Maybe the "quiet ones" didn't say anything for fear of being accussed of racism or hatred or homophobia.
Dubz
I disagree. This wasn't a routine broadcast of Question Time, it was a moment in history. The audience were there to showcase, via their questions, how society feels towards the BNP, be it for or against. And it isn't only ethnic minorities who dislike the party. As mentioned, I have no idea if they were handpicked. But positive or negative feedback to audience members depended entirely on what they had to say.
How can you disagree with someone's sexual preference? While especially recent researches reveal that it is more of a genetical disposition. You do not have to like it but you can not oppose it.
1. because it's my fucking choice if I want to feel a certain way about something.
2. Recent researches by who ? I don't give a flying fuck what causes it. I DON't LIKE IT and that's my fucking choice.
3. Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't oppose something, It's my fundamental right to oppose whatever the fuck I like. I may be wrong but I still have the fucking right to oppose it if I choose so, However I do not recall saying anywhere that I was opposed to it or that it's wrong, I just said I disagreed with it.
4. I can think whatever the fuck I like, that is something no-one can take away from me, or you for that matter.
Maybe the "quiet ones" didn't say anything for fear of being accussed of racism or hatred or homophobia.
Dubz
I disagree. This wasn't a routine broadcast of Question Time, it was a moment in history. The audience were there to showcase, via their questions, how society feels towards the BNP, be it for or against. And it isn't only ethnic minorities who dislike the party. As mentioned, I have no idea if they were handpicked. But positive or negative feedback to audience members depended entirely on what they had to say.
Yeah but Tonie, in the UK right now it's more popular to be liberal and live and let live, hence the backlash by certain parts of society in leaning towards the BNP. I didn't see any tattoo'd, sun reading, racist, London taxi drivers in the audience, surely they are also a cross section of British society? There were probabaly people in that audience who agreed with certain aspects of BNP policy as illustrated already in this thread, but were far too afraid to speak up lest they be associated and witch-hunted as BNP Racist Holocaust deniers, possibly??
being "Anti" anything means you are no longer open to discussion, debate, or arguement you have already made up your mind
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
I'm suggesting you should be open to the opinions of everyone, you don't have to agree with them, in fact you can be dead set against them, but you should be open to them.
Dubz
Doesn't being 'anti' something mean precisely to be against something? If you decide to be 'anti-fascist' it can mean you've weighed up the information and concluded you are against the idea or fascism. To not listen to the other side of the story, and to not fairly consider all options, would be to not be open-minded. But being 'anti' something doesn't per se imply you are not open-minded.
How can you disagree with someone's sexual preference? While especially recent researches reveal that it is more of a genetical disposition. You do not have to like it but you can not oppose it.
1. because it's my fucking choice if I want to feel a certain way about something.
2. Recent researches by who ? I don't give a flying fuck what causes it. I DON't LIKE IT and that's my fucking choice.
3. Who the fuck are you to tell me I can't oppose something, It's my fundamental right to oppose whatever the fuck I like. I may be wrong but I still have the fucking right to oppose it if I choose so, However I do not recall saying anywhere that I was opposed to it or that it's wrong, I just said I disagreed with it.
4. I can think whatever the fuck I like, that is something no-one can take away from me, or you for that matter.
Dubz
I'd prefer you to use the same tone that I use,while discussing. If this is also your choice (to be rude),that's fine.
You can dislike,hate, be disgusted about homosexual relationships ( I do not have a sympathy either). By definition,you can disagree with an opinion or an ideology, not with the way one person is. It is like saying:
I disagree with black people.
I disagree with birds having long wings.
I disagree with BNP being racist. (alright that was caustic :P )
being "Anti" anything means you are no longer open to discussion, debate, or arguement you have already made up your mind
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
I'm suggesting you should be open to the opinions of everyone, you don't have to agree with them, in fact you can be dead set against them, but you should be open to them.
Dubz
Doesn't being 'anti' something mean precisely to be against something? If you decide to be 'anti-fascist' it can mean you've weighed up the information and concluded you are against the idea or fascism. To not listen to the other side of the story, and to not fairly consider all options, would be to not be open-minded. But being 'anti' something doesn't per se imply you are not open-minded.
How can you be open minded toward an ideology,that is itself close minded?
BNP member: Hm ok,there is a new political trend going on,called fascism. Apparently ,it suggests some people are superior to others because of their skin colors, religions,beliefs, preferences,so on so forth.We should not let any nonwhite members to our political party (BNP constitution 9th article).
Random guy: Oh, here is something to be open-minded about!
Yeah, Dubz, you've basically proven yourself to be a big ball of confused hypocrisy in this thread. You've tied yourself in knots with barely even a nudge of help from anyone else.
One minute you're advising me to be more open minded about things. Then you're telling me you generally disagree with homosexuality.(I don't even know what that means! It begs so many questions - what do you disagree with? Have you met any openly gay people? Do you find then disagreeable? )
One minute I should be more open to the BNP's policies on education. The next minute you're reading their opinions yourself for the first time.
One minute you're advising me to be more open minded about things. Then you're telling me you generally disagree with homosexuality.(I don't even know what that means! It begs so many questions - what do you disagree with? Have you met any openly gay people? Do you find then disagreeable? )
One minute I should be more open to the BNP's policies on education. The next minute you're reading their opinions yourself for the first time.
Homosexuality, I have made my mind up, and I am ststing my opinion, following me so far?? If for whatever reason someone decides to argue the point then fair enough, I may even change my point of view, still with me, not going too fast am I ??? If you read back through this thread you will discover that at no point did I say I'm not open to discussion or I will never change my mind.
On the BNP side of things... have you read every single thing they have ever written/published ?? I didn't think so yet you have made your mind up (or have you?) and even if you havent you're ready to argue against them ?? Yet you are ready to accuse me of ignorance ?
being "Anti" anything means you are no longer open to discussion, debate, or arguement you have already made up your mind
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
I'm suggesting you should be open to the opinions of everyone, you don't have to agree with them, in fact you can be dead set against them, but you should be open to them.
Dubz
Doesn't being 'anti' something mean precisely to be against something? If you decide to be 'anti-fascist' it can mean you've weighed up the information and concluded you are against the idea or fascism. To not listen to the other side of the story, and to not fairly consider all options, would be to not be open-minded. But being 'anti' something doesn't per se imply you are not open-minded.
What I meant was that you can be pro"something" without being anti- the oppposite of whatever you are pro-. For example Public Enemy have always claimed to be a pro-"black" band, but they were never anti-"white", It's like the abortion thing, you have two sides, one calls themselves Pro-Life which insinuates the people who disagree with them are Anti-Life, which they are not they are Pro-Choice. That is the point I was trying to make.
I'd prefer you to use the same tone that I use,while discussing. If this is also your choice (to be rude),that's fine.
You were not discussing...
You do not have to like it but you can not oppose it.
that is not discussing that is telling me what I can and cannot do hence the, admittedly, harsh reply. I do not like being told what I can or cannot do/think.
Why am I not allowed to disagree with something, whether it be homosexuality or Weetabix vs Cornflakes ??
2. Recent researches by who ? I don't give a flying fuck what causes it. I DON't LIKE IT and that's my fucking choice.
Below are some recent research papers regarding your concern:
Family Studies Laboratory, Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine: http://www.springerlink.com/content/n231h822963713gg/
I'd prefer you to use the same tone that I use,while discussing. If this is also your choice (to be rude),that's fine.
You were not discussing...
You do not have to like it but you can not oppose it.
that is not discussing that is telling me what I can and cannot do hence the, admittedly, harsh reply. I do not like being told what I can or cannot do/think.
Why am I not allowed to disagree with something, whether it be homosexuality or Weetabix vs Cornflakes ??
Dubz
Dubz,
I did not use the word cannot as "you are not allowed to do so". What I meant was,it is, by terminology , impossible to disagree with homosexuality, simply due to the meaning of "disagree".
I'd prefer you to use the same tone that I use,while discussing. If this is also your choice (to be rude),that's fine.
You were not discussing...
You do not have to like it but you can not oppose it.
that is not discussing that is telling me what I can and cannot do hence the, admittedly, harsh reply. I do not like being told what I can or cannot do/think.
Why am I not allowed to disagree with something, whether it be homosexuality or Weetabix vs Cornflakes ??
Dubz
Dubz,
I did not use the word cannot as "you are not allowed to do so". What I meant was,it is, by terminology , impossible to disagree with homosexuality, simply due to the meaning of "disagree".
Dont millions of people worldwide "disagree" with homosexuality because their religious texts says it's wrong?.
I'd prefer you to use the same tone that I use,while discussing. If this is also your choice (to be rude),that's fine.
You were not discussing...
You do not have to like it but you can not oppose it.
that is not discussing that is telling me what I can and cannot do hence the, admittedly, harsh reply. I do not like being told what I can or cannot do/think.
Why am I not allowed to disagree with something, whether it be homosexuality or Weetabix vs Cornflakes ??
Dubz
Dubz,
I did not use the word cannot as "you are not allowed to do so". What I meant was,it is, by terminology , impossible to disagree with homosexuality, simply due to the meaning of "disagree".
Dont millions of people worldwide "disagree" with homosexuality because their religious texts says it's wrong?.
I do not follow any religion,so better ask it to another one..
Maybe the "quiet ones" didn't say anything for fear of being accussed of racism or hatred or homophobia.
Dubz
I disagree. This wasn't a routine broadcast of Question Time, it was a moment in history. The audience were there to showcase, via their questions, how society feels towards the BNP, be it for or against. And it isn't only ethnic minorities who dislike the party. As mentioned, I have no idea if they were handpicked. But positive or negative feedback to audience members depended entirely on what they had to say.
Yeah but Tonie, in the UK right now it's more popular to be liberal and live and let live, hence the backlash by certain parts of society in leaning towards the BNP. I didn't see any tattoo'd, sun reading, racist, London taxi drivers in the audience, surely they are also a cross section of British society? There were probabaly people in that audience who agreed with certain aspects of BNP policy as illustrated already in this thread, but were far too afraid to speak up lest they be associated and witch-hunted as BNP Racist Holocaust deniers, possibly??
Dubz
Surely any card carrying BNP supporter would be happy to to shout out loud and proud, without any fear of backlash?!?!
You've sussed me out as one of those typical liberal, bleeding heart live and let live types. Sorry, can't help it. And we'll have to agree that we're different from that point of view, if that's ok with you? (see, softly spoken even there!!!)
Funnily enough, and I'm sure you noticed, the only pro BNP audience member on QT was a posh 60-something male in a yellow golfing sweater. Not quite your sun reading tattooed cabbie.
But I get the stereotype you're painting. I stand by my conviction that that particular person is mainly concerned with the governments apparent lack of control on the immigration issue, so they vote for the BNP who is so clearly the opposite.
I think that the Conservative speaker on QT will have made a few friends when she spoke so well on that subject.
My problem, amongst many, with the BNP as far as this is concerned, is that they've pushed the country's worry buttons to win votes - they play on Labour's weaknesses, rather than their own dubious strengths. Hope that makes sense.
