Diversity

[BodyButter]

As an aside from the hunting thread, I was thinking about diversity and where the line is between what we should learn to accept and what we as society should reject.

Those hunters pay lots of money to shoot animals and in a capitslist society, they are perfectly entitled to use their money any way they see it. However, I believe most right minded people find their behaviour abhorrent.

Growing up a rejection of gays was almost built into my childhood. Through secondary school the worst tag you could get was gay and it was seen as being utterly negative. It must have been a horrible experience for my classmates who were actually gay but we didn't know better. Over the years I've learned to to accept people better for who they are.

Obviously, paedophiles, murderers and that lot need to be excluded from society for our protection but where should the line be?

Should poisonous media commentators like Bill O'Reilly be excluded from society for pushing his twisted, hateful adjenda?

Should hunters be excluded from society for their bloodthirsty ways?

Should we accept all human beings with openness and love?

 

[Clubpaver]

I believe that all sexy females should accept me with openness and love,yes.
As for the rest....someone`s hacked into Bodybutter`s account. :17:

 

[Clubpaver]

Wasn`t Diversity on Britain`s got talented ice factors.

 

[Pride of Lions]

I thought Diversity was a dance act......

 

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 04:28

Should we accept all human beings with openness and love?

No. We value life, and in particular human life, far too highly. We are just a bunch of atoms arranged in a specific order. We have far too high an opinion of ourselves.

If you are not contributing to society Nature would normally see that you would not survive, and certainly would not procreate. We twist it by trying to help fix anti-social behaviour, exacerbating the problem further.

 

[BodyButter]

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 2/7/2014 17:54

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 04:28

Should we accept all human beings with openness and love?

No. We value life, and in particular human life, far too highly. We are just a bunch of atoms arranged in a specific order. We have far too high an opinion of ourselves.

If you are not contributing to society Nature would normally see that you would not survive, and certainly would not procreate. We twist it by trying to help fix anti-social behaviour, exacerbating the problem further.

Are you saying that we should cull the underclass?

 

[SiggyBrownie]

You mean it isn't an old, old wooden ship?

[youtube=Bg2mMwKidA0]

 

[Juan Mourep]

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 04:28

Those hunters pay lots of money to shoot animals and in a capitslist society, they are perfectly entitled to use their money any way they see it.

They are not entitled to cause death, suffering or loss to another inhabitant of this planet, nobody is.

That is a natural expansion of common law and should be the basis that all are judged on.

In my opinion, if you have not caused death, suffering or loss you have committed no crime.

 

[Bikini Inspector]

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 04:28



Those hunters pay lots of money to shoot animals and in a capitslist society, they are perfectly entitled to use their money any way they see it. However, I believe most right minded people find their behaviour abhorrent.

Trophy hunting has nothing to do with capitalism Mr Marx. That was nothing more than a lame attempt on your part to push capitalism as being morally wrong. Capitalism is an economic system and does not "entitle you to use your money anyway you see fit". In fact it doesn't entitle you to anything other than what you earn or generate through your own efforts. Nothing to do with Laws and Morals.

Nobody should be excluded for expressing an opinion. Bill O'Reilly maybe a twat but it is only your opinion that he is pushing a "twisted, hateful adjenda" and not a fact.

This thread should be titled "How many things I don't agree with should be banned?"

:70:

 

[BodyButter]

Bikini Inspector - 3/7/2014 01:18

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 04:28



Those hunters pay lots of money to shoot animals and in a capitslist society, they are perfectly entitled to use their money any way they see it. However, I believe most right minded people find their behaviour abhorrent.

Trophy hunting has nothing to do with capitalism Mr Marx. That was nothing more than a lame attempt on your part to push capitalism as being morally wrong. Capitalism is an economic system and does not "entitle you to use your money anyway you see fit". In fact it doesn't entitle you to anything other than what you earn or generate through your own efforts. Nothing to do with Laws and Morals.

Nobody should be excluded for expressing an opinion. Bill O'Reilly maybe a twat but it is only your opinion that he is pushing a "twisted, hateful adjenda" and not a fact.

This thread should be titled "How many things I don't agree with should be banned?"

:70:

Got out of the wrong side of bed this morning? Perhaps a cup of coffe would help? Then come back and read what I wrote again properly and we'll have a nice chat.

 

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 12:04

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 2/7/2014 17:54

BodyButter - 2/7/2014 04:28

Should we accept all human beings with openness and love?

No. We value life, and in particular human life, far too highly. We are just a bunch of atoms arranged in a specific order. We have far too high an opinion of ourselves.

If you are not contributing to society Nature would normally see that you would not survive, and certainly would not procreate. We twist it by trying to help fix anti-social behaviour, exacerbating the problem further.

Are you saying that we should cull the underclass?

It would be a start!!!

Seriously, no. There are many kind, sociable people that you might still class as the Underclass. I just think we get too caught up in thinking we are so special, when really we're just another animal, trying to survive.

If you perform anti-social acts, then nature would normally ensure you didn't survive?. If you are infertile, then Nature has dictated that you can't have children. If you do something stupid that leaves you unable to support yourself, then Nature has determined your genes are not suitable to be passed on.

Why we get so upset by it all and try and help absolutely everyone is beyond me.

 

[Guest]

Heath dude whislt i agree about he anti social buggers shouldn't be helped etc, the view you take on people should not be helped if nature decides if they can or can not have kids i have to disagree tbh, we humans have created so much mess like nuclear reacter leakes chemicals in water food and atmosphere just as an example, surely this is not nature causing all humans to not be able to have kids or have diseases its ourselves?

Also if a major world wide epidemic spread across the globe killing the world's population we would have to be able or right to help people to survive as this must be every living things goal to help there species survival which is why all creatures breed, if Ants became the top dominent species of the planet in the future and had scientific inteligence i bet they would do also what we do create vaccines etc cos otherwise the whole species could disapear.

 

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

Oh I agree Clive. I'm not saying we just let Nature run it's course, but rather that we stop treating human life as any more important than anything else when we lose to it. Death is a perfectly normal, and necessary, part of life.

I see the RIP thread, and wonder really why people comment on it. These are people that most of us don't know, yet we feel for them still. One was 96 when he died, and still people were upset. That's a great innings, and I would rather we celebrated the life than mourned the death.

With prisons getting so overcrowded, and the funding they need spiralling, I can't see why someone like Harris can't just be locked away and forgotten. Trying to treat him is just a waste of time, at his age, but our current system says he has rights as well. It's all wrong.