Hitting the Eastern European problem head on, morality v’s self interest?
nicepix
Well-known member
How would you describe it then? Do you think that the law should allow for exceptions and if so who and why?
bennygesserit
Well-known member
that's me out it seems to be getting too personal , its a fishing forum and we come here to talk about fishing and have a laugh.
wes79
Well-known member
Really?
Its not a competition of who does more if it bares no effect on tackling the problem, collectively we still cannot agree on what is or isn't effective in stopping the problems, that means we still have the problems and they are not likely to go away, that also means what ever I write that I have done (mainly ecological volunteering work on land and water) is to no avail anyway, a waste of time in the long run as what is to be destroyed will be, which is the underlining point running through the thread!
PC dictates what is and isn't reasonable, gives terms for individuals, effects the law and thus punishments etc etc, PC is the destroyer, it allows all the bad things to be ideologically explained without reason and allows all this stuff to carry on unabated.
Don't take anything I say personally Benny, you have given me no reason to dislike you (your opinion don't tally with mine sometimes
)---------- Post added at 04:45 ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 ----------
I find it strange that nationally no one can agree on what PC actually is (although adopted nationally, effecting every part of their daily thinking in a perverse manner, at work or online etc) so when you said I was confusing what PC was I naturally asked for a definition from an agreed high authority on the subject and its not forthcoming, with respect, its not simply employment law, but its there, its not simply forum rules, but its there, governing them, that means EVERYONE is having to interpret what it means to fit their own reasoning, when law itself until recently never gave that much ambiguity, it does now though, we both agree on that much, we are discussing the fruits of PC right now.
RACE, RELIGION, SEXUALITY are the big players in this game.
I can only define PC so far as something that is given precedence over law and is allowed to influence its decisions making crimes unpublishable, which is a big mistake and very dangerous to any civilized future. I guess it can be boiled down further to making lawful deterrents more relaxed using an accelerated evolution of language as a vehicle.
Most people if you ask them do not even know what the law is and what it is there for, or why it must be maintained ALWAYS, but are scared of falsely being labelled a racist, that is a good litmus test.
It looks to me like part of an ideology that pre-war Europe (especially Germany) saw the danger of, one that can and if allowed will slowly bring down the current European civilization's, which it looks like it might this time achieve, baearing in mind as a country England has yet to reap its just desserts for murdering its own racial kin in Europe (ie Dresden etc), as does the USA also, that is how powerful its convincing nature can be on the mind, that is where we are pointing today, the fishing is just one of the symptoms imho, PC will distract from the illness though, self evident throughout the thread which I may as well purposely fail to get the point across for going unnoticed, even though I've clearly stated why.
Last edited:
nicepix
Well-known member
Your definition of what is political correctness does not seem to conform with the dictionary versions or the content of oaths sworn by constables and other legal prefessionals. What you assert political correctness to be is more in keeping with my suggestion of the misinterpretation of the definition by legal and public figures.
You say that you are not advocating a vigilante approach. How then are you attempting to bring about the changes that you desire?
You say that you are not advocating a vigilante approach. How then are you attempting to bring about the changes that you desire?
Nobby C (ACA)
Well-known member
Are these the same constables that were part of a police force found to be "institutionally racist"? Or, did you,like other Police workers find themselves stereo typing without any malice but just from experience?
PC,however well intended is used as an excuse for minorities to do as they please and well they know it.
Lutfar Rahmen being a prime example.
Rotheram,Oxford,Bradford authorities etc being another.
EE's ruining fisheries being the one here.
wes79
Well-known member
At the moment all we can do is minimize or enjoy damage limitation, nothing can be done by single individuals, but single individuals make up a nation, so explaining the truth about why things are going pair shaped are my first steps.
Give us these definitions nicepix, quote them here in the thread (while linking them for the reader also).
So is PC simply the content of certain Oaths according to whom and whose authority? Who do the Police serve us or the Queen? Where does the Queen get her authority from? Us? A divine right? How does PC (the imposter) usurp the law long after its been given?
