This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
derben  25 May 15 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.59pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.45pm
Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. No drawing parallels to a totalitarian system of murder and control is hyperbole when referring to what amounts to a 500 fine for infrigements of someones civil rights (that was upheld by a court and on appeal). I don't remember Winston Smith getting away with a fine, and being given right to appeal the decisions.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 1.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.59pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.45pm
Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. No drawing parallels to a totalitarian system of murder and control is hyperbole when referring to what amounts to a 500 fine for infrigements of someones civil rights (that was upheld by a court and on appeal). I don't remember Winston Smith getting away with a fine, and being given right to appeal the decisions.
You surely mean speech and expressions, rather than thoughts and attitudes
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 1.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.06pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.59pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.45pm
Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. No drawing parallels to a totalitarian system of murder and control is hyperbole when referring to what amounts to a 500 fine for infrigements of someones civil rights (that was upheld by a court and on appeal). I don't remember Winston Smith getting away with a fine, and being given right to appeal the decisions.
You surely mean speech and expressions, rather than thoughts and attitudes All four, although I accept that they have difficulties with the latter two.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 1.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.08pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.06pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.59pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.45pm
Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. No drawing parallels to a totalitarian system of murder and control is hyperbole when referring to what amounts to a 500 fine for infrigements of someones civil rights (that was upheld by a court and on appeal). I don't remember Winston Smith getting away with a fine, and being given right to appeal the decisions.
You surely mean speech and expressions, rather than thoughts and attitudes All four, although I accept that they have difficulties with the latter two. Are they exterminating the oppositional point? Or are they in fact engaging in legal and acceptable oppositional debate, through accepted democratic means. There is no real parallel between The Thought Police. Its a right wing reactionary hyperbole as common, and as stupid, as leftwing idiots calling the Conservatives facists or UKIP racists.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.30pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.08pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.06pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.03pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.59pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.45pm
Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. No drawing parallels to a totalitarian system of murder and control is hyperbole when referring to what amounts to a 500 fine for infrigements of someones civil rights (that was upheld by a court and on appeal). I don't remember Winston Smith getting away with a fine, and being given right to appeal the decisions.
You surely mean speech and expressions, rather than thoughts and attitudes All four, although I accept that they have difficulties with the latter two. Are they exterminating the oppositional point? Or are they in fact engaging in legal and acceptable oppositional debate, through accepted democratic means. There is no real parallel between The Thought Police. Its a right wing reactionary hyperbole as common, and as stupid, as leftwing idiots calling the Conservatives facists or UKIP racists. ___________________________ The expressions 'thought-police' and thought-crimes' may have originated in Orwell's novel, I suspect they were in use before that. Of course there are degrees of severity in policing by the thought-police, ranging from one extreme, the likes of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Albania, Nazi Germany etc where people were tortured and killed, to the likes of many current 'progressive' regimes where peoples' freedoms are eroded, fines levied and careers ruined. Again, I would say it is a perfectly reasonable expression to use. Most reasonable people accept that it is not meant to mean that the United Kingdom thought-police are in the same league as Airstrip One's. Edited by derben (25 May 2015 1.46pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Its in no way an attempt to draw a false parallel between two entirely unrelated concepts, for the benefit of one side of an argument. So if I said the Conservatives were Facist promoter of terrorism that would be ok, because they were right wing and during their government there was reasonable case to be said for collusion between the security services and loyalist paramilitaries Of course not, its argument in hyperbole, by comparing a equal rights advocate group to a 'kick murder' squad, its simply a sophistic trick to make the equal rights group something indefensible. Same as when people shout racist or facist, when clearly the case is more complicated. Its about making a point that cannot be contested without defense of the indefensible.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 2.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.51pm
