gay only resort!!! is this legal....??

by Guest Tue May 19, 2015 5:59 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

or is it hypocrisy....

by Raggamuffin Thu May 21, 2015 2:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

"But
in 2010, a surveyor inspected the Grade II-listed building in Madeley,
Shropshire, which has four bars, a snooker room, pool room and even a
ballroom.

He told members they needed to find £50,000 to repair the
crumbling brickwork and meet safety standards.

The club says it sought Lottery funding but was told it would not qualify
because its men-only membership rules breach equality criteria..."

There are many of examples of Nems clubs/organisations/establishments being forced to open door to others for reasons of equality where you cannot refuse others for reasons of gender/race/sexual orientation etc...

And plenty of other examples of where others are allowed to have exclusive clubs/organisations/establishments which are based entirely on gender/race/sexual organisation.

You can't discriminate on the grounds of race, no matter what the organisation - I think.

There are clubs based on gender/race/sexual orientation, but if they're not private clubs they still can't discriminate. For example, The Black Police Association is basically for black police officers but they can't stop white people joining.

If you can find any examples though, I'd be interested, especially if they involve Lottery funding.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 21, 2015 3:10 pm

Private mens clubs have been forced to open their doors to women because OF equality laws.

While other private clubs are allowed to discriminate.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 21, 2015 3:29 pm

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/415965/Why-shouldn-t-blokes-be-allowed-men-only-clubs

http://archive.sportengland.org/media_centre/press_releases/active_women_awards/active_women_luton.aspx

‘girls only’ satellite clubs will be established to target the 14-25 age group; by 2017, every secondary school in England will have been offered a satellite community sports club on its site
the Us Girls project, part of the £10 million lottery-funded Active Women programme, will work to attract into sport 30,000 young women living in disadvantaged areas
on 14 January 2013 Sport England announced the Women’s Place Based Pilot, providing £3 million investment in locality-based sports schemes for women
£1,708,383 has been awarded to the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation to help sports understand how to attract women, and to work directly with county sports partnerships and the education sector

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/women-in-sport

by Raggamuffin Thu May 21, 2015 7:32 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/415965/Why-shouldn-t-blokes-be-allowed-men-only-clubs

http://archive.sportengland.org/media_centre/press_releases/active_women_awards/active_women_luton.aspx

‘girls only’ satellite clubs will be established to target the 14-25 age group; by 2017, every secondary school in England will have been offered a satellite community sports club on its site
the Us Girls project, part of the £10 million lottery-funded Active Women programme, will work to attract into sport 30,000 young women living in disadvantaged areas
on 14 January 2013 Sport England announced the Women’s Place Based Pilot, providing £3 million investment in locality-based sports schemes for women
£1,708,383 has been awarded to the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation to help sports understand how to attract women, and to work directly with county sports partnerships and the education sector

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/women-in-sport

Ah, funding from the Lottery for a girls' only club. There's no reason why the men's club couldn't get funding then.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 21, 2015 9:31 pm

All in the name of equality mind...!!!

lol!

Hypocrisy anyone...?

by Eilzel Fri May 22, 2015 2:42 am

While I actually don't think there should be places barring entry to either gay or straight people the motives for doing so are different.

A gay only business would provide somewhere where gay people would be guaranteed safety from any kind of homophobia. It isn't done to discriminate against heterosexuals, but to avoid any homophobic actions that could come from a few.

What possible good reason could there be to ban gay people from a place?

by veya_victaous Fri May 22, 2015 5:47 am

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 5:56 am

Eilzel wrote:While I actually don't think there should be places barring entry to either gay or straight people the motives for doing so are different.

A gay only business would provide somewhere where gay people would be guaranteed safety from any kind of homophobia. It isn't done to discriminate against heterosexuals, but to avoid any homophobic actions that could come from a few.

What possible good reason could there be to ban gay people from a place?

To use a (perhaps) more extreme example, it would be like if men demanded to be let into a support group for female rape victims on grounds of equality. Or maybe I should go down to my local church and demand that, having equal rights to them despite being an atheist, they make me a deacon?

Here we have members bemoaning the loss of a "working man's" club, as though women don't work, or hoping for the creation of a straight-man's club, because straight men are so oppressed these days and sometimes they just have to get away from all the gaiety ... I swear, sometimes I don't know if it's a lack of thinking, a lack of the ability to think, or just a game to them.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 6:10 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Eilzel wrote:While I actually don't think there should be places barring entry to either gay or straight people the motives for doing so are different.

A gay only business would provide somewhere where gay people would be guaranteed safety from any kind of homophobia. It isn't done to discriminate against heterosexuals, but to avoid any homophobic actions that could come from a few.

What possible good reason could there be to ban gay people from a place?

To use a (perhaps) more extreme example, it would be like if men demanded to be let into a support group for female rape victims on grounds of equality. Or maybe I should go down to my local church and demand that, having equal rights to them despite being an atheist, they make me a deacon?

Here we have members bemoaning the loss of a "working man's" club, as though women don't work, or hoping for the creation of a straight-man's club, because straight men are so oppressed these days and sometimes they just have to get away from all the gaiety ... I swear, sometimes I don't know if it's a lack of thinking, a lack of the ability to think, or just a game to them.

A working men's club doesn't necessarily mean the men work - it just means they're not as posh as other clubs. There's no intention to imply that women don't work. Laughing

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 6:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Eilzel wrote:While I actually don't think there should be places barring entry to either gay or straight people the motives for doing so are different.

A gay only business would provide somewhere where gay people would be guaranteed safety from any kind of homophobia. It isn't done to discriminate against heterosexuals, but to avoid any homophobic actions that could come from a few.

What possible good reason could there be to ban gay people from a place?

To use a (perhaps) more extreme example, it would be like if men demanded to be let into a support group for female rape victims on grounds of equality. Or maybe I should go down to my local church and demand that, having equal rights to them despite being an atheist, they make me a deacon?

Here we have members bemoaning the loss of a "working man's" club, as though women don't work, or hoping for the creation of a straight-man's club, because straight men are so oppressed these days and sometimes they just have to get away from all the gaiety ... I swear, sometimes I don't know if it's a lack of thinking, a lack of the ability to think, or just a game to them.

A working men's club doesn't necessarily mean the men work - it just means they're not as posh as other clubs. There's no intention to imply that women don't work.

But isn't it still at heart a clinging to an outdated social norm?

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 6:18 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

A working men's club doesn't necessarily mean the men work - it just means they're not as posh as other clubs. There's no intention to imply that women don't work.

But isn't it still at heart a clinging to an outdated social norm?

It's just a club for men who want to get away from women for a while. I don't have a problem with them really. I don't think there are many around where they don't let women in anyway.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 6:24 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

A working men's club doesn't necessarily mean the men work - it just means they're not as posh as other clubs. There's no intention to imply that women don't work.

But isn't it still at heart a clinging to an outdated social norm?

It's just a club for men who want to get away from women for a while. I don't have a problem with them really. I don't think there are many around where they don't let women in anyway.

I actually agree, I still think everyone has the right to form any kind of club they want, so long as it's not a murder club or something. Still, I think the people who are most in need of clubs are socially oppressed people, not people from the power structure.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 6:32 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's just a club for men who want to get away from women for a while. I don't have a problem with them really. I don't think there are many around where they don't let women in anyway.

I actually agree, I still think everyone has the right to form any kind of club they want, so long as it's not a murder club or something. Still, I think the people who are most in need of clubs are socially oppressed people, not people from the power structure.

So why were you sneering at someone for bemoaning the loss of a working men's club?

by eddie Fri May 22, 2015 7:37 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

A working men's club doesn't necessarily mean the men work - it just means they're not as posh as other clubs. There's no intention to imply that women don't work.

But isn't it still at heart a clinging to an outdated social norm?

It's just a club for men who want to get away from women for a while. I don't have a problem with them really. I don't think there are many around where they don't let women in anyway.

Most big family events that happen locally in many towns, take place in working men's clubs.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 7:39 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's just a club for men who want to get away from women for a while. I don't have a problem with them really. I don't think there are many around where they don't let women in anyway.

I actually agree, I still think everyone has the right to form any kind of club they want, so long as it's not a murder club or something. Still, I think the people who are most in need of clubs are socially oppressed people, not people from the power structure.

