France wtf!?

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
It's cool. Ya'll caught up on making a title vaguer just because it's in the interest of LGBT & a bunch of other labels when making it vague would also work in favor of people like myself with guardians that aren't actually my father nor mother but relatives instead. Actually, just replace parent with guardian since not all parents are guardians anyways.. Those forms are always referring to guardians more so than anything else.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Of course " coloured is archaic and now replaced with " people/person of colour". But you forget that this conversation started when you pretended that you did not know the term "person of colour" and asked someone "who is colourless then". To which I pointed you to Urban dictionary.
I didn't pretend I didn't know the term, it's a term which isn't used here. Colourless isn't used to refer to those with less pigment in the UK, I already told you that.

Then you took offence that someone defined that, to which I pointed that it was result of the phrase "people of colour".
Of course I took offence because it's not how we define things.

To which you replied it was an American thing To which I pointed to British uses of it. And Britain does use the phrase " people of colour"
It isn't, I partially allowed for the possibility it was used more commonly in the past, post slavery. But, it's not now even if there's an attempt by the PC brigade to make it common.

"It’s an understatement to say that over the past eight years, people of colour in this country have had it rough. We turn on the news to hear the dog-whistle racism of Boris Johnson, with high-ranking Tories long invoking dehumanising imagery of . Austerity is , while policies have been explicitly designed to create a “hostile environment” for migrants and black and minority ethnic (BAME) people living in Britain. "[/QUOTE]

The first papers a PC leftist and trying to introduce terminology which is foreign. They tend to show try and show their moral superiority. The second referred to black people as black not people of colour. "Minority ethnic people" isn't grammatically correct, but even if it was it described them as people based off of ethnicity and not colour.


, The Guardian.
I've already addressed the Guardian and their agenda above.



Your newspapers don't seem to have gotten that memo you are trying to sell me.
The second one says "people of colour" is an American export. It may have been used in her office, but it's not in ours. Nobody would ever say that women of colour here, not even in a hospital(the place where you would expect PC). I can see why she found it uncomfortable, because it is inherently flawed.

Besides articles like this tell that the phrase is in use in UK.
So he quotes a left wing paper and wants to introduce a new term/definition because he feels it's correct. When a term is introduced it requires traction and should itself not come from a flawed principle, his "term" clearly does.

Right now you are just chasing your own tail, you know. & You walked right in to it.

If you had a point back there, you need to use a different approach.
My approach is solid, we identify by ethnicity and colour here. The police, the courts, schools, hospitals etc do it. I do know the PC brigade want to introduce new definitions like they're trying to do in France. That in no way makes the flawed definiton right.

Ps. There's no need to be aggressive, Ira?
 

Just_Red

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
2,561
Kin
1,803💸
Kumi
1,445💴
Trait Points
41⚔️
Awards


Yes France has gone loopy, I think it's time Little Napoleon was sent to the Louvre or face the guillotine.

You're thoughts?
I feel Ike there option is a bit extreme. Like if they are tying to make a gender neutral system, removing the terms mother father should not be the solution. Instead they should just allow the use of Mother and Mother and Father and Father, or in case or people who don't identify, "Parent and Parent" No need to add numbers as if the parents are machines. If they really want to add more gender neutrally they should focus on other matters, instead of trivial things such as what to call a gender neutral parent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: salamander uchiha

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I feel Ike there option is a bit extreme. Like if they are tying to make a gender neutral system, removing the terms mother father should not be the solution. Instead they should just allow the use of Mother and Mother and Father and Father, or in case or people who don't identify, "Parent and Parent" No need to add numbers as if the parents are machines. If they really want to add more gender neutrally they should focus on other matters, instead of trivial things such as what to call a gender neutral parent.
What do you think of mother, father and other?
 

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I feel Ike there option is a bit extreme. Like if they are tying to make a gender neutral system, removing the terms mother father should not be the solution. Instead they should just allow the use of Mother and Mother and Father and Father, or in case or people who don't identify, "Parent and Parent" No need to add numbers as if the parents are machines. If they really want to add more gender neutrally they should focus on other matters, instead of trivial things such as what to call a gender neutral parent.
What you're saying makes sense but it's not actually an option. Odds are the forms aren't asking what your guardians are, they're asking WHO your guardians are by referring to them before they understand what your guardians actually are. Your suggestion would require creating multiple copies of the same papers but with edits for the different groupings, which would then leave a child to pick up the right sheet for his guardians, or a clunky section dedicated to multiple variations of the same question.

