Porn Sunday

It's a catch 22 situation half the time - we need to ask the question to find out.

When you do find out someone is heterosexual or bi-sexual what services would be specific to these 'customers' ?

Because while you're right that it grossly oversimplifies and stereotypes, it's a label that people can easily identify with, and sums up a particular group of people without having to resort to a lengthy description.

So why the need to imply a socio-political leaning when speaking about these people's concerns over invasion of privacy ?

There really is no reason other reason than an attempt to poison the well, whether their concerns are valid or not is an argument that should stand up by and of itself.

This is the very definition of ad hominem, attacking a characteristic of the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

When you do find out someone is heterosexual or bi-sexual what services would be specific to these 'customers' ?

It starts getting complicated around this time - I haven't got any evidence yet that suggests that there are needs that are specific to heterosexual residents per se, but I do have evidence that suggests that if you're lesbian, gay or bisexual, you're statistically more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, experience depression, isolation or specific mental health problems, and be more likely to be a smoker. What I do is assess the size of the local population and decide whether we would get good value for taxpayers' money if we targeted resources on those specific groups in addition to existing spending - perhaps if there were a lot of people we felt we weren't reaching.

Say 10% of your population are lesbian, gay or bisexual, and 50% of that 10% were smokers, but only 2% of the people accessing your smoking cessation programmes were LG or B, that suggests there's more work to be done on engaging those groups.

There was also a rather embarrassing incident where a tenant, who was living with their same sex partner, was accused of sub-letting and evicted, when the service didn't understand the concept of civil partnerships.

So why the need to imply a socio-political leaning when speaking about these people's concerns over invasion of privacy ?

There really is no reason other reason than an attempt to poison the well, whether their concerns are valid or not is an argument that should stand up by and of itself.

This is the very definition of ad hominem, attacking a characteristic of the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

I'd actually rather be addressing the argument!

I just identified a shared characteristic that I felt would give a rough idea of the person they were. It wasn't vitriolic as such, and it doesn't mean their concerns over privacy are any less valid, but let's be honest, almost every Daily Mail reader I've ever encountered has been reactionary, prejudiced, white, retired or approaching retirement, with a touch of the NIMBY about then. They don't understand anyone but themselves, and so will be the first to fail to understand how someone's sexual orientation could have a bearing on their needs, since their own sexual orientation has no impact on their own needs.

I'd actually rather be addressing the argument!

I just identified a shared characteristic that I felt would give a rough idea of the person they were. It wasn't vitriolic as such, and it doesn't mean their concerns over privacy are any less valid, but let's be honest, almost every Daily Mail reader I've ever encountered has been reactionary, prejudiced, white, retired or approaching retirement, with a touch of the NIMBY about then. They don't understand anyone but themselves, and so will be the first to fail to understand how someone's sexual orientation could have a bearing on their needs, since their own sexual orientation has no impact on their own needs.

And you say you are an equality manager ? I am puzzled, this appears to be humour, but it is very hard to tell.

I probably responded to what you said too strongly, but it does annoy me when people seem to think that homosexuality is concerned solely with who you shag.

Like Gore Vidal, for example, who famously stated that

"There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo- or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices."

For myself, my homosexuality is entirely about who I shag; if they're of the same sex as me, I'm engaging in homosexual behaviour. When I ride my bicycle, pay my council tax or get my bins emptied, the sex of the person with whom I last had physical intimacy rarely comes into it.

And you say you are an equality manager ? I am puzzled, this appears to be humour, but it is very hard to tell. The more you attempt to rationalize your prejudice the more it exposes itself.

We're all allowed our prejudices - it's how we act on them that defines us.

I have to say though that I do tend to be very flippant - when a colleague is murdered because he happens to be gay, and my friends can't go to certain pubs because if they do, they get told 'we don't serve niggers here', I'd probably be a very angry man if I couldn't laugh some of these things off.

tynan - you talk about our civil liberties being oppressed by the powers that be and our privacy being invaded by our big brother society but I don't really buy it. I'd say, as a people, we have never been freer than we are now. Never before has so much opportunity been available to so many different people regardless of background, race or class, universities have opened their doors to anyone. Our technology based society we're living in has broken down so many boundaries. The internet has given us unprecedented freedom was only a dream to so many not so long ago, the information super highway available to all with a modem and a PC. Cheap flights + the European Union has allowed unrestricted movement to anyone with enough money for a plane ticket. Most people in the world only dream of the freedom we have.

Count up all the pros of our present society and compare them with the cons you're talking about.

I'll think you'll find more pros.

facist!

I have to say though that I do tend to be very flippant - when a colleague is murdered because he happens to be gay, and my friends can't go to certain pubs because if they do, they get told 'we don't serve niggers here', I'd probably be a very angry man if I couldn't laugh some of these things off.

You really are an odd character.

God its sad isn't it.

The police powers will rise and at a cost to us? i am sure we could spend this money in other more beneficial areas?!

At least when the under-educated poor are dying through malnutrition and drug abuse we know what they last bid on in the bay!

I am going to really fuck their stats up by watching in the night garden on iplayer, then switch to violent animal sex, back to knitting patterns and then on to home made surveillance forums

You really are an odd character.

but at least he isn't angry.

Don't heterosexuals have a greater propensity for breeding than other elements of society and so, if you introduce heterosexuality into the population you may need to commit greater resources to maternity, childcare and education than you otherwise might.

ah but homosexuals are more likely to commit violent sex crimes against household pets and improve the quality of Male cosmetics - which is flagging right now!

but at least he isn't angry.

If a colleague of mine was murdered because he happened to be gay, or friends couldn't go into pubs because the staff say 'we don't serve niggers here' - I would say it would be my duty to be angry.

But at least he is not a gay or a mental.

mooks getting sucked in to the quicksand. there is no way back now.

If a colleague of mine was murdered because he happened to be gay, or friends couldn't go into pubs because the staff say 'we don't serve niggers here' - I would say it would be my duty to be angry.

But at least he is not a gay or a mental.

It's not really in my nature to be angry. I can get irate, but I tend to internalise rather than get overtly angry and shouty.

That said, I wasn't like 'Oh? Whatever' when I found out about the murder, and had I been in the pub when my friend was refused service, I would have kicked up a fuss, but I don't find being angry to be particularly productive. It just makes me want to stick with my job even more.

mooks getting sucked in to the quicksand. there is no way back now.

:)

MuhahahahHAHAhahaha

It's not really in my nature to be angry. I can get irate, but I tend to internalise rather than get overtly angry and shouty.

I like a mix of internalized physical anger and shouty/ranty mocking moral highgroundism.

I like a mix of internalized physical anger and shouty/ranty mocking moral highgroundism.

I just take out my frustration on the glossy photos thread...

I walked passed someone watching porn on their tv on the way back from the supermarket tonight.
ground floor apartment on a busy intersection i think they wanted people to see.

I walked passed someone watching porn on their tv on the way back from the supermarket tonight.
ground floor apartment on a busy intersection i think they wanted people to see.

Are you a government spy? Why else would you be looking through people's windows?

Are you a government spy? Why else would you be looking through people's windows?

Unless he is a peadophile.

Petit pois?

mooks getting sucked in to the quicksand. there is no way back now.

I REALLY have to stop taking these threads so seriously...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7986483.stm

Ha! I hope this information is stored for 12 months.

I REALLY have to stop taking these threads so seriously...

its quite funny when all the rights and wrongs go into a forum punch bowl and dished out all over the floor.
its just messy :D