again I've not argued that it is opressive that white people cannot use the N word..I have argued that if it is offensive then all colours should stop using it
Go back to page 2 of this thread, where you are making arguments about replacing one form of oppression with another.
semantics? you qoute opression of centuries old people but there are no centuries old people, humans biological clock determines so, so this does challenge your own attempt at debate about over dramatising surely?
When certain races or other denominations have been oppressed with prejudice and / or subjugation, it is quite natural, that they will feel identified with that race or denomination, and that racism and other prejudices - that yes, have been centuries old - but you don't have to look too far to find them still, then it's not being overdramatic.
A question for you - why do you believe equal opportunities and anti-discrimination legislation was introduced?
Totally unnecessary? Should it just have been left to evolve and people do the right thing? 'cos that worked out so well before, eh.
if, as I have said before you have rules that isolate a group one minute then allow that group special privilage then you are infact creating a two tier system whilst claiming we are all equal, which I have argued should not be the way.
What "special privilage"?
The only thing I see is rules protecting them from being discriminated against. That's not making them special, per se, that's trying to say you must treat them equally and not use that subject / race as a means to treat them differently because of it.
You have argued history is not correct one minute as my duck
What utter rubbish, sylus - surely you are above this?
This petty squabbling - you took issue with my use of a specific word, and harped on about it's history. I used it as the first bloody definition in the OED!
I didn't tell you history is not correct - either for that word - or anything else. All I did was rebuke you from telling me I was using it wrongly - which i was quite correct to do so, I said nothing about your claims of it's history.
then claimed history with centuries old people which do not exist. I can certianly understand why your having difficulties with your argument as it is all over the place
What rubbish - I'm going to say it again - surely you're better than this, sylus?
Your first proposition in this point is bogus, you've then gone on to try and use that for another point, which fails spectacularly, because the first bit was utter guff.
My argument is not all over the place - I have remained consistent - you've twitterd around the edges, trying, and failing, to be pedantic - really, sylus, leave pedantry to the big boys, 'k.
I haven't claimed individuals are centuries old, I've claimed that people identify themselves with that which has been the subject of prejudice against them, and in many cases still is, and clearly, they will identify and group themselves as that denomination, that has suffered prejudice for centuries.
if you are going to have rules then they must apply to all equally, if not then you have a selective system based on who is the flavour of the month at that time
So who is getting favourable treatment based on being "flavour of the month" then?
That's your big, smelly, ugly, old-auntie, flaw in this whole argument. You trying to foist "special treatment" in place of "not allowed to discriminate against based on..."
This page intentionally left blank