If your authority can only be proven by violence or coercion (ie using guns) then it is invalidated in law, simply because consent cannot be freely given under duress, and it is certainly not classed a voluntary act! False witness.
Law is the only answer, everyone in knowledge of it and everyone able to use the law for the betterment of eachother, which is counter to PC which arms the criminal by government proxy, (the criminal or common fish thief becomes the vigilante, patrolling his water from the EA card holder) according to your logic.
PC is making criminals out of the victims of crime, while at the same time relaxing the law for the criminal by eliminating any effective deterrents and while softening those punishments, you and me pay for that, you might even vote for it (that is entirely up to you though) you will be governed by the above regardless, that's how it is, we need police but we need them on our side otherwise they become a private army, loyal to their master who gives them protection.
Vigilante approach is a good example actually, you can watch your rivers be emptied basically (perfectly lawful and PC also) and are advised to use certain avenues that are proven to be ineffective year after year after year, but if you make any attempt to stop it yourself you are a lawbreaker.
Hmmm.
I'm not feeling all that culturally enriched right now by the promises of PC.
I am not a violent person myself so I would be hard pushed to become part of a vigilante group nicepix, better make that very clear. Defending myself is different though, or in the extreme case preserving life is wholly lawful in my book, even my own as I believe life is sacred and a gift to look after, thing is it boils down to being armed or not, the police are armed, that makes them daddy, but if grandaddy says this is how you will behave and this is who you serve then who can we be to argue?
PC has been obviously whispering in the ear of the policeman also, for quite some time then, even demanding allegiance above law, which makes it sound more like rules for one side of the camp.
Last edited:
nicepix
Well-known member
You seem to be fixated on the theory that this problem is brought about by something called political correctness. It is not and you don't seem able to grasp that or are unwilling to.
Pure political correctness means treating everyone the same. Not to grant favours or discriminate against any class, creed, sex, religious belief amongst other character traits. Here is one definition:
"The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
Taken from: Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar
And the police constables oath includes: "........... fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people..........."
The police notionally serve the monarch of the day. But in reality are an arm of the government of the day. The government are responsible for making laws. If you want laws changed then canvas the government, not the police.
Where the law has failed in the case of EEs stealing fish or Asian men grooming young girls is that the people responsible for dealing with all cases impartially have not because they have not been politically correct. You don't seem to be able or are unwilling to grasp that.
There has been a tendency to shy away from investigating minority groups for fear of being branded racist and at the same time also granting immunity to public figures such as Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile. That is not being politically correct is it?
Pure political correctness means treating everyone the same. Not to grant favours or discriminate against any class, creed, sex, religious belief amongst other character traits. Here is one definition:
"The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
Taken from: Oxford Dictionaries - Dictionary, Thesaurus, & Grammar
And the police constables oath includes: "........... fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people..........."
The police notionally serve the monarch of the day. But in reality are an arm of the government of the day. The government are responsible for making laws. If you want laws changed then canvas the government, not the police.
Where the law has failed in the case of EEs stealing fish or Asian men grooming young girls is that the people responsible for dealing with all cases impartially have not because they have not been politically correct. You don't seem to be able or are unwilling to grasp that.
There has been a tendency to shy away from investigating minority groups for fear of being branded racist and at the same time also granting immunity to public figures such as Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile. That is not being politically correct is it?
bennygesserit
Well-known member
I really couldn't have put it better myself Clive and believe me I have tried
thecrow
Well-known member
The Villa are beating Everton 2-0 at half time
bennygesserit
Well-known member
The Villa are beating Everton 2-0 at half time
Now that really is offensive unless you count the Dingles missing out on Goal difference
wes79
Well-known member
Political correctness is a theory nicepix, a theory that has been put into practice (according to wiki how.com which I linked to earlier on in this thread) since the 1970's.
