DeletedUser16008
Oh, I do not have the problem. lol. And I think we are on the same page about the entire generalizing.
Willy wasn't the one who took offense and created this thread. That is because without the context of the interaction between you a willy, the comment actually included everyone not involved in the process so someone outside your interaction took it for face value. It would be like me saying all sheep are black because that is all I saw while riding on a train across the country side or there are some gay people who molest children, but it would be above and beyond if I said, because of that, all gays rape kids.
But like I said to the comment "The point is that the op is offended by statements about religion that are unpleasant, yet true.". Facts within the comment was true, but the comment itself wasn't because of the way it was presented. I think that was your intent of posting it the way you did was to illustrate exactly what I am saying too. That fact that things happened wasn't the part he took offense to, it was the wording that somehow because of his connection to the facts, even if ancillary, he was somehow responsible or involve which is the entire problem with generalizations in the first place.
But keep in mind, I'm not trying to say your comment was out of line in the context it was presented in, just that when comments are presented in that way, people with no connection to them as the target can and sometimes do take offense not at the facts presented, but the way the comment was presented on it's own to create a fact not true. I certainly think this was the issue behind this thread being created.
Same page aye, agreed. Naa i know you don't have the problem and id rather willy didn't either, my intent was to make willy think, nothing more.
I do wince when I hear a quoted scripture or based statement because I know from personal experience what can happen from there. I think Hellstromm just provided the example.
That used to be me, iv'e since stopped being so..... mmm thorough in examples. Rather id just try to make another understand the following and accept no rulebook or way is without its faults.
Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
Hellstromm maybe you don't realise it but the British law court can be overruled by european court of human rights.. and that thing on prisoners extends to all, including murderers, rapists etc the lot certainly its not political as we don't jail many of that genre here.
Referring to Abu Qatada he has a very long story. Either you know it or you don't but to say hes not committed a crime would be very very debatable. Certainly he has no respect for western life or values. By all means ill start another thread on it as its about respect and human rights. We can't just make another law the European court of human rights would still take precedence. The UK effectively set up the human rights court in Europe to avoid persecution in the future but its not and wasn't intended to place people in danger by protecting those that wish others harm. It is being abused and its intention twisted, lawyers are making a fortune on it and a mockery of its intent, like so many things now. Eventually something will happen and the public will become hostile.
Its entirely possible in the future Britain will have to leave The European Convention on Human Rights even though we are effectively its founder. I think it is time to once again look and redraw the lines on rights and how protecting some can endanger or even condone taking another's away, people say if we left it would make the ECHR meaningless, i say it already is since some members signed to it care nothing for rights or take notice of it whatsoever. It has become a parody of what it was ..fine we formed it, its past its sell by date, so break it and start anew I say.
Last edited by a moderator: