Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[ahinton]

Stupid point since it doesn't apply. In a bit of a rush to have a pop were you?

Check your facts. I have never advocated the use of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact I think our involvement ranges from illegal to totally immoral.

Please do not amend quotes; thanks. Rather than "being in a rush" or indeed "having a pop", I merely made a joke at which I see no evidence of am51 having taken the offence which was not in any case intended.

I did not suggest whether or not you have ever advocated the use of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and I am indeed pleased to learn that you take the view on this that you do; I therefore had no need to "check" facts to which I'd made no reference in the first place - I'd rather read them as you have presented them now, for which many thanks.

[amateur51]

Stupid point since it doesn't apply. In a bit of a rush to have a pop were you?

Check your facts. I have never advocated the use of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact I think our involvement ranges from illegal to totally immoral.

You'd just prefer it if they were exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention - I see.

[french frank]

We do if they occur in another country, one that we are not a citizen of. Unless someone has created a one-world new order, while I wasn't looking.

No we don't. I belonged to the Anti-Apartheid Movement for years, and don't feel that was something I shouldn't have been doing. Now I donate to the Free Tibet Campaign. Both campaigns had/have people working to put pressure on 'other countries' to respect human rights - part of the Human Rights Industry, as you term it. You aren't obliged to let things bother you (you can 'live with them'), but if such things move you to show your support, then you do.

[ahinton]

You'd just prefer it if they were exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention - I see.

Right or wrong (not as in "my country, ditto"!), I do think that this is rather below the belt, ams! He didn't actually say that, so there's as yet no evidence that he believes it.

[Beef Oven!]

No we don't. I belonged to the Anti-Apartheid Movement for years, and don't feel that was something I shouldn't have been doing. Now I donate to the Free Tibet Campaign. Both campaigns had/have people working to put pressure on 'other countries' to respect human rights - part of the Human Rights Industry, as you term it. You aren't obliged to let things bother you (you can 'live with them'), but if such things move you to show your support, then you do.

Hmmmm. The South African one is interesting. I would like to think about that. It goes against what I believe (non-interference, but world-wide opinion may have helped to topple the regime - at least that is my anecdotal/emotional memory view).

The question is, could the regime have been toppled otherwise. Was it really the ANC that made the difference?

[amateur51]

Right or wrong (not as in "my country, ditto"!), I do think that this is rather below the belt, ams! He didn't actually say that, so there's as yet no evidence that he believes it.

I was referring to his signing a petition demanding clemency for Marine A and thus rendering him outside the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

[amateur51]

Hmmmm. The South African one is interesting. I would like to think about that. It goes against what I believe (non-interference, but world-wide opinion may have helped to topple the regime - at least that is my anecdotal/emotional memory view).

The question is, could the regime have been toppled otherwise. Was it really the ANC that made the difference?

How do you feel about sanctions against Libya, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe to name a few?

[ahinton]

I was referring to his signing a petition demanding clemency for Marine A and thus rendering him outside the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

OK, understood, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that ALL troops should be automatically exempt therefrom.

[amateur51]

OK, understood, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that ALL troops should be automatically exempt therefrom.

Would a 'terrorist' inflamed by this decision think like that? Slippery thin end of wedge time.

[jean]

...why anyone feels needs to make comments like your last post, is beyond me...

It shouldn't be.

You refer to homosexual people in the West as a new power elite that rewrites the laws to suite themselves - you said the same about Stonewall not so long ago. You appear to think that changing attitudes among the heterosexual majority have nothing to do with it:

...The point I am making is that of hegemony. It's a heterosexual hegemony in Russia. Same-sex marriage arises in liberal democracies is a result of the power elite's weltanschauung ...

But maybe you're just expressing yourself badly, and that isn't what you think at all.

Feel free to elucidate.

[ahinton]

Would a 'terrorist' inflamed by this decision think like that? Slippery thin end of wedge time.

As I'm sure you appreciate from what I've written previously, the fact that I do not favour clemency for Marine A because I do not believe that there are mitigating circumstances in his case is firmly predicated upon my belief that troops should not be exempt from adherence to the Geneva Convention, nor should their contracts direct other than that this Convention's terms be upheld by all armed service personnel at all times regardless of circumstance (otherwise there'd be no point in its existence). In such a situation, I cannot understand what you mean about how a 'terrorist' might respond to a decision when it's unclear to me to what particular decision you refer; whilst I can of course understand a 'terrorist' being inflamed by a decision to offer clemency to a cold-blooded murderer who flouts the Geneva Convention and thereby his contract of service by killing other than in the line of duty as an armed serviceperson, provided that the 'terrorist' is on the other side of the war to that of the murderer, I'm not entirely sure that such a scenario covers what you refer to here.

[ahinton]

You refer to homosexual people in the West as a new power elite that rewrites the laws to suit themselves

If that is literally what is meant, I neither understand nor recognise it, if for no other reason than my unawareness of the existence of any government anywhere that is so homosexually oriented and so firmly supported by a homosexually inclined electorate that it is empowered to legislate specifically and solely to suit homosexuals' interests above all others.

[Beef Oven!]

You refer to homosexual people in the West as a new power elite that rewrites the laws to suite themselves - you said the same about Stonewall not so long ago. You appear to think that changing attitudes among the heterosexual majority have nothing to do with it:

Cultural hegemony is something 'done' to, not 'done' by the majority.

[Beef Oven!]

If that is literally what is meant, I neither understand nor recognise it, if for no other reason than my unawareness of the existence of any government anywhere that is so homosexually oriented and so firmly supported by a homosexually inclined electorate that it is empowered to legislate specifically and solely to suit homosexuals' interests above all others.

I have reported you to the Campaign For Plain English. They have advised me not to engage with you until they have completed their preliminary investigation.

[Beef Oven!]

I know it must be difficult for a 'Life Coach' to switch off at the weekends, but it's not a very good advertisement.

Don't make snide remarks and insult people about their chosen work, and don't bite the hand that feeds you.

P.S. Are you confusing me with someone else? Because twice you've made insulting remarks about what you think my job is, and I'm not even sure what a 'life coach' actually is.

P.P.S. Switch off at weekends? Are you confusing me with someone else? I've recently returned from a three month holiday, I'm semi-retired and I only work to my own timetable.