Winston McKenzi - Homo Comment

First topic message reminder :

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/big_brother/6849123/Celebrity-Big-Brother-2016-Winston-McKenzie-refuses-to-apologise-for-anti-gay-comments-as-Emma-Willis-goes-to-war.html

How many of us have said the same thing over the years??????

Richard The Lionheart wrote:lol a fine fitting picture to how I picture you daily lol

Thanks

Good night sweet prince and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:lol a fine fitting picture to how I picture you daily lol

Thanks

Good night sweet prince and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

Cheers Korben glad you enjoyed being educated here, its clear you need plenty of it

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Good night sweet prince and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

Cheers Korben glad you enjoyed being educated here, its clear you need plenty of it

priceless .....Never read Shakespeare then :lol

korban dallas wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Cheers Korben glad you enjoyed being educated here, its clear you need plenty of it

priceless .....Never read Shakespeare then :lol

Nah I find him rather dull to be honest, a tad like you.

Not sure if I've followed correctly but KD believes this is a hate crime in UK law.

KD, you're looking at the wrong legal act. Hate crimes only apply to a person.

Nobody on this thread has pointed out the correct legal act that could apply here. Although cases using that act are rarely successful and not worth the time of the cps or tax payer money.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not sure if I've followed correctly but KD believes this is a hate crime in UK law.

KD, you're looking at the wrong legal act. Hate crimes only apply to a person.

Nobody on this thread has pointed out the correct legal act that could apply here. Although cases using that act are rarely successful and not worth the time of the cps or tax payer money.

No, they don't Fuzzy.

The legislation against hate crime including hate speech have been beefed up over the years and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 introduced an amendment to the Public Order Act to amend Part 3A to specifically cover hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to sexual orientation (whether towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex or both). And the CPS hasn’t been slow to use it either with convictions soaring to huge levels.

It was the first prosecution of its kind since a law against stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation came into force in 2010.

"This was the first case of its kind in British legal history and a significant step forward for us in protecting the LGB [lesbian, gay and bisexual] community," Mr Starmer said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17029139


Read the last report from the CPS to get some idea of just how bad it is. Its grim reading but page 23 is the relevant section covering what is being discussed here.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/cps_hate_crime_report_2014.pdf


As for that clown McKenzie. As Victor has pointed out there are grounds for at least investigating what he said. And if a couple who have adopted a small child into a same sex marriage decided to take out a private prosecution against  him then they could win it as they are part of the group he directed his comments to and see themselves as the victims.

No Zack is right and as usual Irn gets it wrong because their is no victim her specifically, which is what a hate crime is.
How many times does Irn get it wrong?
Daily?

Didge wrote:No Zack is right and as usual Irn gets it wrong because their is no victim her specifically, which is what a hate crime is.
How many times does Irn get it wrong?
Daily?

Ah Didge, you must have missed this from the CPS....

It was the first prosecution of its kind since a law against stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation came into force in 2010.

"This was the first case of its kind in British legal history and a significant step forward for us in protecting the LGB [lesbian, gay and bisexual] community," Mr Starmer said.

You can stand in McKenzie's corner and defend him all you like but you're wrong and it begs the question why are you doing that when the evidence is right there in front of you. Go and read the CPS report.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:No Zack is right and as usual Irn gets it wrong because their is no victim her specifically, which is what a hate crime is.
How many times does Irn get it wrong?
Daily?

Ah Didge, you must have missed this from the CPS....

It was the first prosecution of its kind since a law against stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation came into force in 2010.

"This was the first case of its kind in British legal history and a significant step forward for us in protecting the LGB [lesbian, gay and bisexual] community," Mr Starmer said.

You can stand in McKenzie's corner and defend him all you like but you're wrong and it begs the question why are you doing that when the evidence is right there in front of you. Go and read the CPS report.

Utter absurdity again, I am not defending but showing that it is not a hate crime, as I made it very clear his views were vile, so that is not defending no matter how you pathetically try to claim otheriwse

I have not missed anything as a view not directed at a victim is not a hate crime

All the case studies have victims in the CPS report, showing you have not the first clue what you are on about.

So just got to reading this.

Overall, vic is right in general that this is a very grey area.

However, as eddie and didge have pointed out, he hasn't been arrested and no one has pressed charges, which really alone says there probably aren't grounds to do so. He is a homophobic twat for sure, and deserves to be pelted with eggs tbh. But he hasn't broken the law. And his filthy views have received a fitting reaction from the public!

Let him speak his filth- as seen with the BNP this week, hate is on the way out

My point was people were debating whether this was a "hate crime". By legal definition, this wasn't as it was not directed at a particular individual.

However it may be construed as "incitement towards hatred", which can be directed at group.

Apparently incitement laws have been beefed up to include homosexuals but I don't know which act precisely.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/23/law-against-homophobic-hatred-comes-into-effect/

Fuzzy Zack wrote:My point was people were debating whether this was a "hate crime". By legal definition, this wasn't as it was not directed at a particular individual.

However it may be construed as "incitement towards hatred", which can be directed at group.

Apparently incitement laws have been beefed up to include homosexuals but I don't know which act precisely.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/23/law-against-homophobic-hatred-comes-into-effect/

Take a this case

May 2014: Clarkson claims to be “mortified” after unbroadcast Top Gear footage emerges showing him using the N-word while reciting the rhyme “Eeny Meeny Miny Moe”.

December 2011: The Indian High Commission complains to the BBC after a Top Gear Christmas special mocks Indian culture.

February 2011: The Mexican ambassador to the UK complains of “outrageous, vulgar and inexcusable insults” to his country after Clarkson and his colleagues made a string of jokes about Mexico’s national character.



they are parallels with what happened when clarkson made his comment, Not about an "individual" but a group

his cause a diplomatic incident


ps

and your correct homosexuality comes under the protected group status, unlike religious free speech as i understand

Except again it your moment of glee this is not actually criticizing homosexuality, which is an act not people themselves, hence again he could not be charged with any such crime.

While Stonewall and government supporters claimed the initial legislation would not impede freedom of speech, the House of Lords passed an amendment to protect those who criticise homosexuality or urge gays to turn straight from prosecution.
The legislation will not make it a crime to criticise or tell jokes about homosexuality.


Again some people really cannot grasp the law



Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.


So again he would be quite within his rights to claim homosexual parents are child abusers.

As vile as his statement would be, it would not be a criminal offense, as that would be stated as homosexuals, not homosexuality. So even Zack fails to grasp the law.
,
Also it is important to notice what else was said and what this targets:

Stonewall claimed that a new offence was necessary after it discovered a range of “extreme” websites with anti-gay material. Homophobic song lyrics could also be covered by the law.

And if you read further it also says:

The amendment, tabled by Tory peer and former home secretary under Margaret Thatcher Lord Waddington, allows the “discussion or criticism” of sexual practices.


So he would have committed no crime

Eilzel wrote:So just got to reading this.

Overall, vic is right in general that this is a very grey area.

However, as eddie and didge have pointed out, he hasn't been arrested and no one has pressed charges, which really alone says there probably aren't grounds to do so. He is a homophobic twat for sure, and deserves to be pelted with eggs tbh. But he hasn't broken the law. And his filthy views have received a fitting reaction from the public!

Let him speak his filth- as seen with the BNP this week, hate is on the way out

Thanks mate, that is all I was saying, as I am not defending hom, but defending freedom of speech which is not directed at anyone. Like I said throughout his views are vile and he has by his own disgusting views caused more damage to himself because it was so public. This is the point people miss, what is the point in even pressing for a criminal charge here, when that person has ended up making themselves into a self Siberia

Greaty video, shame though you and zack fail to grasp the law, now that is very funny.

Please ensure both you actually read what is posted, as it is always very important.

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
i am sure he will give his opinion and i am betting he supports my interpretation and as  for defending  homosexual rights i have and always will  

I am willing to take that bet.

I will stay off for a month if Eilzel agrees with you.

If he disagrees with you, then you have to be a man and apologise for losing the plot here?

