful to reject as whimsical for fear of being brandished as a homophobe. A damning indictment of the world we live in.
indierich06 Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 It's not 'football' though, it's people. I know it's not the best sample size but we can see from this thread that the majority are sympathetic, open minded, non judgemental people. There are a few that accept but lean towards not classing it as completely normal. Finally there's disgusting pieces of shit like DT that are homophobic and don't care if people know it. He might deny it but he is. He looks down on gays, he thinks that he's better and even genetically superior to them because he was 'made correctly'. He can dress it up any way he wants but he's an unpleasant, small minded man who is stuck in the past. It may sound extreme but he is exactly the reason why gay men and women still hide it. Imagine if his son or daughter were gay. Imagine if they ARE. That is the kind of situation that drives people to killing themselves. We have gay people reading this thread and having to read his 'views'. Some may brush it off but others may see it as another blow and it really is. Attitudes like this shouldn't exist and I don't see a reason why he shouldn't be banned from this forum. Absolutely spot on mate.
indierich06 Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Strange that other professions don't feel the need for gimmicks to promote homosexuality. Clearly a whim that someone has thought up and the powers that be are too fearful to reject as whimsical for fear of being brandished as a homophobe. A damning indictment of the world we live in. Well there are practically no other professions where it's deemed strange or unnatural. Football is still living in the ****ing dark ages - even sports like Rugby are accepting of homosexuals. And this is not about promoting homosexuality - you can't change your sexual preference any more than you can change your skin colour, so don't worry, no-one's going to get 'turned' - it's about promoting respect, tolerance and acceptance of your fellow human beings. The fact that some people can't see that is the real damning indictment of the world we live in today.
Captain... Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Strange that other professions don't feel the need for gimmicks to promote homosexuality. Clearly a whim that someone has thought up and the powers that be are too fearful to reject as whimsical for fear of being brandished as a homophobe. A damning indictment of the world we live in. It is not promoting homosexuality, it is not a recruitment drive, by wearing rainbow laces a footballer is demonstrating they have no problem with homosexuality, and would support any openly gay team mate or opponent. Now should there be a gay professional footballer who is in the closet and he saw that every footballer was wearing rainbow laces then they might start to feel more comfortable with who they are. At first I was sceptical about this whole campaign, but seeing the views in this thread I think it is a good thing that it is opening up debate.
Haydos Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Strange that other professions don't feel the need for gimmicks to promote homosexuality. Clearly a whim that someone has thought up and the powers that be are too fearful to reject as whimsical for fear of being brandished as a homophobe. A damning indictment of the world we live in. How many other professions will you be publicly abused in for your sexuality? Do office workers have it discussed in the papers? Is there a history of electricians staying in the closet because previous electricians have committed suicide because of the abuse they received after coming out? Get a grip. For those of you saying people need educating, how do you educate people that are as intelectually challenged as this ^, who don't understand that footballers are in a completely different world to any of us normal folk.
Weller in Tights Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Dangerous Tiger should be banned for many reasons but most of all because he likes Rugby. Now there is a reason to ban someone!!!!
Samilktray Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 I tend to think those properly anti-gay types are probably hiding something they're a little bit ashamed of.
RumbleFox Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Sweet Mary Jesus I am actually shocked by how many people on here are prejudiced morons. I am finding this deeply deressing. Firstly, DANGEROUSTIGER, you have still not answered my question. At what age did you CHOOSE to be straight? I cannt even believe some folk are getting angry about this and are still somehow "wary", "scared" or even "disgusted" by them gays! You can't catch it you know. It is just a form of hatred that this world could do without. I absolutely could not care less what someone's sexuality is. Really, are you REALLY that bothered? Does the fact that some people happen to be attracted to people of the same sex really affect your life that much? And you talk about "it not being normal" and all that. I can say 100% that EVEN IF sexuality was a choice and EVEN IF it were somehow wrong it would still be more NORMAL than disliking someone based purey on their sexuality and I would still rather "promote" it to a child than to promote hatred. Seriously, I got banned from this site once for saying something ever so slightly offensive about a footbal match yet these people can spread such bile. Not saying you should ban then Mods but maybe have a little word with them and make them realise how silly they are making themselves look? I love you all. Yes, even you TIGER you daft little homophobe. X
Guest Bilo Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 They love going up the Arsenal. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Pun Tourette's.
FoxesAreBlue Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Not a problem with people who are gay and I'm quite surprised at some of the strong views in this thread. What I don't like though is the camp-ness that is often comes with gay men. Fvck me that's irritating.
Finnaldo Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Can we get a Leicester version of this put above DT's seat?
Guest MattP Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 Shall we get a "faggy foxes" banner hanging from thebigjohnsteaders box?
Guest MattP Posted 23 September 2013 Posted 23 September 2013 I will then, as you know I love a good debate, the main difference for me between homosexuality and paedophilia is the act of sex with children is illegal and non consensual. Now I'm not an expert on why people are gay or paedophiles, but if we take the very questionable point of view that both are uncontrollable attractions that is a result of genetics, and that a gay person shouldn't be judged for finding the same sex attractive, then by that logic a paedophile shouldn't be judged for finding a child attractive, that is basically your argument. In some ways that is correct, people shouldn't be judged on their sexual preferences, but the moment a paedophile acts on that attraction they are breaking the law and should be imprisoned as a danger to society, whereas if a gay man has consensual sex with another man then nothing illegal or morally wrong has occurred. Now personally I don't believe paedophilia is a genetic trait and it seems, based on anecdotal evidence, that it is very often result of systematic abuse from a very early age and is based around exerting power over the victim and not sexual gratification and can therefore be cured with psychiatric counselling, but that is another discussion. Just thought I'd recognise this, an excellent response and I agree with 90% of it. The law is irrelevant as it can and wil be changed at various points throughout time, at many points in history having sex with a 13 year old girl was considered completely natural and normal whilst homosexuality was punished by death, in a lot of parts of the Islamic World that is actually still the case. Why have we changed on that? Gay sex was originally legalised down to 18, then it went down to 16, 16 isn't the age of an adult so I don't see how the argument of "two consenting adults" can actually be used anymore. In Greece you can have gay sex at 15. Can anyone say with definity that the gay sex age won't be lowered to 14 in the future? Of course they can't. So the point about how we'll be " probably be legalising peadophilia" in 50 years can't just be thrown away as from what it was 50 years ago, we already have legalised it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.