Political theories (like communism, socialism and marxism just for example sake) need societies as testing grounds, being a social engineering project, the first intent falls on first changing the minds of those in such societies that are not prepared for, nor have a defense for any effects that have a negative impact on that society. I really do not need to prove that by repeating what I have said already and brings us onto the point of law. The fact that you admit there is a problem shows very clearly that PC is not the same as law and since one followed the former (PC came after laws had already been made regarding rape and theft) shows what has been playing the largest part of all increases in confusion or knowledge of law in such serious cases of late, this can be called corruption, but all in all all these things can be narrowed or boiled down to a transgression from the law (in my opinion aided and abetted by PC).
So according to your first example you quoted, as long as you ARE the marginal or socially disadvantaged group you should not be discriminated against, PERIOD. Leap frogging the interests of the vast majority who in this theory are silenced completely, how ironic for democracy also.
Now ask yourself where the law is serving as a punishment to ALL who allowed the rapes to happen (do also include the political theorists who served immigration to the British undemocratically right through to those who turned a blind eye and those who say they maintain our laws). Then ask yourself how the law will deter others from doing the same and why or why not as the case maybe.
Your second point that you insist I cannot grasp relies on why someone would be discriminated against in the first place or disadvantaged. If I leave my country to sponge off of a better one that is self inflicted, the notion of asylum goes beyond finding the nearest safe place in the majority of immigration cases as its the indigenous that stand to lose what they worked hard for, so that is yet another guilt trip I cannot subscribe to either.
PC protects quite a few things that left untamed will destroy whole countries, uses arguments that on the surface are hard to oppose, are completely irrational often playing on the emotions rather than the logic in foresightedness or agreement of the vast majority of such a nation.
Plenty of examples walking the earth now who can now promote what is now protected from discrimination.
Someone who is in a minority but chooses to rape a women should be expected to be discriminated against, or a step further, punished or disadvantaged by forfeiting their liberty, you cannot seem to grasp that for these people to of even had a chance to commit such a crime in the first place relied on the help of the definition you gave for PC.
The "constitutional monarch" is we are told, simply a figure head for democratic government, but in a bizarre twist of logic, the oath she swore was to the God of the bible during her coronation, so right there already is a conflict of interest on her part and as she gives royal accent to man made law (which last time I checked the bible prohibits man made laws in the Decalogue) she may even be suffering from the potency of her power as her empire crumbles, also self nullifying her own subjects justice for business interests via a justice system. Her coronation oath contradicts "pure" PC theory, only saying.
The master of the police is on the police badge and uniform, period.
The people always come last. That is why PC in its "pure" form protects every perversion that the good laws that helped build civilization gave protection against, this is the part you cannot grasp.
To answer your last question just ask yourself honestly why the law could fail in such a disastrously epic fashion.
Last edited:
nicepix
Well-known member
Have you any actual examples to support your assertions? Because it seems to me to be a lengthy, incoherent rant with nothing to support it.
wes79
Well-known member
You seem less and less able to return these apparent faults of mine with any substance of your own, which in any debate should be seen as an opportunity to put your point across by teaching me where you think I'm in error, at least I stand to learn something that way, call it an open offer. I think you struggle to have any real answers to most of the points I make, as they are not in agreement, but that is all, I know you wouldn't discriminate against my incoherency without a smile on your face!
Allow me the chance, tell me what specific assertions those are nicepix and I will do my best.
Will have to go soon so if I don't answer straight away I will next time
Last edited:
nicepix
Well-known member
You seem less and less able to return these apparent faults of mine with any substance of your own, which in any debate should be seen as an opportunity to put your point across by teaching me where you think I'm in error, at least I stand to learn something that way, call it an open offer. I think you struggle to have any real answers to most of the points I make, as they are not in agreement, but that is all, I know you wouldn't discriminate against my incoherency without a smile on your face!
Allow me the chance, tell me what specific assertions those are nicepix and I will do my best.
Will have to go soon so if I don't answer straight away I will next time
We'll start with why was your 19:26 post edited half an hour later. After my reply?
Then maybe you could explain why your 13:45 post was edited almost an hour later. Again after a reply had been made to it?
Then maybe you could provide links or evidence to support this:
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Wes you come across as a deep thinker but you miss the point, a lot of beliefs get labelled under the PC banner , but there is no PC brigade , there are a lot of people who think equality in the workplace and in law is vital , there are a few loony civil servants who decided that saying blackboard was racist and there are papers like the daily mail who invent stories about teachers banning baa baa black sheep and every flavour in between. The press have convinced some that the loony left are everywhere - they aren't.
thecrow
Well-known member
Police report finding a man's body in the River Trent. The dead man's name will not be
released until his family has been notified.
The victim apparently drowned and was wearing black fishnet stockings, a red garter belt, a pink G-string, a strap-on dildo, purple lipstick, and a ‘Milliband for PM’ T-shirt.
He also had a cucumber in his rectum.
The police removed the Ed Milliband T-shirt to spare his family any
unnecessary embarrassment.
In spite of what we sometimes think, the Police do care.
released until his family has been notified.
The victim apparently drowned and was wearing black fishnet stockings, a red garter belt, a pink G-string, a strap-on dildo, purple lipstick, and a ‘Milliband for PM’ T-shirt.
He also had a cucumber in his rectum.
The police removed the Ed Milliband T-shirt to spare his family any
unnecessary embarrassment.
In spite of what we sometimes think, the Police do care.
nicepix
Well-known member
wes79
Well-known member
because there is a function allowing me to do so when I saw fit to use it so, have I broke the forum law or something PC?
After reading my posts some of the stuff doesn't make sense and I want to change it, its quite a handy feature and allows me to avoid loads of typos and stuff as I type as it leaves my brain and almost always need to clean it up (because of my typing and other things) Also helps other readers understand the points I am making better, I've already been told I am incoherent so I guess it shouldn't be any surprise to you, besides this is just taking the light away from the substance of my reply. If you think I'm cheating you out of something, somehow just say like!
Ask FM to take this feature away if you don't like it.
Top 5 Countries with the Highest Rates of Rape
Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Europe, with the UN reporting 69 rape cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011, according to author and advocate of power feminism
In 2010, Swedish police recorded the highest number of offences - about 63 per 100,000 inhabitants - of any force in Europe. That was the second highest in the world after Lesotho.
"According to rape crisis advocates in Sweden, one-third of Swedish women have been sexually assaulted by the time they leave their teens. According to a study published in 2003, and other later studies through 2009, Sweden has the highest sexual assault rate in Europe, and among the lowest conviction rates," Wolf wrote.
A 2010 Amnesty report said: "In Sweden, according to official crime statistics, the number of reported rapes has quadrupled during the past 20 years. In 2008, there were just over 4,000 rapes of people over 15, the great majority of them girls and women."
---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------
Thanks Benny.
I understand what you are saying, my only fault is everything else never seems to suffer the same interpretations, we know the sky is blue, water is wet and most want Pacman to wipe the smug smile off Mayweather's face but PC seems to be so flexible, interpretable, that its effectively dodging its own scrutiny.
The daily fail
tell me about it mg: I rarely read news as a daily source of information, I have fallen out with the editorial and the spin years ago.good thing is people like me and yourself have eyes to see and ears to listen, its obvious whats happening to Europe, most people instinctively know something is wrong, but few can explain it in a way that survives the PC filters (as we both now agree they come in many shapes and sizes).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,225
- Reaction score
- 4
Here's a question for the moralists among you.
You decide to de-clutter and take all your excess stuff to the boot sale to sell.
As soon as you unload the car you are surrounded by half a dozen swarthy young men with cropped hair and shiny track suits speaking an undecipherable language all asking for prices on your spare fishing tackle.
Do you
A) Refuse to serve them?
B) Give them a lecture about catch and release?
C) Double your prices?
You decide to de-clutter and take all your excess stuff to the boot sale to sell.
As soon as you unload the car you are surrounded by half a dozen swarthy young men with cropped hair and shiny track suits speaking an undecipherable language all asking for prices on your spare fishing tackle.
Do you
A) Refuse to serve them?
B) Give them a lecture about catch and release?
C) Double your prices?