mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: Feeble Dragonfly
About
User Name: Feeble Dragonfly
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: Female
Statistics
Joined: Thursday, February 10, 2011
Last Visit: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:21:50 AM
Number of Posts: 136
[0.01% of all post / 0.04 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: racism
Posted: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:21:49 AM
ithink140 asked: "Was this statement racist:In 2012 Det. Chief Inspector Paul Barnard, then head of Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit, told an ITV documentary: “The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals. Very, very tight communities, very tight gangs.”"

In and of itself (assuming the fact to be a correct statistic) no, that is not racist. What would be racist is basing further assumptions upon that fact alone and using it as a justification for pre-judging all Romanian nationals. Racism is defined as "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races". In the statement above this belief was not present. The DCI did not go on to state "therefore, all Romanian nationals are ATM fraudsters".

Using facts such as this to discriminate against anyone who is a Romanian national, or to establish an opininon of those nationals is racism.

Of course ithink may be fully aware of that and merely threw in this question to blur the issues, however I felt it needed answering.

Topic: Gender Politics. Why are women in most societies treated unfairly?? Is there a solution to rectify t
Posted: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05:57 AM
Having seen a number of controversial posts and discussions involving theArse (excuse me for not saying "theParser", but "theArse" has such a nice ring (pun unintended)), and knowing that he contrives all arguments to infuriate others, I wouldn't waste my time stepping into the fray to dispute any of his ideas about women.

However, his ignorance on the UK (because even if Scotland become independent, there will remain more countries than just England), his lack of understanding about what he actually reads (who are these new-arrivals he thinks are promoting extremism? British people are challenging state education policies with religious extremist views. Some of them may have ancestors who were immigrants to the UK from British colonies.) and his wilful refusal to entertain what this thread is actually about, i.e. men's misplaced sense of entitlement and superiority to women, all speak volumes about how much reliability can be placed on the bile he continues to spew.
Topic: take it or leave it
Posted: Friday, June 6, 2014 10:15:11 AM
"I can take it or leave it", as Momsey says, is an indication of a lack of interest/preference one way or another. It means "I don't mind it", "I'm not fussed", "I'm neither here nor there on it", "It's not my favourite, but I wouldn't say no"

It's definitely used frequently in that context in BE, and defined as an idiom in AE (including here on TFD) as well.

See http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/can-take-it-or-leave-it
Topic: Lessee screwed by the lesser.
Posted: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 9:37:07 AM
Paul

I notice that you haven't had any replies to this thread. Might I suggest it is because it is unclear both the situation you are describing and the question you are asking? In BE (I don't know about AmE or other systems), the owner of a property which they put out for rent is known in the law as a Lessor. The person to whom they rent the property is a Lessee. I am confused by the way in which you are using these terms in your post.

In English law on a monthly, rolling contract, there are defined minimum legal notice periods for termination of the lease - a Lessee may not give less than 1 month, and the Lessor not less than two months notice of intention to terminate. If rent falls due from the Lesssee and is not paid to the Lessor, then that would be a reason to terminate the lease, but I understand certain procedural steps must be followed to seek the payment. I am not an expert on this.

I do know, however, that it is never likley to be enforceable to have a lease condition that permits one party to have sexual relations with the other. Unless you meant something else by 'screw'? Whistle
Topic: Is discrimination EVER justified?
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 7:27:49 AM
ithink says: "My point is that now that the case went to law it makes it difficult to reject those gays who do not misbehave, since they will call 'discrimination' out loudly... rather like the race card is sometimes used."

Surely, though, the point here would be rejection of people who are misbehaving - the grounds are misbehaviour, and would be applied to anyone who misbehaved. (I don't want to go into what exactly is meant by 'misbehvour here as I think that could be a whole other can of worms). Therefore it is not unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is the illegal part. I think you'll find that the law, whilst it recognises precedents, is capable of discriminating on the facts of individual cases.
Topic: The role of a "First Lady"
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 7:20:48 AM
James

I feel you misunderstood my purpose. I have no objection to the term 'First Lady' when it is applied to a lady. As you will note, I didn't remove every use of it - when you referred to previous first ladies I left it, because they were all female.

