News5 mins ago
Golli in the window
192 Answers
http://www.dailymail....hbour-black-wife.html
Is it being racist to display a legal toy in one's window?
Is it being racist to display a legal toy in one's window?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG - just because a black person laughs at a racist joke does not mean that it is acceptable.
Your logic - extended - infersr that dog owners who enjoy dog fighting mean that dog fighting is acceptable.
The inference that 'he finds it funny, and he is black!' is thew weakest of defences used to defend unacceptable behaviour.
The difference is - if people choose to pay to see Jim Davidson, there is a fair chance that they know what to accept, and have the option to leave if they feel upset. That is a whole world away from this incident, where an action clearly calculated to cause offence has taken place - and the law has been brought into play.
Re. your previous post, where you infer that some people are frightened to post on the AB their views on race - I fail to see how you have reached this conclusion.
If you can confirm that anyone has responded on one of your threads that they would like to agree with you, but are frightened to do so, then i am happy to concur, but i suspect that this is simply not the case.
If people absent their views it can be for a myriad of reasons - simply boredom and debate fatigue registers just as well by its absence as your perceived 'fear' to speak out.
I doubt there are any such shrinking violets on the News section, but as always, I am willing to be proved wrong - if the evidnece can be produced to back up your position in that particular instance.
Your logic - extended - infersr that dog owners who enjoy dog fighting mean that dog fighting is acceptable.
The inference that 'he finds it funny, and he is black!' is thew weakest of defences used to defend unacceptable behaviour.
The difference is - if people choose to pay to see Jim Davidson, there is a fair chance that they know what to accept, and have the option to leave if they feel upset. That is a whole world away from this incident, where an action clearly calculated to cause offence has taken place - and the law has been brought into play.
Re. your previous post, where you infer that some people are frightened to post on the AB their views on race - I fail to see how you have reached this conclusion.
If you can confirm that anyone has responded on one of your threads that they would like to agree with you, but are frightened to do so, then i am happy to concur, but i suspect that this is simply not the case.
If people absent their views it can be for a myriad of reasons - simply boredom and debate fatigue registers just as well by its absence as your perceived 'fear' to speak out.
I doubt there are any such shrinking violets on the News section, but as always, I am willing to be proved wrong - if the evidnece can be produced to back up your position in that particular instance.
Andy-Hughes
Before making your ridiculous analogy, perhaps you should first read what I put.
/// em10, you mean Jim Davidson humour? it's quite clearly unacceptable now ///
My answer:
"Now get it right, unacceptable to some".
You put:
/// just because a black person laughs at a racist joke does not mean that it is acceptable. ///
Obviously it is acceptable to that person, that's why he laughs, but as I have said it is unacceptable only 'TO SOME'.
Regarding the fact that some are too frightened to post on AB their views on racial matters etc.
I have been told before that some admire me for speaking my mind, where they would not dare.
This is a fact, but if you think I am going to spend my time searching for these particular posts, just to make you 'happy to concur' or even 'willing to be proven wrong', then I'm afraid Andy I just cannot be bothered.
Before making your ridiculous analogy, perhaps you should first read what I put.
/// em10, you mean Jim Davidson humour? it's quite clearly unacceptable now ///
My answer:
"Now get it right, unacceptable to some".
You put:
/// just because a black person laughs at a racist joke does not mean that it is acceptable. ///
Obviously it is acceptable to that person, that's why he laughs, but as I have said it is unacceptable only 'TO SOME'.
Regarding the fact that some are too frightened to post on AB their views on racial matters etc.
I have been told before that some admire me for speaking my mind, where they would not dare.
This is a fact, but if you think I am going to spend my time searching for these particular posts, just to make you 'happy to concur' or even 'willing to be proven wrong', then I'm afraid Andy I just cannot be bothered.
AOG - I am surprised - i would have thought that someone egotistical enough to remind strangers that other strangers 'admire him' for the basic premise of speaking his mind - would be more than willing to bask in the reflected glory of their repeated admiration when invited so to do.
Personally, I do not think it admireable at all to speak your mind - merely a privelidge extended to us all as part of a society that gives us access to a computer, and free speech - but that is simply my perspective.
If anyone wants to admire me for tirelessly sparring with AOG on a virtaully daily basis - please feel fee!!!!
Personally, I do not think it admireable at all to speak your mind - merely a privelidge extended to us all as part of a society that gives us access to a computer, and free speech - but that is simply my perspective.
If anyone wants to admire me for tirelessly sparring with AOG on a virtaully daily basis - please feel fee!!!!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.