Reply to: An innocent mistake to make.....

[vetran]

There is always a home for like minded folks: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8447741.html

yeah because stating historical fact as recounted by their holy books is "Rabigotist"

https://www.answering-islam.org/Auth.../pedophile.htm

https://www.answering-islam.org/Sham...epubescent.htm


Admittedly paedophilia was common throughout society at the time, however one sort of expects better from a leader of religion. At the very least his followers should admit it and move on.

PS not all of the testaments are acceptable in modern society!

[darmstadt]

There is always a home for like minded folks: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8447741.html

[NotAllThere]

More like this:

[vetran]

Sure



Did I guess right?

as usual no!

Let me guess yours!

[NotAllThere]

ah so good you know what I'm thinking - guess what I am thinking now!

Sure

Did I guess right?

[vetran]

Is that something he has ever done, or been accused of doing?

It is something he has been accused of doing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ious-in-london

Serious crime soared in London in the past year, police figures have revealed, with the murder rate up by 44% and youth murder, personal robbery and home burglary all up by about a third.

The snapshot figures from the Metropolitan police, which show the number of crimes in the year to March, also showed a 23% increase in gun crime with discharges, a 21% rise in knife crime and an 18% increase in the number of rapes.

This increase last year is shocking.

[vetran]

No, we can’t use similar for those that organised the blimp. The blimp was political satire aimed at a president that acts like a baby, whereas the Khan image was deliberately offensive aimed at his religion.

There are (mostly) clear definitions on this, contained in various Acts.



That, in my view, would have been a political statement and not aimed at his religion, and therefore not bigoted. Clearly it would be far more of a political statement than just calling him a big baby, but if it is not racially or religiously motivated then it falls under different parameters.

Whether it is acceptable or not in a normal sense depends on how far you’re prepared to go to express political views. Have a go at him for his policies, by all means; play the ball, not the man.

Not sure I agree on the Blimp but your arguments make sense.

Glad to see you agree on Khan.

[vetran]

In the eyes of some, e.g. Rees Mogg, as Mayor of London, he's not taken responsibility for doing something about the increase of knife crime over the last few years. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/94...ur-Party-Mayor

"But you cannot blame him for the trend that had started before he got in. It is his primary responsibility to be responding. That is where his responsibility lies.”

Certain vetran-minded folk read this kind of stuff, and end up believing that Khan is directly responsible for every knife murder in London.

Khan, being a politician, naturally blames government policy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8141436.html

ah so good you know what I'm thinking - guess what I am thinking now!

[meridian]

I'm good with using bigot to describe someone who shared or created this rather unpleasant image. Can we use similar for those that organised the Blimp?

I just want equality and clear definitions.

No, we can’t use similar for those that organised the blimp. The blimp was political satire aimed at a president that acts like a baby, whereas the Khan image was deliberately offensive aimed at his religion.

There are (mostly) clear definitions on this, contained in various Acts.

I wonder what would have happened if Sadiq Khan had been portrayed with a blood covered knife in his hands standing over a young boy? Would that have been acceptable?

That, in my view, would have been a political statement and not aimed at his religion, and therefore not bigoted. Clearly it would be far more of a political statement than just calling him a big baby, but if it is not racially or religiously motivated then it falls under different parameters.

Whether it is acceptable or not in a normal sense depends on how far you’re prepared to go to express political views. Have a go at him for his policies, by all means; play the ball, not the man.

[NotAllThere]

Is that something he has ever done, or been accused of doing?

In the eyes of some, e.g. Rees Mogg, as Mayor of London, he's not taken responsibility for doing something about the increase of knife crime over the last few years. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/94...ur-Party-Mayor

"But you cannot blame him for the trend that had started before he got in. It is his primary responsibility to be responding. That is where his responsibility lies.”

Certain vetran-minded folk read this kind of stuff, and end up believing that Khan is directly responsible for every knife murder in London.

Khan, being a politician, naturally blames government policy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8141436.html

[WTFH]

I wonder what would have happened if Sadiq Khan had been portrayed with a blood covered knife in his hands standing over a young boy? Would that have been acceptable?

Is that something he has ever done, or been accused of doing?

[vetran]

Biologically, there is only one human race, so the term racist should mean nothing. But so what? Hate filled anti-Muslim images are still as execrable as hate filled images of people according to their skin colour or ethnic origin.

Except for gammons of course. They're funny and a perfectly acceptable target for ridicule.

If you prefer, when you see the word "racist" you can mentally substitute it for "bigotted, small-minded, hate-filled, ignorant bigot". HTH. Or, according to meridian, "vetran".

I'm good with using bigot to describe someone who shared or created this rather unpleasant image. Can we use similar for those that organised the Blimp?

I just want equality and clear definitions.

I wonder what would have happened if Sadiq Khan had been portrayed with a blood covered knife in his hands standing over a young boy? Would that have been acceptable?

[vetran]

(David Attenborough voice)

“Emboldened by his fellow racists and bigots, vetran slides out from under his rock to provide some whataboutery to fit his bigoted agenda...”

I have no issue with calling it Faithism which it might be. But moving the goal posts by redefining racism as something that offends people that believe in non visible beings hardly helps the situation.

[NotAllThere]

It's anti-Muslim but I fail to see it as racist when Islam isn't a race.

Biologically, there is only one human race, so the term racist should mean nothing. But so what? Hate filled anti-Muslim images are still as execrable as hate filled images of people according to their skin colour or ethnic origin.

Except for gammons of course. They're funny and a perfectly acceptable target for ridicule.

If you prefer, when you see the word "racist" you can mentally substitute it for "bigotted, small-minded, hate-filled, ignorant bigot". HTH. Or, according to meridian, "vetran".

[meridian]

of course its racist, they just redefined racism.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig...b_8591660.html

not sure where Cat Stevens fits in or Mike Tyson if its cultural racism, maybe the catholic kiddy fiddlers could have tried it? Decrying catholic criminals is racism.

https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-p...elebrity-lists.

(David Attenborough voice)

“Emboldened by his fellow racists and bigots, vetran slides out from under his rock to provide some whataboutery to fit his bigoted agenda...”