What I was trying to highlight was the implicit suggestion either that all current and future presidents and prime ministers are/will be male, or that we should only define this role when applicable to wives, not husbands.
Topic: The role of a "First Lady"
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:44:15 AM
James,

I fixed your question. Unless of course, you just want to dictate the confines of this role when fulfilled by women?:

"What should be the role of the [SPOUSE/PARTNER] of a president, prime minister, etc.?

Here in the States, some people are upset because Michelle Obama is NOT speaking out on social and political issues.

Personally, I think that it's great that she is restricting her activities to promoting healthier eating habits.

Some of you may know that Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt was very active in social and political matters. She made many enemies.

But most First Ladies have been very demure, modest, and quiet.

That is how I think a First [SPOUSE/PARTNER] should act.

What is YOUR opinion?"
Topic: Is discrimination EVER justified?
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:29:17 AM
Wow, I seem to be harping on this topic today. Sorry guys.

I just flicked over to the BBC News page and spotted that the top headline in the most popular stories bar is: "Tom Daley in relationship with man". Seriously, above all of the tragedy that this weekend held, a news site like this has a gossip headline about an olympian's sexuality at the top of its results list. Why does it matter? Why are we so obsbessed with sex, and why is sexuality front page news? It quite goes to show, against ithink's stance that 'nobody wants to know', just how interested the public really are. And I believe that's a large part of the problem - 'everybody' does want to know. As RuthP says, we should stop wondering what people are doing behind closed doors, and then perhaps people will enjoy what they do behind their own doors more? And care less about others' private lives.

NB: I am assuming here that the article is 'outing' Tom Daley, I haven't read it - perhaps they are just telling us he has a new friend?
Topic: Is discrimination EVER justified?
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:07:01 AM
Also, to stay on-topic - discrimination ("recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.") is wholly justifiable.

Unfair discrimination, on the other hand, well, the clue's in the name ...
Topic: Is discrimination EVER justified?
Posted: Monday, December 2, 2013 6:04:52 AM
I can't really expand on RuthP's excellent response which firmly places this debate where it should be - in the legality of the actions taken. Or illegality, as it (thankfully) turns out.

However, ithink140 asks: "Do heterosexuals loudly proclaim that they are such? Do heterosexuals construct a raft of odd manners and affectations as do some gays?" And I would like to respond.

Heterosexual people have loudly proclaimed and celebrated their sexuality throughout history. Valentine's day, public wedding proposals, elaborate wedding ceremonies, newspaper announcements of engagements, weddings and milestone anniversaries, celebrity wedding photographs sold to magazines, entire advertising industries established either to use sex to sell products or to engineer 'essential' romantic gifts for your heterosexual partner - the Milk Tray man? the old Nescafe advertisements? All of these are examples of how the world revolves around the heterosexual relationship.

And that is to say nothing of the seedier side of all of this - the lads mags and 'top shelf' publications which promote the 'ideal woman' for men, the women's magazines which promote themselves on offering tips to women on how to dress for men, on how to 'catch' men, on how to 'keep men' once they're caught, and finally on how to give men the sex they want and pretend you enjoy it too. Oh, and the Sun page 3? That's heterosexual, amongst many other things.

I have never thought twice about holding hands with my partner in the street, about turning to kiss them when leaving their company, or indeed just when they've done something so irrestible I have to kiss them, or when I've met them from the train. Nor have I had any concerns about dancing with them, saying that I love them out of the blue within the hearing of others, or calling them darling. And nor should I. But what ithink is saying is that the social acceptability of these actions hinges on the genders of those involved. And what I say is it shouldn't matter because we are all people. These are all human actions, in human relationships, expressing natural human emotions.

As for 'odd manners and affectations' - what can be worse than a 'cutesy' couple speaking to each other in baby language. "Aw, how is my lickle-ickle baby-waby smoochkins. Did you miss your darly-warling honeybunch today?" accompanied by loud 'smacking' kisses which are surely for no-ones benefit but the beholder? That's got to make everyone roll their eyes, genders-irrelevant!? ;-)