untethered
For industry & decency
I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by lumping race and sexual behaviour together. People don't get to choose which colour they're born.
tube party on june 1st?
- Thread starter bluestreak
- Start date
I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by lumping race and sexual behaviour together. People don't get to choose which colour they're born.
Thimble Queen
Called away to another place
citydreams
on the road again
Anyway, now we know what colour and sexuality ajdown is 
....how about that party!?
....how about that party!?
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Both do consider themselves 'minorities' though, and as a result demand special treatment for equality.
citydreams
on the road again
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Here, I've done the work for you. This data is from the 2001 census and includes the 5 central Brixton wards (Coldharbour,Tulse Hill,Ferndale,Herne Hill,Brixton Hill)
Code:
All People 64656
White: British 28732
Black or Black British: Caribbean 10355
Black or Black British: African 8506
White: Other White 6352
White: Irish 1955
Black or Black British: Other Black 1787
Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 1513
Mixed: Other Mixed 831
Chinese or other ethnic group: Chinese 768
Asian or Asian British: Indian 763
Chinese or other ethnic group: 738
Mixed: White and Black African 574
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 537
Mixed: White and Asian 495
Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 398
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 352White British isn't quite a majority, but if you count Irish and Other White, then the magical 50% line is crossed.
untethered
For industry & decency
They are minorities. Why shouldn't they have equality?
untethered
For industry & decency
57%/43% white/non-white.
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Didn't say they shouldn't ... it's when they get special treatment it's wrong.
untethered
For industry & decency
What kind of special treatment? Priority seats on the buses?
ajdown
Posting in this thread
On the estate I used to live, there was a special housing officer for dealing with the 'special needs' of homosexual clients. There was also one for the 'black community'.
The only community group I can see as really having 'special needs' is disabled people, as regards accessibility, perhaps modifications to the flat, not being on the 20th floor etc.
Anyway... there was a topic somewhere.
so presumably you think you shoudl be able to legislate against behaviour that people have a choice over (such as "drinking on buses" or "being gay" according to you tho according to most scientists and my experience people do not choose sexuality), if whoever's in charge thinks it's morally bad?
untethered
For industry & decency
Yes. And not only do I think so, that principle is at the cornerstone of society.
Of course, opinions differ on what should fall within the scope of regulation.
How sweet.We organise society to exploit resources, you twit. Controlling behavior is simply an means to an end.
you can see how dangerous that is though? if someone got in power who thought being gay was immoral (heaven forbid! what city would vote in a wanker like that), then they could start legislating against that. no holding hands in the street etc. "principle at the cornerstone of society", making laws to ban whatever you dislike? what total bullshit.
untethered
For industry & decency
So how would that be different in principle from holding that to be opposed to homosexuality was immoral and banning anything that contradicted that?
er too many double negatives, i don't understand.
i think you have made your views pretty clear anyway.
untethered
For industry & decency
Do you see any difference in principle between banning homosexual acts and banning opposition to homosexual acts?
what form would this opposition take? i don't see how it is possible to ban the abstract idea of "opposition". i don't really see what you are getting at, do you think opposition to gayness has been banned or something? there is actually a lot of "opposition" (homophobia) around that noone does anything about. of course there are laws to cover incitement to violence and assaults, i presume you would not want those to be allowed?
untethered
For industry & decency
I'd be opposed to a ban on such a prohibition.
The question is, how to communicate that to the public?
Oh, hang on...
untethered
For industry & decency
Take the prohibition of discrimination against homosexual couples in adoption, for example. The Catholic adoption agencies didn't like that.
All the more reason to think that there is a serious division in society over this that won't be mended just by mandating how people should act.
Of course not. But I struggle to see why a law against inciting violence against anyone needs to be supplemented further with aggravated offences when it's directed against a particular group.
yet you think there should be a mandate against people drinking on buses? you would rather people were allowed to be openly homophobic (they are allowed to be right now) than to drink on a bus (now banned)? how totally fucked up. this just goes to show how morals are subjective and why it is dangerous to build laws around them.
untethered
For industry & decency
Drinking on buses isn't a moral issue which affects anyone's core beliefs. Just a matter of preference.
If you're not going to build laws around morals, what?
so even less of a reason to legislate against it.
as for making laws based on morals... well in my opinion why make a law against something if it's not harming anyone? so yeh, keep the murder law, the stealing law etc. but don't bring in laws against people sleeping with who they want to, or having a can of beer on the bus, or wearing red on tuesday or whatever random thing you have a prejudice against.
(i suppose you could call it a "moral" thing not to want to harm people, but that is fairly universal thing to our species, i think we are safe in using that as a foundation for a good society)
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
I agree (although the context and motivation for the crime are relevant when considering sentence and the extent to which an individual is an ongoing threat to others, obv).
However, you ignore the origins of these laws, which were introduced at a time when racism and homophobia were much more "socially acceptable" (to judges and juries, as well as the perpetrators). These attitudes are not at all acceptable in a modern civilised society, and sometimes it is necessary to use legislation to enforce acceptable standards of behaviour, as I'm sure you will agree.
untethered
For industry & decency
There are many valid motivations for regulation. Prohibiting behaviour that causes low-level disorder might not fall within anyone's core morality but there are still good arguments for and against such a ban without accepting that such a ban should never be countenanced.
I don't think anyone does unless they're just being gratuitously authoritarian. But ideas vary on what constitutes "harm". For example, I'd ban gambling as I think it does tremendous harm to society as a whole, if not to every single individual gambler every time they play. Clearly, many would disagree.
They're not "random", and that's the point.
untethered
For industry & decency
However, you ignore the origins of these laws, which were introduced at a time when racism and homophobia were much more "socially acceptable" (to judges and juries, as well as the perpetrators). These attitudes are not at all acceptable in a modern civilised society, and sometimes it is necessary to use legislation to enforce acceptable standards of behaviour, as I'm sure you will agree.
I agree that the law is one way in which we shape the kind of society we want.
I'd disagree with you on some aspects of what a "civilised society" would look like. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it's "modern".
You think that people choose their sexuality then?
Similar threads