Guardian is obviously the best option since it's the most inclusive regardless of genders, species, and actual blood relations thanks to guardian not assuming anything beyond said person being the caretaker. And how can you call it trivial while still maintaining that mother and father is a must? If the standard family absolutely must have specific recognition, why is that not true of the rest? The standard can fall under vague terms such as "parents" just as the others do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Just_Red

Just_Red

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
2,561
Kin
1,803💸
Kumi
1,445💴
Trait Points
41⚔️
Awards
What you're saying makes sense but it's not actually an option. Odds are the forms aren't asking what your guardians are, they're asking WHO your guardians are by referring to them before they understand what your guardians actually are. Your suggestion would require creating multiple copies of the same papers but with edits for the different groupings, which would then leave a child to pick up the right sheet for his guardians, or a clunky section dedicated to multiple variations of the same question.

Guardian is obviously the best option since it's the most inclusive regardless of genders, species, and actual blood relations thanks to guardian not assuming anything beyond said person being the caretaker. And how can you call it trivial while still maintaining that mother and father is a must? If the standard family absolutely must have specific recognition, why is that not true of the rest? The standard can fall under vague terms such as "parents" just as the others do.
Yea Gardian does take the cake in best options. The only problem I see with it are parents seclaring that the term guardian isn't inclusive enough to what they consider they are. Like stating that Gardian doeant mean parent and that it should be changed. Then again there will always be people who opose ideas regardless of how correct they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: salamander uchiha

Michelle

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
12,156
Kin
9,012💸
Kumi
3,787💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
I'll make a bold statement and anyone welcome to prove me wrong.

All the problems we suffer for thousands of years were caused by some fanatic non-religious people.
I think fanatism is toxic no matter religious alignament. Fanatic religious people made people suffer very bad, not just in the last 1000 years.
Who suggested this idea of Parent 1 and Parent 2? What kind of people?
A kind of people with no connection with reality.
 

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I'll make a bold statement and anyone welcome to prove me wrong.

All the problems we suffer for thousands of years were caused by some fanatic non-religious people.
Who is "we?" The majority of people and leaders throughout history have been religious, and religious reasoning has always played a strong role in justifying racism, authoritarianism, and the creation of xenophobic cultures that can't mingle with others.
 

salamander uchiha

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
17,628
Kin
9,043💸
Kumi
6,082💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Who is "we?" The majority of people and leaders throughout history have been religious, and religious reasoning has always played a strong role in justifying racism, authoritarianism, and the creation of xenophobic cultures that can't mingle with others.
That's not entirely true, they've held belief systems based off of ideals. The word religious is a vague term per se. I think Arabian Luffy is referring to the source of ideals being a divine power(legitimate source) vs man(illegitimate source) made ideas. As for cultures they come from customs and norms, some customs have religious aspects to them other customs do not. They become the identity of a people there's nothing Xenophobic about it unless the source of ideals is taken into account. Authoritiarianism can be both good and bad if the source of ideals is taken into account.
 
Last edited:

ArabianLuffy

Active member
Elite
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
5,495
Kin
152💸
Kumi
2,500💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
That really is a bold statement, and a completely false one at that. However, before I start this debate, do you care to elaborate?
I do care. I want to elaborate. I really wanna have a debate on intellectual level, but this thread will end up getting locked and/or deleted for a reason or two:

1. Either two sides get out of their own ways and turn the debate to calling out each other names and such
2. The thread will keep getting longer that it would be hard for anyone to follow the conversation

I've been into debates in this site and all topics got deleted. We just ended up blowing nerves and lost respect for each other, even I blame myself for some of that in past topics.
I think fanatism is toxic no matter religious alignament.
Fanatism is toxic, because one has received the teachings of his religion wrong, and when I say wrong, he wasn't taught well, he wasn't taught the right interpretation of the message, the text(s).
Michelle said:
Fanatic religious people made people suffer very bad, not just in the last 1000 years.
True.
Michelle said:
A kind of people with no connection with reality.
We could describe them all day and night what they are, but for sure they are atheists.
Post automatically merged:

religious reasoning has always played a strong role in justifying racism, authoritarianism, and the creation of xenophobic cultures that can't mingle with others.
Wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michelle

Brandy

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
39
Kin
150💸
Kumi
336💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
We could describe them all day and night what they are, but for sure they are atheists.
Theists believe in one god. Atheists believe in none. If you are, let's say, a fanatic Christian who has misinterpreted the religious texts, you are still a theist, because you believe in a god. That can make you a non-Christian, but never an atheist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michelle
Top