Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Lilith
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Female, 43
UK
Forum
Quote by Cubes
Ok - this is all getting abut silly now. I wonder whether a Mod will come along and lock the thread soon. We're in a different time zone to the original topic now, having gone off on so many tangents...!!!
We try to avoid locking threads wherever possible because the people contributing to them are trusted to be adult enough to keep to the topic, avoid personal attacks, and to refrain from breaching the AUP. In this case it does seem to be heading the wrong way but let's hope it can be brought back on track to avoid further action/reaction.
Just to clarify: The perceived racist slur has been noted but - due to the differing definitions of the word in use - is being overlooked. However, if it continues to be proposed as part of the debate then that view may have to change. ;)
Oooh, Cubey... I love it when you take charge!
Quote by flower411
Ok - this is all getting abut silly now. I wonder whether a Mod will come along and lock the thread soon. We're in a different time zone to the original topic now, having gone off on so many tangents...!!!
Shush !!! Ya spoilsport :razz:
Honestly! Every time I turn around you boys are bickering!! It's like being a primary school teacher in here... :roll:
:giggle:
Star - My comments were all directed at your sweeping statement that words are "just words" and then your subsequent statement that you believe that words can never do any damage. My examples of the law were intended to provide factual examples to back up my assertion that words can be damaging to people. They would not make laws about this sort of thing otherwise. It is not just racially offensive words or discriminatory words that can hurt people either. Slander and libel are all about using words to convey a story that is unfounded and damaging to a person's reputation. I am merely using the law to provide you with concrete examples to show that it is universally acknowledged that words can hurt people! Of course, words can also be damaging without constituting any sort of offence. If I told my wife that I didn't love her any more, that would hurt her infinitely more than if I punched her in the face (not, I hasten to add, that I would ever do such a thing!)
You made the statement that words cannot hurt people. I was merely explaining to you why you are wrong about that. It is not a matter of opinion! People can be, have been, and will be hurt/offended/humiliated/degraded/intimidated by things that other people say. It is a fact; it is not an opinion.
You now appear to have changed your mind and accepted that words can be damaging. If I have understood you correctly, what you are now saying is that you don't care if you offend others by what you say and that people are "too sensitive" and you're not willing to temper your opinions in order to avoid insulting or upsetting others. Is that about the size of it?
I must say, it is very difficult to discuss things with you when you change your point so often and seem to overlook the point that I'm making.
You made the statement that words cannot hurt people. I was merely explaining to you why you are wrong about that. It is not a matter of opinion! People can be, have been, and will be hurt/offended/humiliated/degraded/intimidated by things that other people say. It is a fact; it is not an opinion.
You now appear to have changed your mind and accepted that words can be damaging. If I have understood you correctly, what you are now saying is that you don't care if you offend others by what you say and that people are "too sensitive" and you're not willing to temper your opinions in order to avoid insulting or upsetting others. Is that about the size of it?
I must say, it is very difficult to discuss things with you when you change your point so often and seem to overlook the point that I'm making.
Quote by starlightcouple
Does that make me wrong because I do not agree with you?
It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me. You are just wrong if you think that words can never have a damaging effect.
I've noticed that you often like to ask people for facts and evidence to back up what they say. Well <flexes muscles>, how about the fact that it is a criminal offence in this country to incite racial hatred? That offence is committed when a person says something which is abusive or insulting, where they intend to stir up racial hatred or make it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. Why do you think that law exists? It is because words can be incredibly powerful and the things that we say matter just as much as the things that we do.
The Equality Act also includes a category of discrimination known as harassment. This is where are person violates another person's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment. Claims have been brought under this legislation for the use of terms like "gay boy" in the workplace.
If you're still not convinced that words can hurt people, try speaking to a child who is verbally bullied at school. Then come back here and tell me that words can't hurt.
Quote by starlightcouple
Are people really that shallow as to be offended by a mere word? It is what I believe and some people seem to get offended much easier than others so how can you tell from one person to another what their reaction is going to be?
It's not remotely shallow to be offended by a term of racial abuse. The reason that a lot of those words are offensive is because of the history of violence and discrimination against a particular race with which the words are associated. What is shallow is a failure to recognise that and understand that it is important to treat people with dignity and respect. If you are not sure how a person will react to any given term, then that provides even more reason to be sensitive and avoid using it altogether.
Quote by starlightcouple
I did not know it is offensive in the slightest and I wonder how many Arabs find it offensive, do we know?
That is irrelevant. I find a lot of terms offensive, even when they are nothing to do with my own race/background/social status, etc. The key point here, which you seem to be missing, is that it is wrong for someone to intentionally use a term in a derogatory way, because it may be offensive to other users of the forum. It is also against the AUP, regardless of whether it is reported.
Quote by starlightcouple
Words GnV just words.
Surely you don't genuinely believe that words are "just words" and have no potentially damaging effect? Words are one of the key ways in which we communicate, and are particularly important in a forum (such as this) where there are no other methods in which to convey meaning (e.g. body language, tone of voice, etc.)
Quote by starlightcouple
Are people really that bothered by a word, used by American soldiers but used by a member on a swingers site, and another member indicating racism?
Given the context in which the term was used, and the subsequent post by the member in question, it was clearly intended as an abusive, derogatory term. It is irrelevant how many people know of the term or the context in which it became a term of abuse. The point is that if there is a risk that using a term may offend someone because it is used in a derogatory manner, and if there is a risk that people may view a comment as racist, then it should not be made. It contravenes the AUP and it lowers the tone of what should be a sensible, adult debate.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I am no fan of trial by telly.
Victims of childhood abuse do not come forward and when they do they are disbelieved. The more powerful and influential the abuser the less likely they are to report. As adults the vast majority prefer to put it behind them.
Other examples of abuse that have taken a long time to come out and were covered up for long time are widespread. Gary Glitter, Jonathan King and of course the Catholic church.
I hope a discussion of these allegations will change our culture and lead to abused children being able to make complaints and be believed. It is NEVER their fault and they deserve our compassion.
I do agree, Ben - allegations should be taken seriously when a victim comes forward, regardless of the gap between the alleged offence and their decision to report it. However, the flipside of the need to be compassionate and take allegations seriously is that nobody should be viewed as guilty before sufficient evidence has been provided and their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt.
There are examples of people whose entire lives have been destroyed as a result of malicious and unfounded allegations that could not be proven. A recent (albeit unpublicised) example that I know about is a teacher in a local secondary school who was accused of , found not guilty, but lost his job and his family nonetheless.
There is a need for a sensitive balance. Nobody should be disbelieved when they make a serious allegation, such as child abuse. However, there should not be an automatic presumption of guilt on the part of the accused either.
In examples such as this, where there is a huge amount of public attention, there is a possibility that some of the claims are being exaggerated, or entirely fabricated. I'm not saying that I disbelieve the women; I just find the media circus rather distasteful, and I don't like the fact that his reputation has already been destroyed before any real evidence of his guilt has been supplied (so far as we are aware).
Quote by starlightcouple
The problem is Lilith your thread title will be enough for many, along with the people who thought him an odd ball.
I'm sorry if you think the thread title is biased. It was intended to represent the point I wanted to discuss - i.e. why is it that so many people have decided that the allegations must be true (without any real evidence)? Also, the inclusion of the "?" was intended to make it a speculative title, rather than a statement of opinion. Perhaps I was being too subtle...
Quote by Lizaleanrob
is there any allegations of actual sexual assault?? sorry but i missed the program and i don't read the rags
Oh yes... There are some pretty serious allegations. I've not read any of the rags either - I saw something on Channel 4 News last night and read a couple of Telegraph articles online...
I just find it bizarre that there are so many women making allegations and none of them thought to do it before he died. Why is that? It just all seems very odd. I'm not sure what the women hope to achieve from this (assuming, of course, that there's any way of actually proving that their allegations are true) - perhaps money from the criminal compensation fund, closure, and the satisfaction of muddying his name and reputation? There's also the likelihood that they sold their stories to the rags in the first place...
I do feel rather sorry for Saville's family. It also feels very unfair that he is not here to defend himself. But, if it is all true, I don't agree with GnV that he has any right to "rest in peace". The trouble is that it's very hard to work out how much of it is sensationalised gossip and how much of it may actually be true. It all happened so long ago and, despite the number of women who have made accusations and the claim that it was always an "open secret", nothing at all has ever been in the papers about anything to do with this until now. That makes me a little suspicious and cynical about the whole thing.
Quote by st3v3
I wonder what happened to freckledbird
Here's a few more examples of the correct usage of commas/semi-colons for your delight and delectation;
Out of all of the English words that begin with the letter F, fuck is the only word that is referred to as the F word. It's the one magical word, just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love. Fuck, as most words in the English language, is derived from German, the word frichen, which means to strike.