Its in no way an attempt to draw a false parallel between two entirely unrelated concepts, for the benefit of one side of an argument. So if I said the Conservatives were Facist promoter of terrorism that would be ok, because they were right wing and during their government there was reasonable case to be said for collusion between the security services and loyalist paramilitaries Of course not, its argument in hyperbole, by comparing a equal rights advocate group to a 'kick murder' squad, its simply a sophistic trick to make the equal rights group something indefensible. Same as when people shout racist or facist, when clearly the case is more complicated. Its about making a point that cannot be contested without defense of the indefensible. Whatever the degree of attempted thought control and whatever the degree of punishment for thought crimes, it is perfectly reasonable to use the term thought-police. It is like using the term 'bomb', it could range from an IRA pipe bomb to a nuclear bomb. (By the way, I'll use whatever words I like - as I am sure you will. Until of course the thought-police intervene.) Edited by derben (25 May 2015 2.14pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 johnfirewall 25 May 15 11.17pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I'm guessing it was a different group who'd previously caused trouble otherwise you'd have perfect grounds to refuse service and colour/class/religion/origin wouldn't come in to it. Few years ago a pub in Erith got shut down after they rode horses in. Extreme example perhaps but you can't really win. With the cake, the owner should have just come clean and stated their case. I don't really know why anyone would demand someone provide a service that's available elsewhere. No one wants spit in their food. The law is clear here but attitudes don't change. Nor do religions and paradoxically you can't ban them. Change is all too gradual. Didn't someone on here get chucked out of KFC for being white? We can all make a fuss about everything we perceive as discriminatory to expedite true equality, and actively seek out establishments where we felt unwelcome but I think society would fall apart.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 9.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 25 May 2015 11.17pm
I'm guessing it was a different group who'd previously caused trouble otherwise you'd have perfect grounds to refuse service and colour/class/religion/origin wouldn't come in to it. Few years ago a pub in Erith got shut down after they rode horses in. Extreme example perhaps but you can't really win. With the cake, the owner should have just come clean and stated their case. I don't really know why anyone would demand someone provide a service that's available elsewhere. No one wants spit in their food. The law is clear here but attitudes don't change. Nor do religions and paradoxically you can't ban them. Change is all too gradual. Didn't someone on here get chucked out of KFC for being white? We can all make a fuss about everything we perceive as discriminatory to expedite true equality, and actively seek out establishments where we felt unwelcome but I think society would fall apart. I think the key factor is bringing a case. I'd imagine that most of the issues where white people have experienced prejudice hasn't resulted in people bringing a case.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 26 May 15 12.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.08am
Quote johnfirewall at 25 May 2015 11.17pm
I'm guessing it was a different group who'd previously caused trouble otherwise you'd have perfect grounds to refuse service and colour/class/religion/origin wouldn't come in to it. Few years ago a pub in Erith got shut down after they rode horses in. Extreme example perhaps but you can't really win. With the cake, the owner should have just come clean and stated their case. I don't really know why anyone would demand someone provide a service that's available elsewhere. No one wants spit in their food. The law is clear here but attitudes don't change. Nor do religions and paradoxically you can't ban them. Change is all too gradual. Didn't someone on here get chucked out of KFC for being white? We can all make a fuss about everything we perceive as discriminatory to expedite true equality, and actively seek out establishments where we felt unwelcome but I think society would fall apart. I think the key factor is bringing a case. I'd imagine that most of the issues where white people have experienced prejudice hasn't resulted in people bringing a case. I expect they are afraid of being called racist if they complained of experiencing prejudice.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 12.44pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.08am
Quote johnfirewall at 25 May 2015 11.17pm
I'm guessing it was a different group who'd previously caused trouble otherwise you'd have perfect grounds to refuse service and colour/class/religion/origin wouldn't come in to it. Few years ago a pub in Erith got shut down after they rode horses in. Extreme example perhaps but you can't really win. With the cake, the owner should have just come clean and stated their case. I don't really know why anyone would demand someone provide a service that's available elsewhere. No one wants spit in their food. The law is clear here but attitudes don't change. Nor do religions and paradoxically you can't ban them. Change is all too gradual. Didn't someone on here get chucked out of KFC for being white? We can all make a fuss about everything we perceive as discriminatory to expedite true equality, and actively seek out establishments where we felt unwelcome but I think society would fall apart. I think the key factor is bringing a case. I'd imagine that most of the issues where white people have experienced prejudice hasn't resulted in people bringing a case. I expect they are afraid of being called racist if they complained of experiencing prejudice. No doubt, just as some people will call people hysterical, if they do. If you don't stand up for your rights, you get walked all over. The history of rights demonstrates that. If I was refused or thrown out of KFC for being white, I'd sue.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.