i dont regard jjn ON THIS THREAD as a 'wayward poster'. others have responded to him in a very aggressive, ott way... it is no victory but as long as 'old topics' are being brought into the equasion its turning into a witch hunt. jjn has a reputation (probably because he isnt british or american) for posting opinions as he sees them.. using language that in his country is 'normal', so i do believe that some of his intentions get muddled in translation.

 

That's just bullsh!t.... And is, in its own way, a bit indirectly patronising... Saying that we have to make allowances for JJN because he's from some implied "backward culture" or summat... Nonsense... JJN knows EXACTLY what he is saying, he's intelligent, far moreso than MANY of UK and US posters from examples I've witnessed generally on this site.... I know Brazilian people who would never utter the sort of cr@p he comes away with.... The fact that he IS intelligent and KNOWS how to work his way around language makes the sort of stuff he's coming away with worse in many ways than some "thick" person saying "I hate gays, they're all poofs".... At least there aint no ambiguity in that, JJN uses ambiguity and arguments such as the one you put across to get away with things that we would NEVER let, say, Craig, get away with....

 

That's just bullsh!t.... And is, in its own way, a bit indirectly patronising... Saying that we have to make allowances for JJN because he's from some implied "backward culture" or summat... Nonsense... JJN knows EXACTLY what he is saying, he's intelligent, far moreso than MANY of UK and US posters from examples I've witnessed generally on this site.... I know Brazilian people who would never utter the sort of cr@p he comes away with.... The fact that he IS intelligent and KNOWS how to work his way around language makes the sort of stuff he's coming away with worse in many ways than some "thick" person saying "I hate gays, they're all poofs".... At least there aint no ambiguity in that, JJN uses ambiguity and arguments such as the one you put across to get away with things that we would NEVER let, say, Craig, get away with....

 

oh come on!... you of all people should know that different cultures have differing ways of looking at things!

That's just bullsh!t.... And is, in its own way, a bit indirectly patronising... Saying that we have to make allowances for JJN because he's from some implied "backward culture" or summat... Nonsense... JJN knows EXACTLY what he is saying, he's intelligent, far moreso than MANY of UK and US posters from examples I've witnessed generally on this site.... I know Brazilian people who would never utter the sort of cr@p he comes away with.... The fact that he IS intelligent and KNOWS how to work his way around language makes the sort of stuff he's coming away with worse in many ways than some "thick" person saying "I hate gays, they're all poofs".... At least there aint no ambiguity in that, JJN uses ambiguity and arguments such as the one you put across to get away with things that we would NEVER let, say, Craig, get away with....

 

I agree with this 100% (well, almost, I don't think you need to be very intelligent to use the language what he uses), it is ridiculous to use some cultural/language excuse to let someone use the language he is using. If he really has (I cannot remember whether he has or hasn't) said that homosexuals are worse than paedophiles thing stated here, how on earth he got away with that?

 

I do enjoy reading (and sometimes participating) in these debates on news forum here but in all honesty JJN is pretty much ruining the debates (on gays and religion) because he doesn't come here to debate but to state his homophobic opinion (and it really is just one opinion in diffrent forms) and backing it up with statements such as all gays, majority of gays etc with no data backing him up and then when people voice opposition he calls then idiots, morons etc. After this name-calling it pretty much is the end of the original topic and the debate really is ruined.

oh come on!... you of all people should know that different cultures have differing ways of looking at things!

 

 

Yes they have but it doesn't mean that we have to accept that. Where should we draw the line? How about some Iranian coming here saying all gays should be stoned to death, we should accept that also? I mean Iranians do have a way different way of looking at the issue of gays and if we accept homophobic Brazilian opinions why shouldn't we then accept some culturally accepted "death to gays" ranting from Iran.

Yes they have but it doesn't mean that we have to accept that. Where should we draw the line? How about some Iranian coming here saying all gays should be stoned to death, we should accept that also? I mean Iranians do have a way different way of looking at the issue of gays and if we accept homophobic Brazilian opinions why shouldn't we then accept some culturally accepted "death to gays" ranting from Iran.