So why were you sneering at someone for bemoaning the loss of a working men's club?

Because I don't really think they've lost much. I can't honestly picture these guys not hanging out with the people they want to hang out with, or being truly deprived in anyway by the dissolution of this club. Really, you think they're not still a club in all senses but having a famous name?

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 8:08 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So why were you sneering at someone for bemoaning the loss of a working men's club?

Because I don't really think they've lost much. I can't honestly picture these guys not hanging out with the people they want to hang out with, or being truly deprived in anyway by the dissolution of this club. Really, you think they're not still a club in all senses but having a famous name?

But you don't have to be so judgemental. If those guys liked having a guy's club, they're entitled to be upset when it closed. You seem to think it's fine that some people want their own club, but if others want one, you judge them and think they're silly.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 8:11 am

Anyway, the point about the working men's club is that they couldn't get funding from the Lottery to fix it because of discrimination, but women only clubs can get funding apparently.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 8:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the point about the working men's club is that they couldn't get funding from the Lottery to fix it because of discrimination, but women only clubs can get funding apparently.

Any club that receives public funding should be open to the entire public.

As for the boys clubs, I just have difficulty imagining that they never found anything to replace what the clubs meant to them. I bet that down where the road meets the rubber, the ruling has really just created little splinter cells of the original rather than wiping it out.

Just now, they're the 20-some-odd guys who come to a bar and pretty much guarantee the sausage-fest they want is going to happen.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 8:29 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the point about the working men's club is that they couldn't get funding from the Lottery to fix it because of discrimination, but women only clubs can get funding apparently.

Any club that receives public funding should be open to the entire public.

As for the boys clubs, I just have difficulty imagining that they never found anything to replace what the clubs meant to them. I bet that down where the road meets the rubber, the ruling has really just created little splinter cells of the original rather than wiping it out.

Just now, they're the 20-some-odd guys who come to a bar and pretty much guarantee the sausage-fest they want is going to happen.

Well that's what was being discussed in this thread - the public funding of some clubs and not others.

So if a gay club closed, would you sneer at the members who were pissed off about it? They can go to a regular pub or club can't they? Don't bother saying that they'll be "harassed" for being gay.

You should realise that for all your leftie liberal talk, you're just as intolerant as the people you berate.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 8:35 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the point about the working men's club is that they couldn't get funding from the Lottery to fix it because of discrimination, but women only clubs can get funding apparently.

Any club that receives public funding should be open to the entire public.

As for the boys clubs, I just have difficulty imagining that they never found anything to replace what the clubs meant to them. I bet that down where the road meets the rubber, the ruling has really just created little splinter cells of the original rather than wiping it out.

Just now, they're the 20-some-odd guys who come to a bar and pretty much guarantee the sausage-fest they want is going to happen.

Well that's what was being discussed in this thread - the public funding of some clubs and not others.

So if a gay club closed, would you sneer at the members who were pissed off about it? They can go to a regular pub or club can't they? Don't bother saying that they'll be "harassed" for being gay.

You should realise that for all your leftie liberal talk, you're just as intolerant as the people you berate.

I think I'm one of the most tolerant of people who hate of anybody you'll meet. I value the sharing and discussion of their crazy idea.

Again, if you'e going to be a private club, your money should come only from your investors and donations -- not from a public that may or may not disagree.

That's kind of inline with how I view the death penalty -- if you kill someone in a way that's partially funded by me, you're making me an accessory. If you want the public involved you should at least not stifle those who disagree with the death penalty.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 8:46 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's what was being discussed in this thread - the public funding of some clubs and not others.

So if a gay club closed, would you sneer at the members who were pissed off about it? They can go to a regular pub or club can't they? Don't bother saying that they'll be "harassed" for being gay.

You should realise that for all your leftie liberal talk, you're just as intolerant as the people you berate.

I think I'm one of the most tolerant of people who hate of anybody you'll meet. I value the sharing and discussion of their crazy idea.

Again, if you'e going to be a private club, your money should come only from your investors and donations -- not from a public that may or may not disagree.

That's kind of inline with how I view the death penalty -- if you kill someone in a way that's partially funded by me, you're making me an accessory. If you want the public involved you should at least not stifle those who disagree with the death penalty.

Fine - that's what Tommy was saying - you can get public funding for some discriminatory clubs and not for others.

I don't know why you were getting on your high horse about it all.

Here we have members bemoaning the loss of a "working man's" club, as though women don't work, or hoping for the creation of a straight-man's club, because straight men are so oppressed these days and sometimes they just have to get away from all the gaiety ... I swear, sometimes I don't know if it's a lack of thinking, a lack of the ability to think, or just a game to them.

You're implying that anyone who has a different opinion to you must be stupid or be playing a game.

The issue is that in trying to create equality, some inequality has been created. I don't know if anyone has started a straight-only club - probably not, but I do think that it would be challenged in the courts, or at least frowned upon. A gay club seems perfectly acceptable though. I bet you don't disapprove of women's private clubs, and yet you were sneering at a men's only club.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 8:59 am

I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually. The issue of gay people not wanting to be picked on for being gay has arisen, and that's a valid point, but it's not the only one. I think also that some gay people like "gay clubs" because there's a better chance they'll meet someone who'll fancy them.

Some girls like going to gay clubs too because there's less chance of some bloke hitting on them when they just want to dance.

Some blokes don't want to listen to some group of women giggling loudly and banging on about make up or how men are rubbish, so they like men's clubs.

Some women don't want to hear men banging on about football or guffawing loudly at dirty jokes, so they like all-female company - socially speaking.

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 9:04 am

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's just a club for men who want to get away from women for a while. I don't have a problem with them really. I don't think there are many around where they don't let women in anyway.

Most big family events that happen locally in many towns, take place in working men's clubs.

Yes. Even if they're not really men's clubs any more, I think that some people like the nostalgia and retro-feel of a working men's club.

by eddie Fri May 22, 2015 10:43 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually. The issue of gay people not wanting to be picked on for being gay has arisen, and that's a valid point, but it's not the only one. I think also that some gay people like "gay clubs" because there's a better chance they'll meet someone who'll fancy them.

Some girls like going to gay clubs too because there's less chance of some bloke hitting on them when they just want to dance.

Some blokes don't want to listen to some group of women giggling loudly and banging on about make up or how men are rubbish, so they like men's clubs.

Some women don't want to hear men banging on about football or guffawing loudly at dirty jokes, so they like all-female company - socially speaking.

Good post rags.

And i also agree with you - some lefties are so "tolerant" they actually become intolerant of any view but their own!

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 10:46 am

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually. The issue of gay people not wanting to be picked on for being gay has arisen, and that's a valid point, but it's not the only one. I think also that some gay people like "gay clubs" because there's a better chance they'll meet someone who'll fancy them.

Some girls like going to gay clubs too because there's less chance of some bloke hitting on them when they just want to dance.

Some blokes don't want to listen to some group of women giggling loudly and banging on about make up or how men are rubbish, so they like men's clubs.

Some women don't want to hear men banging on about football or guffawing loudly at dirty jokes, so they like all-female company - socially speaking.

Good post rags.

And i also agree with you - some lefties are so "tolerant" they actually become intolerant of any view but their own!

Thank you eddie. I also think that some of those who think they are tolerant, and are intolerant of intolerance, are actually more intolerant than those they accuse of being intolerant.

Did that make sense? Laughing

by Eilzel Fri May 22, 2015 11:22 am

I think the important think in 'exclusive' clubs is the reason they want to exclude certain people. Because there are acceptable and unacceptable reasons for doing so.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 22, 2015 3:16 pm

Yes, there's acceptable discrimination and unacceptable discrimination... all in the name of equality mind!!!

lol!

by Eilzel Fri May 22, 2015 4:55 pm

If you don't see how two reasons for barring people can be different, and make a difference then you're an idiot.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 4:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes, there's acceptable discrimination and unacceptable discrimination... all in the name of equality mind!!!

Tell you what, Tommy -- go apply to be an astrophysicist, and then when they don't hire you, file a discrimination suit. Hey, just because you're not an astrophysicist doesn't mean you don't have the same rights as an astrophysicist.

by Original Quill Fri May 22, 2015 5:16 pm

Ragggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually.