In English, fuck falls into many grammatical categories.
As a transitive verb for instance: John fucked Shirley.
As an intransitive verb: Shirley fucks.
Its meaning's not always sexual, it can be used as an adjective such as: John's doing all the fucking work.
As part of an adverb: Shirley talks too fucking much.
As an adverb enhancing an adjective: Shirley is fucking beautiful.
As a noun: I don't give a fuck.
As part of a word, absofuckinlutely, or infuckincredible.
And as almost every word in a sentence: Fuck the fucking fuckers.
As you must realize, there aren't too many words with the versatility of fuck, as in these examples describing situation such as:
Fraud: I got fucked at the used car lot.
Dismay: Ah, fuck it.
Trouble: I guess I'm really fucked now.
Aggression: Don't fuck with me buddy!
Difficulty: I don't understand this fucking question
Inquiry: Who the fuck was that?
Dissatisfaction: I don't like what the fuck is going on here
Incompetence: He's a fuckoff
Dismissal: Why don't you go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself?
I'm sure you can think of many more examples. With all these multipurpose applications, how can anyone be offended when you use the word. We say use this unique flexible word more often in your daily speech, It will identify the quality of your character immediately. Say it loudly and proudly! FUCK YOU!
I missed the TV documentary on ITV last night about Jimmy Saville, but have read a few newspaper articles about it and have just watched a reasonably long news report. It all looks rather damning, and it seems that most people have already decided that the allegations are true. What I don't understand is why it took so long for this to come out and how on earth it stayed covered up for so long?!
In any case, it certainly gives the phrase "Jim'll fix it for you" a decidedly sinister shadow...
In any case, it certainly gives the phrase "Jim'll fix it for you" a decidedly sinister shadow...
Quote by foxylady2209
Commas - use them when you would breathe if you were reading it out loud.
I've found that some people find this guidance difficult to apply (perhaps because they don't breathe in the right places when speaking out loud!!)
There are various uses for the comma:
1. In lists of three or more things (rather than using "and" or "or" between each item in the list).
2. To join together two complete sentences (in which case you have to use a connecting word - "and", "or", "but", etc. - after the comma). This is an alternative to using a semi-colon.
3. Where words are left out because they would repeat words used earlier in a sentence (this is easiest with an example: "Jane was well know for her excellent cupcakes; Francis, for her scones". ) It's not always necessary to use a comma in these circumstances though: if the sentence would make sense without the comma it can be left out.
4. Most commonly, commas are used to "bracket". This is where the text between two commas could be removed and the sentence would still make sense - e.g. "It was not, in my opinion, her finest painting." If the text that could be removed appears at the beginning or end of a sentence you only use one comma - e.g. "We were very happy with the results, all in all."
Quote by foxylady2209
Semi-colons (;) where you could break the sentence into 2 and both would still make sense, but when they make more sense if you read them together.
... and if the conditions required for a colon aren't met, and there is no joining word that would require a comma (e.g. "but" or "and").
A colon is used where the text that follows the colon elaborates on the text that precedes the colon - e.g. "She was not very happy: her car had been stolen".
(The other difference between using colons and using semi-colons is that you can use a colon between incomplete sentences (although it is common for the text preceding the colon to be a complete sentence)).
A famous example of the use of a semi-colon is "it was the best of times; it was the worst of times".
Quote by Suedehead
Think i'm correct in that he would have to prove that he thought she was over 18 not 16 as being her teacher was in a position of trust.
I think that's right too, but I'm not sure which piece of legislation that comes from. But, having talked about this with several friends who are teachers, I understand that there is a different offence for him in relation to the fact that he was her teacher (probably in addition to the child abduction offence).
I also read somewhere that the school had found out about their "relationship" and were investigating, which may explain the (stupid) decision to try to flee the country...
Quote by Paddy
Following on from a discussion in the Chatroom earlier the " Law of averages " came into play!
The average Cock is:
Penile length is generally about 6.5 inches
The Breast is more calculated:
•AA cup: 2%
•A cup: 15%
•B cup: 44%
•C cup: 28%
•D cup: 10%
•DD cup: 1%
Now to my next question:
How many of us have checked our breasts ( for the Fems) and Prostate ( for the guys )
I reckon none of us have!
I'm not going to post links here to the respective sites, that's really up to you, think about it.
Have you checked recently?
Paddy
xxx
What about FF...?
And, yes - I check mine (and my wife feels them for me regularly too!!) :rascal:
