ortopazz:

@prince if u cal us inept 4 keeping in touch wiv our valuez then ask your self watsup, cuz am guesin u dint ask your self whn u allowd an alien culture to brain wash u dry.

It our identity, infact we should be more rigid abou it, becos if russia and china r knwn 4 nt conforming wiv the western poo, then we cud make bold our stance on it.

We are capable of surviving on our own, I think we  need to be disvalued by the west, b4 we Africans esp. WE NiGERIANZ can wake up.

Sagamite:

As I said: don't give them an inch.

I don't know how someone can lose his means of livelihood for saying something as simple as this:

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/footballer-lee-steele-aims-homophobic-tweet-at-gareth-thomas.html

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16511735

And some yeye people would open their mouth and say allowing the filth has no impact on our lives.

Criminalise it!

Well done, Senators!

debosky:

You're exhibiting double standards - what that guy said is no different to what Suarez said that he doesn't talk to negritos. If Suarez was banned for that, this dude deserves the sack.

No one even forced him to sleep beside the gay dude, but he felt a need to ridicule him in public for no reason. If you go out of your way to insult someone with no real justification then you get what you deserve.

However, with Nigerians' rampant casual racism and tribalism, most peeps say worse things everyday so can't comprehend this type of issue.

Sagamite:


No 1, I have said it several times, I don't equate racism to anti-homosexuality. So I don't see the basis of comparison.

No 2, lets say fair enough, the rules in the country is pro-poof. Does he have to lose his job? Did Suarez lose his job? This is proof of the use of severe force to create acceptance of poofs by the Barbarians. The only acceptable thing is to voice your support for poofs, anything against is suppressed brutally.

He obviously ONLY expressed his lack of interest in sex with a poof? What is so wrong with that? He said his arse is locked to such. Is that worthy of losing his means of livelihood?

Sagamite:

Here is another one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093646/Former-Archbishop-Canterbury-senior-clerics-therapist-row-gay-conversion.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Why was she sacked? Why stop her means of livehood? Worse still, the poof was the one that went to her for help.

Secondly, this same British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy that struck her off, thinks it is OK to use therapy for paedophilia but thinks it is a crime to use therapy for poofterism? This are supposedly experts that are behaving like bias cretins.

Can you see their arguments for acceptance of poofs is not based on logic, instead it is based on suppressive force? We are suppose to accept without any questioning. I don't see how you will think therapy can change one unconventional intimate desire but think it is a crime to try it against another.

debosky:

I am not equating them, but they share many common features - the dominant group seeks to denigrate the minority, often purely for self gratification without any provocation. That tweet wasn't necessary in any sense of the word. The ga-y contestant didn't make a pass at him or anything so it is unwarranted.

Are you saying people don't lose their jobs for making racist comments? People can and do lose their jobs. Suarez was engaged in a heated EXCHANGE with an opponent, not simply mouthing off in isolation.

No one is using severe force to do anything. Many people do not support homosexuality but are not attacked for it. This tweeter DELIBERATELY set out to cause offence and that is not acceptable. If you are against it you can express that in non-insulting fashion.

Why express that 'lack of interest' when not approached? Did he express his interest/lack of interest against each person in the celebrity house? Why single out the homosex-ual person for ridicule? Do you express your interest/lack of interest of sex with your co-workers randomly?

I am sure the guy signed up to anti-discriminatory terms and conditions and has violated them. He is a public representative and should conduct himself with decorum.

debosky:

Again she was fired for violating the code of ethics. The issue here is with the code of ethics - if it becomes acceptable to treat people who want to 'change' then there will be no issue. But till the law/ethics are changed, you abide by them - simple. If you know what the ethics require and choose to go against them, then be prepared to face sanction.

If she doesn't like the rules governing the profession, go do something else. I can't wake up one day and decide I want to practice medicine based purely on my views - by registering with a medical registration board, I become bound by their rules and they can strike me off if I violate them.