It's not really "themselves" that do it to "themselves." If people didn't single out others for sake of their skin color, gender preference, or language and culture, but just treated everyone the same...ah, but I'm dreaming.

gay only resort!!! is this legal....?? - Page 4 D028ebeabdc812ab10ace340223c4553

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

by Tommy Monk Fri May 22, 2015 5:18 pm

If you think everyone has to be equal then argue for some to be more equal than others then you are a hypocrite.

And almost certainly a leftie!

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 5:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Ragggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually.

It's not really "themselves" that do it to "themselves." If people didn't single out others for sake of their skin color, gender preference, or language and culture, but just treated everyone the same...ah, but I'm dreaming.

Of course they do it themselves - they forum their own clubs, or join clubs - nobody forces them to do that.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 5:56 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If you think everyone has to be equal then argue for some to be more equal than others then you are a hypocrite.

And almost certainly a leftie!

Nobody's saying anyone is more equal than anybody else, but property rights and freedom of association also apply in this case.

by eddie Fri May 22, 2015 6:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually. The issue of gay people not wanting to be picked on for being gay has arisen, and that's a valid point, but it's not the only one. I think also that some gay people like "gay clubs" because there's a better chance they'll meet someone who'll fancy them.

Some girls like going to gay clubs too because there's less chance of some bloke hitting on them when they just want to dance.

Some blokes don't want to listen to some group of women giggling loudly and banging on about make up or how men are rubbish, so they like men's clubs.

Some women don't want to hear men banging on about football or guffawing loudly at dirty jokes, so they like all-female company - socially speaking.

Good post rags.

And i also agree with you - some lefties are so "tolerant" they actually become intolerant of any view but their own!

Thank you eddie. I also think that some of those who think they are tolerant, and are intolerant of intolerance, are actually more intolerant than those they accuse of being intolerant.

Did that make sense?

Lol yes perfect sense

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 7:45 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually. The issue of gay people not wanting to be picked on for being gay has arisen, and that's a valid point, but it's not the only one. I think also that some gay people like "gay clubs" because there's a better chance they'll meet someone who'll fancy them.

Some girls like going to gay clubs too because there's less chance of some bloke hitting on them when they just want to dance.

Some blokes don't want to listen to some group of women giggling loudly and banging on about make up or how men are rubbish, so they like men's clubs.

Some women don't want to hear men banging on about football or guffawing loudly at dirty jokes, so they like all-female company - socially speaking.

Good post rags.

And i also agree with you - some lefties are so "tolerant" they actually become intolerant of any view but their own!

Thank you eddie. I also think that some of those who think they are tolerant, and are intolerant of intolerance, are actually more intolerant than those they accuse of being intolerant.

Did that make sense?

Lol yes perfect sense

Sure -- because it's more intolerant to criticize someone for being a bigot than it is to deny them a job on the basis of skin color, gender, etc.

In Bizarro World, I mean Smile

by Raggamuffin Fri May 22, 2015 8:05 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:

Lol yes perfect sense

Sure -- because it's more intolerant to criticize someone for being a bigot than it is to deny them a job on the basis of skin color, gender, etc.

In Bizarro World, I mean

What does that have to do with some men wanting their own club, and you sneering at that?

Are you suggesting that the members of the Women's Institute are bigots because they like being part of an organisation for women?

by Tommy Monk Fri May 22, 2015 8:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:If you think everyone has to be equal then argue for some to be more equal than others then you are a hypocrite.

And almost certainly a leftie!

Nobody's saying anyone is more equal than anybody else, but property rights and freedom of association also apply in this case.

But those rights are restricted to others for reasons of equality...

by Guest Fri May 22, 2015 8:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nobody's saying anyone is more equal than anybody else, but property rights and freedom of association also apply in this case.

But those rights are restricted to others for reasons of equality...

Incorrect, it occurs because of those who suffer inequality as a minority, brought about by people like you, who will never treat them as equals. There lies the problem and it stems from people like you. No places would even need to exists, if it was not for people like you who do not except them as equals. If they actually had equality, they would not seek such safe zones, ones where they can actually have some normality and be treated as equals, where people like you deny them this in the world they live in daily.

