Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 That's right, LOL away and continue to hide your ignorance. As I said previously, the definition of a bigot appears to pass many by, you included it would appear. I am particulary amused at how intolerence of someones's religion beliefs is not bigoted. Of course, if you have seen anything in the realms of bigotry from myself then feel free to post it. I feel quite comfortable outing people who have intolerence, the only difference is that I do not think it is the preserve of those that have intolerence towards the LGBT community. The definition of a bigot is someone who is "intolerant" of different views, beliefs or behaviour. To be "intolerant" is to express unwillingness to allow or accept the existence of a differing opinion, identity or group. Since no one on this thread wants to deny anyone the right to hold an opinion, just to deny them the privileges of elected office where their opinion is bigoted (you, know, like one that wants to deny equal civil rights to LGBT people), it is simply untrue to say that anyone on this thread is "bigoted" against those who do not support LGBT rights, or those who vote for those who do not support LGBT rights. The only bigots here are the active ones, who think LGBT people should not have equal rights, and the passive ones, who will happily vote for people who think LGBT people should not have equal rights, and so display a willingness to facilitate and empower active bigots and so give platform, prominence and legitimacy, to those vile people. Still, having had your arse handed to you on a plate over the Parliamentary Standards Commission Report, this isn't the first time you've been completely wrong in the last 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Have you seen the tone Scotsquid has taken? And you're having a go at my tone? Jaysus. Because I'm torn over endorsing someone who's made very good points at times but might also be an HB alias and henceforth an arsepiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Thank f**k there are no bigots in any of the other parties standing in these areas. You shouldn't vote for them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Would you like to run this past me again? It's pretty self-explanatory. Provide evidence that evolution cannot be proved with science and that creationism cannot be disproved by science, or retract your laughable assertion that these claims were "drivel". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Ad Lib, on 21 Apr 2016 - 17:58, said:You shouldn't vote for them either. Not only that, but if it turned out absolutely no SNP members made that vote, the same folk standing up for bigotry on here would have been all over the others. There's no other way of putting it. They're bigot sympathisers and are no better than the bigots themselves. Quite frankly they can go f**k themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 That's right, LOL away and continue to hide your ignorance. As I said previously, the definition of a bigot appears to pass many by, you included it would appear. I am particulary amused at how intolerence of someones's religion beliefs is not bigoted. Of course, if you have seen anything in the realms of bigotry from myself then feel free to post it. I feel quite comfortable outing people who have intolerence, the only difference is that I do not think it is the preserve of those that have intolerence towards the LGBT community. Here continue posting like a FotbawMad tribute act it's plain to see that you're most concerned with defending people's right to marginalise and abuse minority groups in society. I have absolutely no time for atheists that spend their times moaning about your average Christian or whatever but what I don't support is a supposedly progressive party giving a platform to someone who would happily deny groups equal civil rights on the basis of religious beliefs which have been roundly dismissed as backwards by all sensible people. I'm presuming if Mason's religious beliefs were that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people or each other you would be just as quick to defend him from the vile bigots pointing out that he shouldn't really be standing for the SNP or any other mainstream party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Here continue posting like a FotbawMad tribute act it's plain to see that you're most concerned with defending people's right to marginalise and abuse minority groups in society. I have absolutely no time for atheists that spend their times moaning about your average Christian or whatever but what I don't support is a supposedly progressive party giving a platform to someone who would happily deny groups equal civil rights on the basis of religious beliefs which have been roundly dismissed as backwards by all sensible people. I'm presuming if Mason's religious beliefs were that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people or each other you would be just as quick to defend him from the vile bigots pointing out that he shouldn't really be standing for the SNP or any other mainstream party? What does "average Christian or whatever" means. I wouldn't have presumed that you would be someone that would like to pigeon hole large swathes of the population into a single group. I have already stated on this thread that I think that he is entitled to adhere to his own beliefs and to live by these, within the confines of the law. If he has broken the law then report him. If you do not agree with him then argue the points. However calling people "scum" and "vermin" for not having the same opinion only undermines any argument that is made. His suitability to be elected is entirely with voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Voters who have admitted they'll vote for literally anybody as long as they are representing the SNP. Tone trolling doesn't really suggest that you disagree that what's most important to you is ensuring people can have a public platform to try and marginalise minority and oppressed groups in society. Tbf it would be more disappointing if SNP members supported Mason's reelection but Invergowrie Arab and other members I've seen on Twitter are vocally unhappy about it so I don't know what that says about SNP opponents view that dissent doesn't exist within the SNP? That its a lot of shite probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 You shouldn't vote for them either.We got rid of our IRA sympathising MP at the GE so we've made a start in Motherwell/Wishaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There's no rule that says your constituency vote has to be based on the individuals rather than the party. That might be the way some people see it, I'm betting it's not the way the majority see it. I'm pretty heavily on the side of gay people having the exact same rights as heterosexuals and sometimes I've gone as far as calling everyone opposed to equal marriage as bigots but I've met and talked with a fair number of people who certainly aren't homophobic but were opposed to gay marriage. I think they're deeply wrong and their views can be and have been harmful when they've been institutionalised but I'd certainly stop short of calling everyone opposed to gay marriage some kind of vile bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 But surely the end justifies the means. I want independence and I'll vote for anybody that offers that irrespective of their opinions on any other policy. So if there were a Scottish Fascist Party that had independence as its core policy you'd vote for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There's no rule that says your constituency vote has to be based on the individuals rather than the party. That might be the way some people see it, I'm betting it's not the way the majority see it. I'm pretty heavily on the side of gay people having the exact same rights as heterosexuals and sometimes I've gone as far as calling everyone opposed to equal marriage as bigots but I've met and talked with a fair number of people who certainly aren't homophobic but were opposed to gay marriage. I think they're deeply wrong and their views can be and have been harmful when they've been institutionalised but I'd certainly stop short of calling everyone opposed to gay marriage some kind of vile bigot. Why were they opposed to gay marriage? What possible reason can there be to oppose gay marriage that is not deeply bigoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Voters who have admitted they'll vote for literally anybody as long as they are representing the SNP. Tone trolling doesn't really suggest that you disagree that what's most important to you is ensuring people can have a public platform to try and marginalise minority and oppressed groups in society. Tbf it would be more disappointing if SNP members supported Mason's reelection but Invergowrie Arab and other members I've seen on Twitter are vocally unhappy about it so I don't know what that says about SNP opponents view that dissent doesn't exist within the SNP? That its a lot of shite probably. Do you or IA etc know how SNP vetting works? Is someone like Mason golden because he made it through a process once upon a time? Or does each candidate have to have party approval each time they stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Do you or IA etc know how SNP vetting works? Is someone like Mason golden because he made it through a process once upon a time? Or does each candidate have to have party approval each time they stand? Once you are through vetting you are through forever basically.You do have to answer questions on topical matters and party policy but equal marriage or same sex adoption may well not have come up, especially if he went through vetting at a time before these were big issues. It was also unclear on what basis you would be failed. I made a mistake on tax policy which I realised as soon as I left the assessment but I still got through. One lassie was failed for saying we shouldn't be chasing English voters as they couldn't be relied on to do the right thing for Scotland. It amazes me that people who hold outrageous views don't at least have the intelligence to keep them secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetwiseHercules Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It's pretty self-explanatory. Provide evidence that evolution cannot be proved with science and that creationism cannot be disproved by science, or retract your laughable assertion that these claims were "drivel".It is incumbent on me to do neither. I support evolution as the most likely explanation for the development of species on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There's no rule that says your constituency vote has to be based on the individuals rather than the party. That might be the way some people see it, I'm betting it's not the way the majority see it. I'm pretty heavily on the side of gay people having the exact same rights as heterosexuals and sometimes I've gone as far as calling everyone opposed to equal marriage as bigots but I've met and talked with a fair number of people who certainly aren't homophobic but were opposed to gay marriage. I think they're deeply wrong and their views can be and have been harmful when they've been institutionalised but I'd certainly stop short of calling everyone opposed to gay marriage some kind of vile bigot. The use of the term 'vile bigot' maybe doesn't help the debate, but folk who oppose gay marriage are in my opinion homophobic. Homophobia, again in my opinion, involves denying non heterosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. So if there were a Scottish Fascist Party that had independence as its core policy you'd vote for them? Wee Willie is one of the few SNP supporters on here that would give the Party a bad name. He's anti-English. He doesn't care about issues like poverty and deprivation so long as we're moving towards Independence, at which point he thinks that they'll matter. He will vote for any SNP candidate regardless of that person's view on issues other than Independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The Lib Dems changed their candidate approval procedures over a decade ago and it had meant candidates had to renew their approved status every election cycle. This previously excluded incumbent Parliamentarians but the new rules meant they had to go through it. Three outcomes were always possible: clearance for all seats (green), for "development" seats (amber) and failing (red). There was a slightly awkward moment when Charles Kennedy, then leader of the party, only got an amber rating and wouldn't have been allowed to defend his own seat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 He will vote for any SNP candidate regardless of that person's view on issues other than Independence. Do you have any evidence of this? He has kept his counsel on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There's no rule that says your constituency vote has to be based on the individuals rather than the party. That might be the way some people see it, I'm betting it's not the way the majority see it. I'm pretty heavily on the side of gay people having the exact same rights as heterosexuals and sometimes I've gone as far as calling everyone opposed to equal marriage as bigots but I've met and talked with a fair number of people who certainly aren't homophobic but were opposed to gay marriage. I think they're deeply wrong and their views can be and have been harmful when they've been institutionalised but I'd certainly stop short of calling everyone opposed to gay marriage some kind of vile bigot. Pretty much this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Wee Willie is one of the few SNP supporters on here that would give the Party a bad name. He's anti-English. He doesn't care about issues like poverty and deprivation so long as we're moving towards Independence, at which point he thinks that they'll matter. He will vote for any SNP candidate regardless of that person's view on issues other than Independence. That is frankly slanderous. I could name a handful like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.