 

no comparison.... 'death to gays' is clearly a hate thing whereas someone brought up in a religious country where homosexuality is frowned on probably doesnt see there views as offensive.

I agree with this 100% (well, almost, I don't think you need to be very intelligent to use the language what he uses), it is ridiculous to use some cultural/language excuse to let someone use the language he is using. If he really has (I cannot remember whether he has or hasn't) said that homosexuals are worse than paedophiles thing stated here, how on earth he got away with that?

 

I do enjoy reading (and sometimes participating) in these debates on news forum here but in all honesty JJN is pretty much ruining the debates (on gays and religion) because he doesn't come here to debate but to state his homophobic opinion (and it really is just one opinion in diffrent forms) and backing it up with statements such as all gays, majority of gays etc with no data backing him up and then when people voice opposition he calls then idiots, morons etc. After this name-calling it pretty much is the end of the original topic and the debate really is ruined.

 

this is EXACTLY what i mean about mis reprisenting what jjn ACTUALLY said.

 

he said that straight sex with a 13-14 year old is more normal (less of an illness to be exact) because it leads to childbirth... then went on to correctly point out that historically and in many other cultures where life expectancy wasnt long, people married/had kids at an earlier age. the only thing wrong was the lazy use of the word 'illness', which is inaccurate.

 

 

now that IS NOT saying gays are worse then paedophiles... the trouble is here the term 'paedophile' is WRONGLY used to call an adult having sex with an underage person... we have had this argument before, many times, that means that an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is a paedophile!!! WRONG!. there should be another term for post pubescent kids under 16.

 

as for the name calling... HE was the butt of name calling first! oh but that is overlooked in the name of righteousness!!! ffs...

 

to all you gay people..... you are a human being, not a sexuality...i couldnt give a flying fuk what sexuality ANY of you are, thats your private affair, im interested in (for eg) russt the man, not russt the gay man... sexuality is irrelevant.

no comparison.... 'death to gays' is clearly a hate thing whereas someone brought up in a religious country where homosexuality is frowned on probably doesnt see there views as offensive.

 

I disagree, both are hate things.

Edited October 24, 200816 yr by JackJones

I disagree, both are hate things.

 

but one is deliberate, the other inherant...inherant can be changed.... i was!

Yes they have but it doesn't mean that we have to accept that. Where should we draw the line? How about some Iranian coming here saying all gays should be stoned to death, we should accept that also? I mean Iranians do have a way different way of looking at the issue of gays and if we accept homophobic Brazilian opinions why shouldn't we then accept some culturally accepted "death to gays" ranting from Iran.

 

exactly.

 

And Rob.... if someone over 16 has sex with a girl of 13...yes, that does indeedd make him a paedophile, whether that's palatable to you or not...and JJN stated, quite clearly I may add, that this was more "normal" than gay sex. You defending him? I'm appalled.

to all you gay people..... you are a human being, not a sexuality...i couldnt give a flying fuk what sexuality ANY of you are, thats your private affair, im interested in (for eg) russt the man, not russt the gay man... sexuality is irrelevant.

 

I guess this brings us back to the original topic, then. Obviously any coach should only be concerned with his/her players' skills and assets to the team. Sexuality should be irrelevant... I think we can all agree on that. :)

exactly.

 

And Rob.... if someone over 16 has sex with a girl of 13...yes, that does indeedd make him a paedophile, whether that's palatable to you or not...and JJN stated, quite clearly I may add, that this was more "normal" than gay sex. You defending him? I'm appalled.

 

nope, i clearly said 14, 13 would be statutory rape.

 

im defending free speech... to many straight sex IS more normal then gay sex... whether thats palatable to you or not! :)

 

anyway im closing this as its gone way ott.... if scott feels the need to re-open it then fair enough.