That is what you fail to understand. Apply that to anyone who suffers daily discrimination for who they are, no matter even if a minority. Understand there are some who will always look at you and never accept you as equal, as that is what they suffer and seek somewhere that they are not looked upon as unequal.

Until people like you change from your ignorance, they will constantly need such places to escape the daily world of inequality they live in, that you and others have created a nightmare for them. All dues to your ignorance and bigotry.

by Guest Fri May 22, 2015 8:49 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I can think of lots of reasons why people might want to segregate themselves actually. The issue of gay people not wanting to be picked on for being gay has arisen, and that's a valid point, but it's not the only one. I think also that some gay people like "gay clubs" because there's a better chance they'll meet someone who'll fancy them.

Some girls like going to gay clubs too because there's less chance of some bloke hitting on them when they just want to dance.

Some blokes don't want to listen to some group of women giggling loudly and banging on about make up or how men are rubbish, so they like men's clubs.

Some women don't want to hear men banging on about football or guffawing loudly at dirty jokes, so they like all-female company - socially speaking.

Good post rags.

And i also agree with you - some lefties are so "tolerant" they actually become intolerant of any view but their own!

The thing is Eddie, its not just left but right also. It becomes such an obsession, that people become so intolerant of others more because they allow themselves to believe they are right on the matter and to them impossible they could be wrong. You could say I am preaching to the choir on this for my own actions, but I best debate, when I allow people to air their views and just counter back with reason and sense not insulting them with abuse. If that reason and sense fails to be taken on board, then I will try again and will continue to do so. I am passionate for my own failing, but even I learn that I best teach something when I allow myself to be taught. It is better to have "faith" in this instance, as having faith that you can succeed, is a winning formula. Nobody ever really learns from abuse, they only learn to resent more and hate, placing barriers up to any reason. Hence the need to allow such defensive barriers to come down freely on their own, as if you try to force something, it will just resist twice as hard. When it comes to reason, negative views hinder any reason. Where passive views allow people to open up and listen.

Lol right that is enough philosophy from me for one night.

Catch you later

x

by Guest Fri May 22, 2015 9:10 pm

Sorry one thing I will add.
Look at countless points in history where people have tried to reason off negativity. It has always ended up playing off fears and misunderstandings people have, to the point, they allow themselves to be easily led. They allow things which is nobody's fault, excusing themselves for any blame. That by blaming others will in anyways make them feel better. They never will, because nothing they do in this manner makes them happy but just angry and anger only ever leads to hate. Hence why no argument of anger is of any sense, as it fails to reason, it completely relies on the emotions of people and attempts to blind them out of doing what is right. That is why no negative emotive arguments will ever be right. IThey does not use reason but the emotions of people to entice them to react. Where again such emotions always make people react in complete haste. They fail to factor the consequences of that hate, until its too late.

Right really am going to shut up now.

Laughing

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 10:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:

Lol yes perfect sense

Sure -- because it's more intolerant to criticize someone for being a bigot than it is to deny them a job on the basis of skin color, gender, etc.

In Bizarro World, I mean

What does that have to do with some men wanting their own club, and you sneering at that?

Are you suggesting that the members of the Women's Institute are bigots because they like being part of an organisation for women?

I sneer at the necessity of a men's only club, not at the right of men to have one if they choose. A lot of people seem to be confused by the fact that I support people's right to do some things I don't agree with ...

I also sneer at this popular notion that intolerant people are more tolerant than tolerant people because intolerant people are tolerant of intolerance, whereas tolerant people are intolerant of intolerance.

bounce

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 10:07 pm

Oh, and when an advertisement can represent a cultural norm for men the way ones like this did for women up until a few decades ago:

gay only resort!!! is this legal....?? - Page 4 Article-2617868-1D7E50DB00000578-408_634x750

gay only resort!!! is this legal....?? - Page 4 Article-2617868-1D7E50DB00000578-408_634x750

... then a men's-only club could mean for men what a women's-only club could mean for women.

by Tommy Monk Fri May 22, 2015 10:08 pm

Mens clubs/organisations etc are still forced to open their doors to women, while womens clubs are not forced to open their doors to men.

What makes the mens reasons for wanting a men only club wrong but the womens reasons for wanting a women only club right.

