English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Specifically in the UK, we have white liberals campaining for gay adoption, and at the same time campaining and supporting muslims rights for separate schooling and allowed to carry on there third world arranged marriages and denying womans rights. The best or worst example of this is Ken Livingstone depending on which way you look at it, as London mayor he likes to champion minority rights, now surely if paedophiles were a legitamised minority and he though their were votes in it Red Ken would be advocating them special priviliges. Anyway would any liberal try and justify why minority intrests should be advocated over the majority of the population, because i have yet to here a coherent argument in support of this.

2006-10-24 08:09:04 · 18 answers · asked by asdfaf d 1 in News & Events Current Events

18 answers

No, I don't think they are. I think the dimmest people are the ones who believe everybody in one group thinks the same way. You know, the ones who make ridiculous generalizations.

2006-10-24 08:10:54 · answer #1 · answered by toff 6 · 0 1

What is the alternative? curtailing people's civil liberties? You will find that it is a lot more difficult to revoke a right upon members of your society than it is to grant them. Once a political movement which espouses a libertarian air is prevailant in any country, then you will find it very difficult to reverse this effect. We do not have a perfect record of social justice in this country, but it is certainly better than many other nations. People may still be marginalised, and there is progress to be made. However any political element serious on attainment power in this nation understands that libertarian politics is what the people want, and removing people's rights is politically quite dangerous unless it is the wish of the majority of Britains.

Look at how much opposition the hunting ban caused. I'm not arguing that this ban was bad desicion, but the important point is -it was what the public wanted-. This can also be applied to the public smoking ban, this also can only be a good thing but again it has majority support of the public. If the ideas you suggested were what this nation overwhelmingly wanted, then you would have no cause to complain because you would have your wish.

Provided that people do not break the laws of this land or harm others, why should they not be free to dress, worship, marry, educate or adopt as they please? Why should there be inequality based on race, gender, religion or sexuality? This makes no sense in law, because the law does not discriminate this is what justice is defined as.

I would ask you what this "majority" you speak of is composed of because as far as I can see, the UK is as diverse a place as they come. Social justice depends on giving every person the same opportunity and right. You make sweeping generalisations and offensive statements and give no reason for why you are a great authority on the customs and cultures of others. I find this an alarmingly shaky supposition to base an entire argument upon.

Let the measure of a society be concluded on how it treats it's most vunerable, rather than how it treats it's most privilaged.

2006-10-24 08:33:53 · answer #2 · answered by lady_sephie 5 · 1 1

"White liberals" are generally against faith schools. They just think that if Christians get them, Muslims should too. Fair's fair.

No one is campaigning for gay adoption - gay couples can already adopt. We need them - there may be a waiting list for healthy babies for adoption, but for older children, "troubled" children and the mentally or physically disabled a lonely life in care would often be the alternative to loving same sex parents.

Your prejudice against ethnic minorities disgusts me. An arranged marriage is not the same as a forced marriage, and they are certainly not exclusive to the third world.

Your ignorance is all over this question. Buy a newspaper (NOT the Daily Mail) and think a little more carefully about what your problem is. Gay people aren't trying to turn you gay, Muslims aren't trying to make this an Islamic state - none of these minorities want to change the way you live. Their "minority interests" are not being "advocated" over yours, they are simply being advocated. Big difference.

2006-10-27 06:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

NO!
Just because Red Ken may be morally lacking, it doesn't mean we all are. Does being white and believing the world can be a better place make me dim? I can understand calling me an optimist or niave but dim? I have 11 GCSEs and 5 A-levels and am studying law at uni. Not dim.

2006-10-25 06:53:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Liberals of all colors want to legitimize everything so their personal quirks or desires cannot be challenged as weird/ immoral/ sick/ strange/harm full to others etc...
The cover is to simply champion individual rights to decide what they want to do Since no one "really" likes restrictions...its a perfect play.
...What dupes forget is that chaos results when MY right to hate to stand in line or Not prey on children the elderly is challenged by another with the RIGHT to demand that children be protected from abuse or that crowds of demanding customers cannot receive service as the crowd outnumbers the service agents...DUH

2006-10-24 09:13:06 · answer #5 · answered by ymicgee 3 · 0 0

White liberals generally subscribe to a barrel of contradictions. They are pro gay rights, but support the right of Muslims to hate gays, they are pro womens rights, yet they support the right of a man to keep his wife in the veil and at home, they feel guilty for Africa, while not giving a toss for poor whites. They are very confused people.

2006-10-24 08:21:44 · answer #6 · answered by Bob M 1 · 1 0

If paedophiles were a legitimised minority?
I thought they were, after all don't they get all the special privilege's, both in and out of prison,
Whilst the poor kids get counselling if they are lucky

2006-10-24 09:31:27 · answer #7 · answered by ste53 3 · 0 0

You may have a point about the "liberals" but your inclusion of colour smacks of racism. The statement about "white" liberals is up there with saying that all black men are drug dealers/pimps; all black women are ho's; Jews/Arabs will rob you blind...AND NONE OF IT IS ACCEPTABLE!!

2006-10-24 10:29:03 · answer #8 · answered by Ms Fabulosity 3 · 1 0

I think Black Fascists beat White Liberals. Islamic Terrorists are probably the most stupid.

2006-10-24 08:18:01 · answer #9 · answered by knighttemplar1119 2 · 0 1

white leftists want to make the non white races conform to white, middle-class ideals. White Leftists are the worst type of racist imaginable.

2006-10-24 10:00:10 · answer #10 · answered by andylefty 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers