"Pubs for all you racists"

[Halibut]

Smithy is allowed an opinion. We have discussed your bigotry before and I really thought you were going to be making an effort to accept that other people are allowed to form their own opinions.

 

You shouldn't just agree with the judge because they are a judge.

 

I think you should stop picking on Smithy just because he has a different opinion to you. Can't you just grow up and accept that he thinks differently?

 

No - one's ever said he's not allowed an opinion though have they?

 

Just that it's wrong. Which it is.

[charmer]

No - one's ever said he's not allowed an opinion though have they?

 

Just that it's wrong. Which it is.

 

I didn't say that anyone said he can't have an opinion. Just that people shouldn't be intolerant of Smithy's opinions. If you are, it makes you a bigot and unfortunately you are another one that has been behaving in a bigoted manner.

[Halibut]

I didn't say that anyone said he can't have an opinion. Just that people shouldn't be intolerant of Smithy's opinions. If you are, it makes you a bigot and unfortunately you are another one that has been behaving in a bigoted manner.

 

Rubbish. His opinion is wrong and I and others have every right to robustly challenge it - there's nothing bigoted about it.

 

Bigots are people who tar all travellers with the same brush - and there are plenty of those on this thread.

[charmer]

Rubbish. His opinion is wrong and I and others have every right to robustly challenge it - there's nothing bigoted about it.

 

Bigots are people who tar all travellers with the same brush - and there are plenty of those on this thread.

 

No, bigots are not people who tar travellers with the same brush, that would be a racist, or a prejudiced person.

 

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of other peoples views and opinions. A fine example of this would be the first few words of your post.

 

Some suggestions for you;

1) Learn the definition of the word bigot.

2) Stop being one.

[mjw47]

I didn't say that anyone said he can't have an opinion. Just that people shouldn't be intolerant of Smithy's opinions. If you are, it makes you a bigot and unfortunately you are another one that has been behaving in a bigoted manner.

 

You appear to be incapable of understanding the difference between disagreeing with someones views because the facts clearly show them to be wrong, and being intolerant of a view when it is only a matter of opinion.

 

As the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan explained " Everyone is is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own fact ".

 

loraward is arguing that disparate groups such as football supporters and 20 year old drivers are the same as racial and ethnic groups, that is quite obviously completely wrong.

 

The law of the land differentiates quite specifically that they are different in the laws viewpoint.

 

This fact has been pointed out to loraward on numerous occasions but loraward refuses to accept something which is an established provable fact.

 

You on the other hand quite clearly have no concept whatsoever of what constitutes bigoted behavior.

 

Pointing out to someone that they are incorrect in the views which they hold isn't bigotry it is debate, discussion and or argument.

 

Bigotry is being intolerant of views or beliefs which cannot really be proved or disproved and therefore are merely an opinion.

 

For example, someone believes in God, another person does not, disparaging either point of view and refusing to accept that - as neither point of view is provable - both parties are entitled to their - unprovable - opinion would be bigotry.

 

Someone claiming that barring football fans is exactly the same as barring racial and/or ethnic groups when it is provable that that is a totally incorrect view is not bigotry, it is pointing out the fact that they are wrong in the eyes of the law.

 

Do you understand that?

 

And once again, who is smithy?

[Penistone999]

Rubbish. His opinion is wrong and I and others have every right to robustly challenge it - there's nothing bigoted about it.

 

Bigots are people who tar all travellers with the same brush - and there are plenty of those on this thread.

 

In your opinion , Yes , but the poster has a different opinion to you , and in their view they are NOT wrong.

 

Some people would say your opinion is wrong on this issue.

 

This is all about opinions .

[charmer]

You appear to be incapable of understanding the difference between disagreeing with someones views because the facts clearly show them to be wrong, and being intolerant of a view when it is only a matter of opinion.

 

As the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan explained " Everyone is is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own fact ".

 

loraward is arguing that disparate groups such as football supporters and 20 year old drivers are the same as racial and ethnic groups, that is quite obviously completely wrong.

 

The law of the land differentiates quite specifically that they are different in the laws viewpoint.

 

This fact has been pointed out to loraward on numerous occasions but loraward refuses to accept something which is an established provable fact.

 

You on the other hand quite clearly have no concept whatsoever of what constitutes bigoted behavior.

 

Pointing out to someone that they are incorrect in the views which they hold isn't bigotry it is debate, discussion and or argument.

 

Bigotry is being intolerant of views or beliefs which cannot really be proved or disproved and therefore are merely an opinion.

 

For example, someone believes in God, another person does not, disparaging either point of view and refusing to accept that - as neither point of view is provable - both parties are entitled to their - unprovable - opinion would be bigotry.

 

Someone claiming that barring football fans is exactly the same as barring racial and/or ethnic groups when it is provable that that is a totally incorrect view is not bigotry, it is pointing out the fact that they are wrong in the eyes of the law.

 

Do you understand that?

 

And once again, who is smithy?

 

I do understand, but you misunderstand me. You are not a bigot because you disagree with Smithy, but the way you are doing it is bigoted.

 

From what I have read, Smithy's main argument is that the people were banned from entering the pub as they had just been to a travellers event. Smith says that patrons of the same event last year caused trouble in the pub. So this year all patrons of the event (regardless of ethnicity) were banned from drinking at the pub.

 

Bigotry isn't curtailed to just subjective opinions (of which the vast majority of legal cases are), it is an intolerance of anyone's beliefs.

 

I have met people like you before, you are a bully. I actually side more with you on this debate than Smithy, but your nasty hen pecking of the poor person is beyond the pale.

 

Also, the word bigot was introduced, incorrectly, by yourself. You seem to have some idea of what the word means (although not quite there yet) and evidently yesterday you had no idea of what the word meant (you used it synonymously with racist/prejudiced), so I am glad you have educated yourself to a degree.

[Tommo68]

There's me thinking all people in pubs are supposedly only served at the discretion of the landlord.

 

Traveller's are not a race.

 

How long can travellers stay in one place before they cease to be travellers?

These ones stayed around long enough to sue somebody.

 

I think its a fair assumption by many people that if anyone can find a way to get a few quid out of someone else whilst doing as little as possible travellers will find a way.

 

That the courts decided in their favour comes as no surprise to me I have for a long time been unable to find fault with the opinion expressed by Dicken's Mr Bumble.

.

[mjw47]

I do understand, but you misunderstand me. You are not a bigot because you disagree with Smithy, but the way you are doing it is bigoted.

 

From what I have read, Smithy's main argument is that the people were banned from entering the pub as they had just been to a travellers event. Smith says that patrons of the same event last year caused trouble in the pub. So this year all patrons of the event (regardless of ethnicity) were banned from drinking at the pub.

 

Bigotry isn't curtailed to just subjective opinions (of which the vast majority of legal cases are), it is an intolerance of anyone's beliefs.

 

I have met people like you before, you are a bully. I actually side more with you on this debate than Smithy, but your nasty hen pecking of the poor person is beyond the pale.

 

Also, the word bigot was introduced, incorrectly, by yourself. You seem to have some idea of what the word means (although not quite there yet) and evidently yesterday you had no idea of what the word meant (you used it synonymously with racist/prejudiced), so I am glad you have educated yourself to a degree.

 

The' way that I am doing it' is that I am becoming more and more irritated with someone who appears incapable of understanding basic facts.

 

You may have decided that that amounts to bigotry, I can assure you that it does not, it amounts to annoyance at someones inability to understand a very basic fact.

 

When they have had that fact pointed out to them on several occasions and yet still come back repeating the same nonsense then I feel a certain amount of annoyance is justified.

 

The word bigot was introduced by me to describe people who prejudge someone because of an accident of birth, and think that it is perfectly acceptable to treat that person differently because of it.

 

That is a perfectly correct use of the word, unlike your definition which simply amounts to someone disagreeing with another posters point of view and providing evidence as to why that point of view is incorrect.

 

As to educating myself coming from someone such as you who doesn't appear to have any grasp of the meaning of words that's quite comical.

 

Now, answer the question that you keep avoiding, why do you keep referring to the poster that you are so protective of by a name which differs from the one they are using?

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 16:20 ----------

 

There's me thinking all people in pubs are supposedly only served at the discretion of the landlord.

 

Traveller's are not a race.

 

.

.

 

This link, fifth paragraph down, will bring you up to date as to the current state of affairs regarding the landlords powers.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Flicensinglaws.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F04%2Fthe-21st-century-right-of-refusal%2F&ei=to9gVYf3MKX17AaNmIAw&usg=AFQjCNFbVaqYd966pvRQZt8YCT9h7z-sZQ&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU

 

This link shows that your assertion regarding race may not necessarily be so.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Fhealth%2Fdna-study-travellers-a-distinct-ethnicity-156324.html&ei=iJpbVffLM8Wa7gaQhYLICw&usg=AFQjCNFmg8dXodD-LxrmENl-oc7jhBTRtg&bvm=bv.93756505,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Incidentally whilst race and ethnicity are quite often the same thing that is not always the case.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.diffen.com%2Fdifference%2FEthnicity_vs_Race&ei=-ephVbzcIcTm7gaulIHwBw&usg=AFQjCNGnImd1dOZrawbqw-ZlUaF2wEZCdA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

I know, what happened to the good old days when you could treat minorities like crap and nowt was said?

[charmer]

The' way that I am doing it' is that I am becoming more and more irritated with someone who appears incapable of understanding basic facts.

 

You may have decided that that amounts to bigotry, I can assure you that it does not, it amounts to annoyance at someones inability to understand a very basic fact.

 

When they have had that fact pointed out to them on several occasions and yet still come back repeating the same nonsense then I feel a certain amount of annoyance is justified.

 

The word bigot was introduced by me to describe people who prejudge someone because of an accident of birth, and think that it is perfectly acceptable to treat that person differently because of it.

 

That is a perfectly correct use of the word, unlike your definition which simply amounts to someone disagreeing with another posters point of view and providing evidence as to why that point of view is incorrect.

 

As to educating myself coming from someone such as you who doesn't appear to have any grasp of the meaning of words that's quite comical.

 

Now, answer the question that you keep avoiding, why do you keep referring to the poster that you are so protective of by a name which differs from the one they are using?

 

 

This is comedy gold, are you always this generous to the people you are talking to? We should chat more often

 

I feel I have to draw your attention to the emboldened parts of your post. You think the word bigot means to judge someone based on an accident of birth? Then you go on to say you wont take education from me because I don't have any grasp of the meaning of words HA HA HA HA HA

 

From the Oxford English Dictionary

 

Bigot

 

A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions:

don’t let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city

he was a fanatical bigot

 

It has nothing to do with judging someone on an accident of birth. You are brilliant mr no grasp of meanings of words. A word you could have used is racist or prejudiced.

 

"My definition" is the one the dictionary uses, for future reference my advice to you is to adopt the same stance. When you make up your own definitions it makes you look silly.

 

There is no ultimate right and wrong in most cases, especially in subjective things like this. It is Smithy's opinion, as I patiently explained to you before, that these people were not refused entry based on their race, but based on their attendance at a convention in the local area. It was the judge's, and is your opinion, that the pub discriminated on the basis of race.

 

The legal system is on your side, but you seem incapable of understanding that people can look at the same evidence as you, but come to different conclusions. Do you come from a very domineering family?

 

The world is a wonderful place, full of different opinions and views. I ask that when you encounter people that hold different views from you, that you conduct yourself with more dacorum than you have done over this topic. Acting like a bigot and getting angry when "people wont just get it" makes you look bad.

 

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are "incapable of understanding basic facts", that is a contemptuous attitude to adopt.

 

I haven't deliberately avoided the question, just got caught up in fighting bigotry. I call the poster Smithy because they had an old username called, well Smithy. You probably already knew this though, you are hardly new to the forum.