I have even shown where lottery funding is denied to mens clubs because they were exclusively for men but funding freely handed out to womens clubs exclusively for women with no demands to change to allow men too!

I'm sure the mens reasons are just as valid and important to them as the womens reasons are to them.

Either the rules are for everyone or they should not be enforced on anyone.

You can't argue that we are all the same and then argue for certain people to be theated differently to The rules based on their subsequent claims of being different.

If we are all the same as claimed then there should be no exceptions.

by Ben Reilly Fri May 22, 2015 10:59 pm

Society doesn't operate in a vacuum, Tommy.

by Eilzel Sat May 23, 2015 12:36 am

Tommy asks the question 'what makes the reason for wanting this wrong but the reasons for this right?'

Perhaps if you answered that question for yourself tommy you'd understand. Instead of bullishly reverting to your dumb simplistic mantra of claiming equality is terrible.

And intolerance of intolerance is far different to intolerance of bigotry.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 23, 2015 1:07 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Society doesn't operate in a vacuum, Tommy.

And fairness and equality doesn't result from 'equality' rules that are only applied to some but not others, while the whole argument for the rules in the first place is the claim that we are all equal.

Did anyone consider the possibility that one of the main reasons why mens clubs might have had the rule of excluding women so as to keep their wives happy...?

With the knowledge that their fellas WERE really just going for a quiet drink etc, and free from the clutches or temptation of other women...!?

lol!

by Tommy Monk Sat May 23, 2015 1:36 am

Eilzel wrote:Tommy asks the question 'what makes the reason for wanting this wrong but the reasons for this right?'

Not exactly les, my points are constructed around the argument that equality rules that are only in existence because of the claims of equality and how we are all the same etc, are then being applied in an unequal way, with mostly the people who demanded the rules in the first place, being the same people who then think it is ok for them to set up their own exclusive clubs with exactly the same sort of discriminatory policies against others!

Perhaps if you answered that question for yourself tommy you'd understand. Instead of bullishly reverting to your dumb simplistic mantra of claiming equality is terrible.

I'm not claiming equality is terrible, in fact I am supporting equality by supporting the equality rules being applied to everyone... equally!!!

And intolerance of intolerance is far different to intolerance of bigotry. [/b][/b]

by Tommy Monk Sat May 23, 2015 1:40 am

Lefties are extremely bigoted and intolerant of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their pc way of thinking!

Laughing

by Eilzel Sat May 23, 2015 2:25 am

We oppose bigotry, being intolerant of bigotry is not a bad thing. Can you explain why tolerating bigotry is a good thing?

by Tommy Monk Sat May 23, 2015 4:48 am

What makes you leftie 'progressives' bigotry any more tolerable than anyone else's...?

I am bigoted in my view against leftie 'progressives' and their corrupt pc agenda...

I am bigoted in my view that I support democracy and our rights as a sovereign nation to have self govt, self rule and self determination over ourselves through our national parliament and our directly elected representatives exacting our will and control over our country, laws, rules, regulations, borders etc.

I am bigoted in my view that this can only be achieved through leaving EU.

So you tell me what is so wrong with me being bigoted in these views, and why anyone should be intolerant to this...!?

What makes your views non bigoted...!?

And why should anyone be any more tolerant of your views than anyone else's...!?

Especially when through your own bigotry, you claim to have the much more superior views that are more worthy of tolerance, all in the name of equality mind, than the equal views of others that you are so quick to be intolerant of, and condemn, while claiming to hold the high position of being the most tolerant...!?

I know this truth and logic bomb will blow your mind and shatter your entrenched leftie pc programming at first glance... as part of your mind is still yours and still in touch with common sense and reality... but then, quite quickly the cognitive thoughts will have to pass through the levels of leftie pc brainwashing to allow you to finally decide on the status of any thoughts... your own common sense will not only be overruled... the pc programming will not only dismiss any rational thought, that doesn't conform to The agenda, as wrong... but you will also be subject to a feeling of (programmed) self loathing for even daring to think something so freely and sensible and outside of the pre programmed parameters in the first place...

The result is... people like you, hate people like me even more... because people like me make you think... and thinking hurts your programming, and makes you hate yourself... which then makes you hate those who caused the hurt by making you think...!

lol!

by Sponsored content