Jump to content


NOT about Asylum seekers...well...

Recommended Posts

You have to admit it does seem pretty unambiguous though: I fail to see what else he could mean when he writes

 

"rape is the womans fault in their country [somalia]"

 

I suppose he could mean that in Somalia, rape is the fault of the woman; but I think he means that in Somalia, rape is the fault of the woman, i.e the womans fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Mo

Anyway what I wan't to know is why some assylum threads are considered OK and allowed to run and the likes of my thread here was closed down almost immediately.

 

Come on Geoff lets have some consistant Modding. Either the topic is off line or it's not.

 

Your thread was open for 27 hours without a reply, hardly a case of immediately closing a thread.

 

The reason this thread is running is because it is probably the only one which was opened with a negative light on anti-asylum seekers. It's a matter of balance. As Geoff pointed out when he closed your thread there are plenty of current threads which attempt to paint immigrants in a negative light so there was really no need to start another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by max

Your thread was open for 27 hours without a reply, hardly a case of immediately closing a thread.

 

The reason this thread is running is because it is probably the only one which was opened with a negative light on anti-asylum seekers. It's a matter of balance. As Geoff pointed out when he closed your thread there are plenty of current threads which attempt to paint immigrants in a negative light so there was really no need to start another.

 

1. So in future will all threads without replies be closed after 27 hours?

 

2. As far as I can see this thread has developed in exactly the same way as all other asylum threads ie polarised views in which neither side gives an inch.

 

3. What was wrong with noseyrosie reintroducing an older thread to add her views? After all we are always been told to use the search button.

 

4. So this thread is running because it was pro assylum and mine was chopped because it wasn't. Very fair that isn't it? CENSORSHIP pure and simple.

 

5. The story which I mentioned was relevant to me because it was happening in my community and both news items came out as I remember more or less at the same time.

 

I just cannot see how you can fairly justify this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phan, do you take everything you hear totally literally?

 

The point that was trying to be made was that rape is in some countries a more acceptable way for men to act, and it is usually the woman who will be looked on more dimly in those countries.

 

Whether that is actually true or not I am in no position to judge. It seems to be a fairly patronising point of view, ie that people in this country are naturally more civilised than in whatever particular country these people came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Mo

1. So in future will all threads without replies be closed after 27 hours?

 

2. As far as I can see this thread has developed in exactly the same way as all other asylum threads ie polarised views in which neither side gives an inch.

 

3. What was wrong with noseyrosie reintroducing an older thread to add her views? After all we are always been told to use the search button.

 

4. So this thread is running because it was pro assylum and mine was chopped because it wasn't. Very fair that isn't it? CENSORSHIP pure and simple.

 

5. The story which I mentioned was relevant to me because it was happening in my community and both news items came out as I remember more or less at the same time.

 

I just cannot see how you can fairly justify this.

 

1. No - Geoff chose to close yours for the reason he gave at the time.

2. True.

3. See my previous post, it was coming at the problem from a completely different perspective.

4. No - see 3.

5. Maybe relevant but certainly not important enough for you to bother adding to an existing thread as suggested at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is rapidly turning into a non-debate. It has just degenerated into argument about theoretical sexual crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by mojoworking

I would have thought it was obvious (especially to a supreme intellectual like you Phan)

:cool:

that fuzbuz didn't mean that at all.

 

Only a pity he didn't express that himself more clearly, before you felt a need to explain to me what he really meant by it

He meant that in some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman. An accepted fact, I would have thought.

 

OK class, pay attention: :D

 

compare and contrast the following sentences -

 

1.rape is the womans fault in their country [somalia]

 

and

 

2. In some countries women's rights are so backward that rape is nearly always assumed to be the fault of the woman.

 

Which one is the ill-informed and vacuous generalisation? Which is the more reasonable, considered and well thought out comment that is undoubtably true. (but hopelessly nebulous in this context)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by oxbeast

This is rapidly turning into a non-debate. It has just degenerated into argument about theoretical sexual crimes.

 

Oh no it hasn't. That'll be £5 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rite for starters im not a him im female. And yes il clarify what i meant about the "rape" statement. I didnt mean these women asked for it what i meant was if a woman gets raped or assulted and it went to court it would be seen as if she was the guilty one for perhaps "wearing lipstic" or "having a nice dress on" inother words as if she seduced (sorry about spellings here) him. I know its sad and a bad bad way to go about it but its true as our RE teacher at school was indian and she spoke about this as it happens all the time in Eastern places. Iv now realised i phrased it wrong and i understand a little why you all flipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no it hasn't. That'll be £5 please.

 

In the words of Monty Python:

'That's not an argument, thats just contradiction!'

 

'No it's not.'

 

And thanks to fuzbuz for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As id explained about its acceptable for 14 year olds to have sex and marry older men i just assumed that as it was in the same paragraph it was meant the same asin as they find it acceptable to accuse women of a crime that wasnt there fault. It just puts me about that they may think we live by these nasty ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by oxbeast

In the words of Monty Python:

'That's not an argument, thats just contradiction!'

 

'No it's not.'

 

And thanks to fuzbuz for clarifying.

 

Ah, explicit Monty Python meets implicit Monty Python.

 

Well done fuzbuz, thought you'd gone away.:D:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.