Which shows why I was confident Eilzel would agree with me, but I am not going to gloat, though it would have been nice after all your abuse to have apologised anyway, but hey ho not going to gloat, as seen you attacked me for no valid reason Korben

Mind you what is fundementally interesting here, is that both Zack and Tommy have argued that homosexuality and homosexual acts are abnormal and unnatural, which would place them directly as breaking this new ammendment to the law. In fact Zack made the poorest argument off anal sex, not understanding around the same amount of hetrosexuals as homosexuals engage in anal sex, around 30-35 percent, thus rendering anal sexl not a specific homosexual act but simply a sexual act. Though this again would be just criticism,though would now claiming homosexuality is abnormal or unnatural place them as directly breaking the law? Its possible.


All interesting but it should make both mindful what they say when they often are critical abusive of homosexuality for the future.

I cannot understand why anyone who is not a disgusting depraved pervert homo turd burglar themselves would support those who are.

Stormee wrote:I cannot understand why anyone who is not a disgusting depraved pervert homo turd burglar themselves would support those who are.

I cannot understand why people would be so appalling disgustingly hateful just as you have been just because they are two conscenting adults in love, that practice the same sexual acts as hetrosexuals do.
So do you call hetrosexuals that have anal sex turd burglars?
Or depraved or disgusting?
It shows your complete level of immaturity, that you would hate people simply for being in love and go off sexul acts, of which hetrosexuals enjoy also.
The question that really needs asking is why you are so hateful for people being in consensual love.
That says to me only that people are bitter and hateful for unfounded reasons and are as backward as literal Islamic or christian believers
This is the 21st century, I suggest maybe you can find a tardis to take you back a few centuries where you can live among other backward people or in fact move to a Muslim hardline nation that also feels the same as you do on homosexuality, as I ma sure you will fit in nicely with such hateful views.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am willing to take that bet.

I will stay off for a month if Eilzel agrees with you.

If he disagrees with you, then you have to be a man and apologise for losing the plot here?

Which shows why I was confident Eilzel would agree with me, but I am not going to gloat, though it would have been nice after all your abuse to have apologised anyway, but hey ho not going to gloat, as seen you attacked me for no valid reason Korben

your really a idiot


Overall, vic is right in general that this is a very grey area. is what edzel said

remember you went of on vic because ,when you invited his comment he said exactly what everybody else`s has said its a Grey area as they are exceptions as has been pointed out

more over you are nether qualified or trained to give a definitive legal ruling and in truth nether am i All you have is a "lay opinion"like me  and this stamping of the feet to get your way is just childish and immature  you don`t see me doing that

you made the classic mistake of introducing a "wittiness" when you asked if you should get vic "to explain" it
therefor inviting him to comment  
his comment was we could both be right or we could both be wrong its a grey area i was happy to accept that

however you when faced with vic`s answer you instead of just accepting the opinion you had cited as "worth something to you " went off on him as you all ways do when people don`t agree with you or your "OPINION"and continually bleat about it
funny that you promised not to gloat pitty you din`t promise to bitch ether when it did not go all your way

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which shows why I was confident Eilzel would agree with me, but I am not going to gloat, though it would have been nice after all your abuse to have apologised anyway, but hey ho not going to gloat, as seen you attacked me for no valid reason Korben

your really a idiot


Overall, vic is right in general that this is a very grey area. is what edzel said remember you when of on vic because when you invited his comment he said exactly what everybody else`s has said its a Grey area as they are exceptions as has been pointed out

more over you are nether qualified or trained to give a definitive legal ruling and in truth nether am i All you have is a "lay opinion"like me  and this stamping of the feet to get your way is just childish and immature  you don`t see me doing that

you made the classic mistake of introducing a "wittiness" when you asked if you should get vic "to explain" it
therefor inviting him to comment  
his comment was we could both be right or we could both be wrong its a grey area i was happy to accept that

however you when faced with vic`s answer you instead of just accepting the opinion you had cited as "worth something to you " went off on him as you all ways do when people don`t agree with you or your "OPINION"and continually bleat about it
funny that you promised not to gloat pitty you din`t promise to bitch ether when it did not go all your way

More childish abuse and even worse your hatred of me is more important than where a poster has just made vile comments, showing how little you consider homophobia itself that your venomn is directed at me and not those expressing hate, which again proves you are easily led by negative emotions/
Again you proceed to further lie where it was you I asked if you would like me to ask Victor, of which you never replied and I never directly asked Victor, who will admit jumped in himself to reply.
I do agree with Victor on this, which we both agree to differ and have left it as that, accept you want to now drag out and continue a farcical slanging match because you simply cannot see you are in error when it comes to this law.
That is yourr failing not mine and the fact that this seems more important to you than where someone just has been vile shows how your bitterness rules your ability to tackle problems.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am willing to take that bet.

I will stay off for a month if Eilzel agrees with you.

If he disagrees with you, then you have to be a man and apologise for losing the plot here?

Which shows why I was confident Eilzel would agree with me, but I am not going to gloat, though it would have been nice after all your abuse to have apologised anyway, but hey ho not going to gloat, as seen you attacked me for no valid reason Korben

Bullshit you have done nothing but belittle me and others i might add and then you complain about abuse you sanctimonious ass

fucking priceless............................honestly fucking priceless

Stormee, that's because you are a selfish, small minded bigot. Anyone who cannot accept or try to understand people who are different to themselves must be mentally depraved and constantly filled with bitterness as they see diversity in so much of human life.

I bet you are slightly saddened by the collapse of the BNP stormee- and that makes me very pleased haha

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
your really a idiot


Overall, vic is right in general that this is a very grey area. is what edzel said remember you when of on vic because when you invited his comment he said exactly what everybody else`s has said its a Grey area as they are exceptions as has been pointed out

more over you are nether qualified or trained to give a definitive legal ruling and in truth nether am i All you have is a "lay opinion"like me  and this stamping of the feet to get your way is just childish and immature  you don`t see me doing that

you made the classic mistake of introducing a "wittiness" when you asked if you should get vic "to explain" it
therefor inviting him to comment  
his comment was we could both be right or we could both be wrong its a grey area i was happy to accept that

however you when faced with vic`s answer you instead of just accepting the opinion you had cited as "worth something to you " went off on him as you all ways do when people don`t agree with you or your "OPINION"and continually bleat about it
funny that you promised not to gloat pitty you din`t promise to bitch ether when it did not go all your way

More childish abuse and even worse your hatred of me is more important than where a poster has just made vile comments, showing how little you consider homophobia itself that your venomn is directed at me and not those expressing hate, which again proves you are easily led by negative emotions/
Again you proceed to further lie where it was you I asked if you would like me to ask Victor, of which you never replied and I never directly asked Victor, who will admit jumped in himself to reply.
I do agree with Victor on this, which we both agree to differ and have left it as that, accept you want to now drag out and continue a farcical slanging match because you simply cannot see you are in error when it comes to this law.
That is yourr failing not mine and the fact that this seems more important to you than where someone just has been vile shows how your bitterness rules your ability to tackle problems.

your a real dick mate lol rock on didge your fucking delusional

ha


haha










hahahahahahahaha




OooooooOOOOOO





look at the funny man mommy

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which shows why I was confident Eilzel would agree with me, but I am not going to gloat, though it would have been nice after all your abuse to have apologised anyway, but hey ho not going to gloat, as seen you attacked me for no valid reason Korben

Bullshit you have done nothing but belittle me and others i might add and then you complain about abuse you sanctimonious ass

fucking priceless............................honestly fucking priceless

No you have shown the worst immaturity, and all because from the very start you wrongly classified a view point as a hate crime. I rightly said his views were appalling and that I found it fitting that he had by his own appalling viuews damaged his own reputation. Only because I disagreed with you did you start off another slanging match from where the previous day you had also been in error, making this some pathetic little personal vendetta for you

I suggest you grow the hell up because I never threw any abuse at you, that was you making unfounded accusatiins claiming I was unemployed, which means you most hate the unemplyed thinging its an insult, then   to calling me mental, to accusing me unjustly of homophobia, to countless other infantile views. When you make these hateful views, you then stigmatise people who are and suffer from being in this way, but I doubt that ever registers with you as you are so easily led by hate

Eilzel wrote:Stormee, that's because you are a selfish, small minded bigot. Anyone who cannot accept or try to understand people who are different to themselves must be mentally depraved and constantly filled with bitterness as they see diversity in so much of human life.

I bet you are slightly saddened by the collapse of the BNP stormee- and that makes me very pleased haha

Its the biggest irony when you think about it but he hates Muslims, and yet it is in a place like a Muslim country or under ISIS control where many of his views would be aceptable. I mean saudi arabia is fundementally a racist nation and considers punishment of homosexuals. He fails to grasp he shares more in common with Muslim extremists than he does with his fellow citizens.

Now that is irony for you

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Bullshit you have done nothing but belittle me and others i might add and then you complain about abuse you sanctimonious ass

fucking priceless............................honestly fucking priceless

No you have shown the worst immaturity, and all because from the very start you wrongly classified a view point as a hate crime. I rightly said his views were appalling and that I found it fitting that he had by his own appalling viuews damaged his own reputation. Only because I disagreed with you did you start off another slanging match from where the previous day you had also been in error, making this some pathetic little personal vendetta for you

I suggest you grow the hell up because I never threw any abuse at you, that was you making unfounded accusatiins claiming I was unemployed, which means you most hate the unemplyed thinging its an insult, then   to calling me mental, to accusing me unjustly of homophobia, to countless other infantile views. When you make these hateful views, you then stigmatise people who are and suffer from being in this way, but I doubt that ever registers with you as you are so easily led by hate

love how you slip in your pathetic lies you little twat

i have never once accused you of homophobia we are and have been talking about if what was said was a hate crime

how fucking dare you make the claim i have accused you of homophobia just goes to show what kind of lying self aggrandizing little worm of a man/slug you are
so go and fuck your self

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Bullshit you have done nothing but belittle me and others i might add and then you complain about abuse you sanctimonious ass

fucking priceless............................honestly fucking priceless

No you have shown the worst immaturity, and all because from the very start you wrongly classified a view point as a hate crime. I rightly said his views were appalling and that I found it fitting that he had by his own appalling viuews damaged his own reputation. Only because I disagreed with you did you start off another slanging match from where the previous day you had also been in error, making this some pathetic little personal vendetta for you

I suggest you grow the hell up because I never threw any abuse at you, that was you making unfounded accusatiins claiming I was unemployed, which means you most hate the unemplyed thinging its an insult, then   to calling me mental, to accusing me unjustly of homophobia, to countless other infantile views. When you make these hateful views, you then stigmatise people who are and suffer from being in this way, but I doubt that ever registers with you as you are so easily led by hate

Your fucking DELUSIONAL

korban dallas wrote:so how long have you been homophobic ?

I never lied, that is directly accusing me of being homophobic by claiming off how long I have been homophobic

So again though your anger and hatred you even forgot that you did accuse me of being homophobic and then to top it off come out with even more abuse on top of accusing me of being mental, stigmatizing those with mental health problems as well. Is there any limit to the level of hate and vile accusations you accuse people of?
I made a promise for the New Year to not be abusive for the first 3 months and aim to continue after that.
I have kept to that promise and all can see you continue to lie and be abusive.

The comment about child abuse was made three years ago, and there was no prosecution. Then a big fuss was made in the BB house - probably because the inmates were bored and they had nothing better to do. Frankly, anyone who watches that rubbish should find something better to do.

End of story.

Raggamuffin wrote:The comment about child abuse was made three years ago, and there was no prosecution. Then a big fuss was made in the BB house - probably because the inmates were bored and they had nothing better to do. Frankly, anyone who watches that rubbish should find something better to do.  

End of story.

Really?
I do not care about Big Brother, but he was a persective candidate for the UKIP party, so it matters greatly as to what he says and views about people in this country.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The comment about child abuse was made three years ago, and there was no prosecution. Then a big fuss was made in the BB house - probably because the inmates were bored and they had nothing better to do. Frankly, anyone who watches that rubbish should find something better to do.  

End of story.

Really?
I do not care about Big Brother, but he was a persective candidate for the UKIP party, so it matters greatly as to what he says and views about people in this country.

Perhaps you should have addressed the issue three years ago then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?
I do not care about Big Brother, but he was a persective candidate for the UKIP party, so it matters greatly as to what he says and views about people in this country.

Perhaps you should have addressed the issue three years ago then.

I am addressing a recent thread which has brought this up again because he refuses to apologise for his comments which will spell the eend of any political career he ever thought he might of had.
So as its a recent thread and article, its very relevant to make views on this, whether his actual views were committed 3 years ago

I don't care for the show raggs, but if he still stands by his statement and he is still in the public eye then it is worth discussing- if only to pour ridicule and disgust on such views in the open.

I don't see why it would be a criminal offence anyway. He was expressing his opinion that being brought up by two gay people was not a good thing. If someone had said that being brought up by two Christians was not a good thing, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

Eilzel wrote:I don't care for the show raggs, but if he still stands by his statement and he is still in the public eye then it is worth discussing- if only to pour ridicule and disgust on such views in the open.

You have to remember though that these people do this BB thing in order to get attention, so anything that's said in there is just attention seeking anyway - including any kind of "outrage".

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why it would be a criminal offence anyway. He was expressing his opinion that being brought up by two gay people was not a good thing. If someone had said that being brought up by two Christians was not a good thing, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

If you had notice I and others stated it was not a criminal offence. His views were appalling and should be ridiculed for having such views that are steeped not in any rational thinking but based off his backward religious beliefs. This is the problem with religion, they take the views written in a book, of which there is no evidence it is a deity and believe a deity supposed to be all loving would then condemn people for just being in love to the point of wishing them to be executed. Its absurd and conflicts to any claim to being all loving, as such a view is born of hate and not love.

No problem, they get attention, but something like this is worth getting out in the open, if only to both expose the hate AND to explain why they are wrong. It is healthy, ultimately, to have such views held up for debate. That the guy didn't seem to want to discuss it shows that really he is ashamed of his archaic beliefs.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see why it would be a criminal offence anyway. He was expressing his opinion that being brought up by two gay people was not a good thing. If someone had said that being brought up by two Christians was not a good thing, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

If you had notice I and others stated it was not a criminal offence. His views were appalling and should be ridiculed for having such views that are steeped not in any rational thinking but based off his backward religious beliefs. This is the problem with religion, they take the views written in a book, of which there is no evidence it is a deity and believe a deity supposed to be all loving would then condemn people for just being in love to the point of wishing them to be executed. Its absurd and conflicts to any claim to being all loving, as such a view is born of hate and not love.

He just appears to think that it's better for children to have a mother and a father - that view could be held by an atheist too.

Eilzel wrote:No problem, they get attention, but something like this is worth getting out in the open, if only to both expose the hate AND to explain why they are wrong. It is healthy, ultimately, to have such views held up for debate. That the guy didn't seem to want to discuss it shows that really he is ashamed of his archaic beliefs.

Well he presumably doesn't think he's wrong, so it's just a difference of opinion really.

Didge wrote:

korban dallas wrote:so how long have you been homophobic ?

I never lied, that is directly accusing me of being homophobic by claiming off how long I have been homophobic

So again though your anger and hatred you even forgot that you did accuse me of being homophobic and then to top it off come out with even more abuse on top of accusing me of being mental, stigmatizing those with mental health problems as well. Is there any limit to the level of hate and vile accusations you accuse people of?
I made a promise for the New Year to not be abusive for the first 3 months and aim to continue after that.
I have kept to that promise and all can see you continue to lie and be abusive.

OH and you dont consider belittling people abuse ? because thats whey you get in to soooo many arguments you bellitle people all the time almost every post unless you licking someone for support

you have done nothing on this thread but demand people see thinks your way or by dam it your going to use every word misspoken to defend your position discredit the speaker and divert the subject on to what was a off the cuff remark ,
and its not like you dont make the same kind of off the cuff remark yours tends to be belittle other posters
ether the facts from there own life`s that you miraculously are able to determine truth or lie not only over time but space as well

your think your self qualified to give definitive legal,medical,scientific,historical unequivocal certainty to facts


JFYI




Honestly nobody cares about your ego



oh and the Shakespeare reference was an invitation to drop dead .....................................bloody philistine

Presumably he doesn't, like the slavers...

But he is, and saying me and my partner having a child is akin to abuse is vile and wrong.

Eilzel wrote:Presumably he doesn't, like the slavers...

But he is, and saying me and my partner having a child is akin to abuse is vile and wrong.

He didn't mean abuse as in beating a child or sexual abuse though, he meant it wasn't the right situation to bring them up in. It's an opinion, that's all. Some people say that giving children too many sweets is child abuse too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


If you had notice I and others stated it was not a criminal offence. His views were appalling and should be ridiculed for having such views that are steeped not in any rational thinking but based off his backward religious beliefs. This is the problem with religion, they take the views written in a book, of which there is no evidence it is a deity and believe a deity supposed to be all loving would then condemn people for just being in love to the point of wishing them to be executed. Its absurd and conflicts to any claim to being all loving, as such a view is born of hate and not love.

He just appears to think that it's better for children to have a mother and a father - that view could be held by an athiest too.

Based off irrational religious beliefs.
That is why it is important to challenge such beliefs, because it makes people wrongly think some people are not fit to parent when all the evidence proves that they are.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He just appears to think that it's better for children to have a mother and a father - that view could be held by an atheist too.

Based off irrational religious beliefs.
That is why it is important to challenge such beliefs, because it makes people wrongly think some people are not fit to parent when all the evidence proves that they are.

Why would an atheist base anything on a religious belief?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


If you had notice I and others stated it was not a criminal offence. His views were appalling and should be ridiculed for having such views that are steeped not in any rational thinking but based off his backward religious beliefs. This is the problem with religion, they take the views written in a book, of which there is no evidence it is a deity and believe a deity supposed to be all loving would then condemn people for just being in love to the point of wishing them to be executed. Its absurd and conflicts to any claim to being all loving, as such a view is born of hate and not love.

He just appears to think that it's better for children to have a mother and a father - that view could be held by an athiest too.

as long as the parents love them i don`t think it matters

they are kids with dads or moms that are not the best people to bring up kids

korban dallas wrote:

Didge wrote:


I never lied, that is directly accusing me of being homophobic by claiming off how long I have been homophobic

So again though your anger and hatred you even forgot that you did accuse me of being homophobic and then to top it off come out with even more abuse on top of accusing me of being mental, stigmatizing those with mental health problems as well. Is there any limit to the level of hate and vile accusations you accuse people of?
I made a promise for the New Year to not be abusive for the first 3 months and aim to continue after that.
I have kept to that promise and all can see you continue to lie and be abusive.

OH and you dont consider belittling people abuse ? because thats whey you get in to soooo many arguments you bellitle people all the time almost every post unless you licking someone for support

you have done nothing on this thread but demand people see thinks your way or by dam it your going to use every word misspoken to defend your position discredit the speaker and divert the subject on to what was a off the cuff remark ,
and its not like you dont make the same kind of off the cuff remark yours tends to be belittle other posters
ether the facts from there own life`s that you miraculously are able to determine truth or lie not only over time but space as well

your think your self qualified to give definitive legal,medical,scientific,historical unequivocal certainty to facts


JFYI




Honestly nobody cares about your ego



oh and the Shakespeare reference   was an invitation to drop dead .....................................bloody philistine

May I suggest you take some time out and stop spoiling this thread with your antics, as its getting tedious now, where you cannot even admit also that you did accuse me of homophobia. I may sometimes patronise, but that is part of the debate and more fool to the person that allows that to upset them at the end of the day, as its never personal, even where I have been abusive in the past I certainly do not hate anyone. Now If I have been abusive to you in the past or anyone else, I wholeheartedly apologise for that. I am not perfect and sometimes make mistakes, but accept that I do and apologise for them.

Now I am tired of your antics, so I suggest you move on or I will report you for derailing and spoiling this thread