You would hope so, but the fact is, both these things were happening.
If they were universal, they'd be inviolable, wouldn't they?
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Exactly.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I was replying to a specific example of sort of a time-travelling moral crusade.
This is beginning to feel like my comment is being twisted to imply I support or condone abuses.
I suspectShadydan means 'respect' in the sense of 'abide by' rather than 'approve of'.
This is something that is being muddied to the convenience of a lot of the apologists and whataboutery I saw when exposed to Twitter yesterday.....
"Abide" by the laws = Not engaging in homosexual practices (or at least, not in public) etc.
Similarly; if you're stumbling round the street with a can of beer in your hand then expect to get nicked. Fair fucks.
Wearing a rainbow hat is not breaking a law (afaik!). There's no element of hate to it as an expression; quite the opposite. Nor is there any offensive/aggressive sloganeering going on..... Pride is pride; nothing beyond that.
"Respect" (tolerance; be it religion, culture, lifestyle; which sanctimony aside, is all one and the same) ought to be mutual, but what's being demanded by the Qatar authorities isn't that..... It's double standards when one considers what one can/should rightfully expect when visiting the (eg) the UK. I keep reading the "as a guest to my house" analogy, but as a guest; yes I'd expect you to remove your shoes if that's the house rules and if you walked in partaking in something illegal you'd be taking the piss, but (eg as an atheist) it wouldn't be respectful or tolerant of me to demand that you remove a cross from your neck before you enter and if I was that offended by your culture/values, I simply wouldn't invite you to begin with.
Last edited:
Have already explained what I meant, see my post
Competition - The “They’re really going to have a World Cup in QATAR?” Thread
Yeah, we glorify Richard the Lionheart It’s amazing how this guy — one of the worst monarchs in our history — has managed to be so well regarded and, well, lionized. The man obviously had a brilliant PR team working for him.
thefightingcock.co.uk
Not at all from my perspective.
I think that the average person in Nazi Germany or Apartheid South Africa knew what they were doing was immoral or worse but chose to go along because they were scared of the regime, felt powerless and/or thought the benefits outweighed the moral issue.
I don’t think this is true of the Qataris. I believe they think they have the high ground here because of some quote in a three thousand year book.
I think so too, but at the very least they are demanding a sense of respect/tollerance/equality that they aren't prepared to give.
Last edited:
Have already explained what I meant, see my post
Competition - The “They’re really going to have a World Cup in QATAR?” Thread
Yeah, we glorify Richard the Lionheart It’s amazing how this guy — one of the worst monarchs in our history — has managed to be so well regarded and, well, lionized. The man obviously had a brilliant PR team working for him.
Fair enough
Are you saying that the spectrum of sexuality is biological? Or cultural? Or a bit of both?
I think you missed my point, any way in answer to your question sexuality is no more of a choice than colour of skin is!Are you saying that the spectrum of sexuality is biological? Or cultural?
What's happening here ?
That is not my post that you replied to, although it has my name on it.
A new study of 12,000 people says sexuality changes well into adulthood
The research shows distinct differences between men and women.
www.marketwatch.com
Gay, straight and bisexual may not begin to capture the changing nature of human sexuality.
A new study, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex Research, analyzed surveys from around 12,000 students, and found that substantial changes in attractions, partners, and sexual identity are common from late adolescence to the early 20s, and from there into people’s late 20s.
The research said evolving and changing feelings about attraction indicate that sexual orientation development continues long past adolescence into adulthood. The results also show distinct differences between men and women, with female sexuality being more fluid over time.
Sexuality is key to most people’s identity. “Sexual orientation involves many aspects of life, such as who we feel attracted to, who we have sex with, and how we self-identify,” said Christine Kaestle, a professor of developmental health at Virginia Tech and author of the study. Lesbian, bisexual and gay are the main markers for a person’s sexual preferences, but Kaestle says they may be limiting.
“Researchers have tended to focus on just one of these aspects, or dimensions, to measure and categorize people. However, that may oversimplify the situation,” she said. “For example, someone may self-identify as heterosexual while also reporting relationships with same-sex partners.” In order to take all of these dimensions of sexuality above and beyond gay, straight and bisexual, Kaestle used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, which tracked American students from the ages of 16 to 18 into their late 20s and early 30s.
Straight people made up the largest group and showed the least change in sexual preferences over time. Men were more likely than women to report their sexuality as straight: Almost 9 out of 10 men, compared to less than three-quarters of women, Kaestle said.
Mp.
Also, as
mummy
alludes to, his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, was something else. I would rate as probably the most influential female monarch in British history, possibly with the exceptions of the two Elizabeths. She was first married to the weak Louis VII of France before he had the marriage annulled on the grounds of both consanguinity (she didn't provide a male heir to the French throne) and that she liked to 'put it about' with other men given Philip wasn't really up to it. She then married Henry II (who was up to it, with her and numerous other women) before he became king, and they had numerous offspring, including of course Richard and John.
She didn't take any crap from Henry - she was wealthy in her own right from the Aquitaine territories in south-western France - but they ruled well for a period of time until the family ended being as dysfunctional as anything from a Jeremy Kyle TV show (you may need to ask someone who this person is...), and Henry imprisoned her for 16 years. However, she still had huge influence with the powerbrokers of England and France who had no time for Henry.
The Angevin Empire period of English Plantagenet reign covers a fascinating time in (mainly) English history, where the crown gradually moved from France to England, along with legal and constitutional changes we still have as the basis of English law to this day - namely the writing of Magna Carta. It's my favourite time of English history.
Yeah, sorry. I should know you well enough by now to know that's not how you operate. Sorry mate.My apologies, that wasn't my intention at all.
In the 1970s I spoke to my mother about why nobody in her village (about 700 inhabitants) said or asked anything when one or two Jewish families were suddenly "picked up".
She told me nobody said anything because there was a fear that one would also be "picked up".
The Nazi system was simple.
It wasn't primarily the "Gestapo" that people were afraid of.
Not tens of thousands of people worked there.
It was the informers.
They delivered others to the knife.
I am very interested in this period of my country.
It is inconceivable to me that the reports about the conditions in Germany outside of the country were for many fairy tales or lies - one obviously could not imagine the factory-like murder of people by people?
When evidence was presented, didn't you want to admit it?
One of those people who tortured people to death was an SS man named Sommer.
He was "responsible" for the arrest in the Buchenwald concentration camp.
This bastard is well described in the book "Nackt unter Wölfen" by Bruno Apitz, which is well worth reading.
After the war, the pig lived in a retirement home and let the sun shine on his head.
In the now wonderfully democratic Federal Republic of Germany, the officials, public prosecutors and judges who were important for the Nazi regime continued to make their careers.
The Attorney General of Hesse, Mr Fritz Bauer, was attacked for his conduct of the "Auschwitz Trial". Hostile as a former concentration camp prisoner and homosexual.
A bugger! Even with some rats that are still alive today.
To me a man I thank for doing what he did. Also all those who were tortured and/or murdered because of their sincerity in the concentration camps and Gestapo cellars.
Why am I writing all this now? I am a simple man. I didn't have a great education, but after nine years of school I had to start my apprenticeship and then earn money because we were quite poor. If we had been rich, I would have had to get an education too because I wasn't smart enough to go to college. So I'm only writing this because even an uneducated being like me, who doesn't express himself so eloquently, can see that systems that violate human rights are not allowed to win and that we should (have to?!) cry out with our knowledge - no matter how limited - so that those affected in these systems know that they are not alone.
(Forgive my excursion into my youth - my fingers flew across the keyboard and did what they will.)
Can't afford to go to an NFL game....$250+? No thanks.
NBA should have been my comp, I go to plenty of those. Grizzlies are dirt cheap compared to most, but I still pay $15 for a beer and $12 for a sandwich. Water is around $5, I believe.
Never dull in medieval courts.Mp.
Also, as
She was first married to the weak Louis VII of France before he had the marriage annulled on the grounds of both consanguinity (she didn't provide a male heir to the French throne) and that she liked to 'put it about' with other men given Philip wasn't really up to it. She then married Henry II (who was up to it, with her and numerous other women) before he became king, and they had numerous offspring, including of course Richard and John.
She didn't take any crap from Henry - she was wealthy in her own right from the Aquitaine territories in south-western France - but they ruled well for a period of time until the family ended being as dysfunctional as anything from a Jeremy Kyle TV show (you may need to ask someone who this person is...), and Henry imprisoned her for 16 years. However, she still had huge influence with the powerbrokers of England and France who had no time for Henry.
The Angevin Empire period of English Plantagenet reign covers a fascinating time in (mainly) English history, where the crown gradually moved from France to England, along with legal and constitutional changes we still have as the basis of English law to this day - namely the writing of Magna Carta. It's my favourite time of English history.
I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing.
Are you saying that, as a general rule of thumb, you wouldn't abide by the laws of a country you were visiting if you didn't agree with them on moral grounds?