I don't support entrapment either though, but then again, if as a policeman someone approached you to trap you with a bribe and you accepted, you are still guilty of accepting bribes. If indeed she did violate the code of ethics, then the punishment is warranted.

Whether we like it or not personal beliefs and professional ethics will have boundaries - the key is to separate them and not muddle them up.

Sagamite:

Come on, are you saying "heated exchange" provides more grounds for using racist words?

There is nothing like attack in what he said. What he said was just a plain objection to homosexuality. Nothing of hate.

Look at it in the context: There is a scenario where you will be in a closed facility with a 6ft 3 or so muscly gay man who would not have access to s.ex. He jokes he would not want to be next to such a person, is that enough grounds to take away his means of income from him? If it was a woman that said that about a 6ft 3 muscly heterosexual mine in a confined place, would she be sacked?

If I express lack of interest of s.ex with my 50 something year old, fat female boss, do you think I would be sacked?

Would someone lose their job if they said (without any query) they don't like African food because it just stinks?

What role of ethics says you can use therapy to treat one intimate desire but you cannot use it for others? Is that sane?

What bunch of bias and suppressed quacks made such code of ethics? You don't see anything wrong in that logic?

debosky:

I'm not saying it provides more grounds, but it provides mitigating circumstances - i.e. a rash comment in the heat of the moment. Suarez was rightly punished anyways, according to the rules governing his sport. This is different from making an unprovoked, clearly discriminatory comment for no reason.

debosky:

He ridiculed and singled out the g-ay dude for no reason - if he made similar comments about EVERY contestant (i.e interest or disinterest in sex) then it could be considered non-discriminatory.

Why does he need to express this view on the internet ridiculing the individual? Have you heard female contestants coming out to make similar protestations? It simply was unnecessary - no one had even forced him to share a bed in the first place.

debosky:

Why would you even express this in the first place? Is it normal practice to express lack/interest in sex with people just because you work with them? Is this something you'd go in and tell your boss just randomly?

debosky:

That is a general comment - not liking food is different from ridiculing a specific African because of what he eats. The latter would be discriminatory.

debosky:

I didn't write the ethics rules - if you know the rules then you abide by them. If you don't like them then go do something else. I don't know the details so I can't go questioning them simply because I have different personal preferences.

Sagamite:

Another absolutely ridiculous hypocrisy from one of the so-called "progressive" pro-poof nations that go around lecturing African countries on "being civil" and "leaving people to live their lives".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html

These are the types of cretinous positions that irritate me to the bone. Coming from Judges of a SUPREME COURT!!! A career apex that makes some other people worship them and refer to them like if their words are the words of Gods (trust Sagamite is not one of those, I filter even what God himself tells me).

So polygamy "harms" children and needs to be criminalize (and worth 5 years in jail) but they think homosexuals raising kids does not harm them?

African government officials should start shoving this publicly in their faces anytime they open their stewpid mouths.

Sagamite:

I don't think someone in a heated debate using racist words is in a position of better mitigation than someone making a joke at the expense of another.

There was really no hate in the Oxford player's comments.

No 1, he does not need to make comments about every contestant as he might not be opposed to intimate relations with the others.

No 2, he most likely particularly mentioned the rugby player because of his physique as he was not the only poof in the house.

No 3, do you think if he said he would padlock his d[i]i[/i]ck to prevent the wild older woman (Denise) from sleeping with him, he would face any punishment?

No 4, there is nothing offensive about his comment even if made on the net.

No 5, women say such things all the time. Stalker! Pervert! etc Do you see them punished? Do you think a woman would be sacked if she said EXACTLY the same thing he said about an heterosexual man?

The question is would I be sacked?

Lets say I agree with you. Would someone be sacked for saying an African was eat stinking food?

I think fundamentally, to have a good argument, you have to question the rational of the rule instead of stay clear and say people should follow it. Otherwise it is completely safe to say you agree: If you know Africa/Nigeria's poof laws, then abide by them. If you don't like them then go somewhere else and live. I don't know the details so I can't go questioning them simply because I have different personal preferences.

You can't give such answers because it is convenient when you clearly understand the logic and you know the rational fails logically.

debosky:

There was intent to ridicule and denigrate the ga-y person simply for his intimate orientation. If the Oxford player made a pass at him then his comments could be justified.

So in essence singling out this person is intended at ridicule because of his intimate orientation and that is discriminatory.

Again, no need to publicly ridicule him in this manner.

debosky:

That's a different proposition - he's not denigrating her heterosexuality in that regard - she's not the only heterosexual in the house.

debosky:

It is offensive - he wasn't even approached in the first place and it was clearly intended for ridicule, simply for being g-ay.

debosky:

They don't say those things to ridicule the person's intimate orientation. That's the key here - his aim was to ridicule the intimate orientation of the gay dude.

debosky:

It depends on your organisation and its rules/terms and conditions.

Again, if deemed discriminatory, the company withholds the right to take a decision based on your terms and conditions.

debosky:

I agree fundamentally - but this law (the Nigerian law) hasn't even been approved yet, so it is technically not yet a 'law' - it is a proposal and hence can be challenged, especially when it is in clear disagreement with the constitution.

This is different from someone signing up to an established code of ethics and then going ahead to violate it.

If I disagree with the logic of something, then you challenge it through the right channels in the courts.

Sagamite:

We frequently and consistently express our lack of interest with other people without them making a pass at us. It is a normal societal norm. Is that grounds to lose our jobs?

He was not the only poof in the house too.

For him to pick ONLY the poof that was bigger than him and use the word padlock (suggesting defencelessness), it can be said he targeted more because of the size. Is that grounds to lose your job?

If he said that about a female 6ft 2 bodybuilder, he would not lose his means of income even if he was not approached. Worse still, even if he was ridiculing.

But they say it to ridicule the person's se[i]x[/i]. Is that grounds of sacking them from their job?

There will be no organisation that can or will sack you for that. It will be seen as outrageous. You have to admit that. The worst you will get is a warning IF ANY ACTION, not even a demotion.

Did Cameron get any punishment for saying the Shadow Chancellor was like a Torrents victim? People make jokes about others all the time and they don't lose their jobs.

What kind of code of ethics says. . . . .

But you should not try and use psychotherapy to "treat" someone for poofterism. Don't touch it, just say it is OK.

Where is the logic?

That is pure evidence of what I have been saying for years: There is NO WILL to find out about homosexuality or question it. They just want to go around forcing and dragooning people to accept it with weak logic.

What part of the constitution does the proposed law disagree with?

debosky:

Do you single out those with a different orientation to make fun of, and broadcast it on the internet? If it was a ‘societal norm’ as you claim then there wouldn’t have been a fuss about it. As a public figure you are held to a higher standard of judgement .

debosky:

Good - so he is ridiculing someone for being a muscular ga-y man. Even more discriminatory.

debosky:

It implies he feels he will be attacked for no reason - tantamount to calling the big dude a despoiler without any evidence. Such baseless, unprovoked slandering is unacceptable. If his employers deemed it worthy of the sack, then that’s their call.

debosky:

I don’t know that - let him post that on twitter in his next job and find out.

debosky:

You don’t call someone a pervert unless you see them doing something perverted - same for stalker. This guy is calling someone a despoiler without cause.

debosky:

If no organisation will sack you for that then he should be able to claim compensation for unfair dismissal.

debosky:

Suarez too could’ve been said to be making a ‘joke’ but got punished. When your goose is cooked, it is cooked.

debosky:

The logic may come from knowledge that majority of such attempts to ‘treat’ poofterism don’t work, and many end up making the patients depressed and suicidal.

Furthermore, it is widely accepted in the field that homosexuality is not a disorder but a natural orientation, so there's nothing to 'treat' in the first place.

debosky:

There are many studies out there doing research into homosexuality. That you don’t know about them doesn’t change the fact of their existence.

debosky:

Freedom of association for one.