UK Politics - Asset stripping on a national scale

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Hmmm, so he’s not a groomer, he’s just talking like a groomer.

I’m guessing you, like him and most conservatives have a very poor idea on how grooming realistically generally goes down hence the flummoxed response.

It often begins with a trusted authority figure initiating physical contact that makes a child uncomfortable or confused an brushing off the child’s uncomfortably or confusion with something to the tune of  “I am x so this is okay.” 

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah I see what you are doing

Trying treat you and Kraus in the best of faith while expressing my genuine problem with has been said by you.

 

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

It is a problem. Creepy uncle Bob wants a hug/kiss, the kid is reluctant, but gets pressured into doing it anyway. Potentially normalising kids to believe they have to acquiesce when an adult -particularly family/family friends- insist.
 

If the kid doesnt want a kiss/hug then that should be respected.

It’s hit and miss if my four year old wanta a kiss before she goes to sleep, and we respect that. 
You don’t need a wrotten permission slip, simply a “do you want a kiss from x?”

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

do you disagree?

No, I agree he’s a dick, whilst also thinking I can’t disagree with what he has said there ( what he actually said, not the strawman version everyone here  is responding to)

[polishgenius]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If I kissed my daughter goodnight tonight and she said ‘ no daddy you need to ask for consent’ I’d all be straight down the school tomorrow and tell them why they are doing a bad job of teaching kids.

 

Yes, but would you make part of your response that asking for consent is only a thing if it's a stranger? Like there are myriad ways to talk about how to correctly teach kids about the concept, and it's certainly possible to do it ineptly and indeed damagingly, but it should never be countered with 'I'm allowed because I'm family'. 

 

In any case, 'do you want a kiss' is, like Derfel says, a pretty standard and you'd have thought completely uncontroversial way of parenting.

 

 

15 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

i doubt anyone would be getting riled up by this ordinarlly, if Fox wasn't almost certainly the biggest man baby arse goblin i've ever heard of. 

 

I mean, sure, but Fox's entire job is saying the most controversial thing he can think of for clicks, so it isn't any wonder that people are taking it in the most controversial way. And let's be clear here, his statement is part of a conversation about that he doesn't want kids being taught about gender equality, diversity, equity and inclusion. It wasn't an innocent, unrelated anecdote that is being span around, it's part of an argument he's specifically making that schools shouldn't be teaching kids about certain things. And that he's starting a campaign against it. 

 

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yes, but would you make part of your response that asking for consent is only a thing if it's a stranger

What did he actually say?

[Varysblackfyre321]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think there is a massive difference between what you are accusing Fox of saying and the actual context and content of that clip ( ironic given you just claimed to be taken out of context, which you weren’t by the way)

There really isn’t though.

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Fox is not saying that abuse only happens with strangers, or that fathers cannot abuse kids.

Nope he didn’t say that—he recklessly taught  his child consent is a matter for when dealing with strangers.

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

He is simply stating that his own son has been taught some half understood lines about consent at a very young age, and taught very poorly as to what it means.

I’d agree.

Like for example

“Consent is don’t touch a strangers private parts. Don’t invade others space. But I’m your dad.”

”But I’m your uncle”

”But I’m your stepdad”

”But I’m your British prince.” 

Again He like most conservatives is an idiot on the topic of consent and how grooming typically happens.

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I kissed my daughter goodnight tonight and she said ‘ no daddy you need to ask for consent’ I’d all be straight down the school tomorrow and tell them why they are doing a bad job of teaching kids

Genuinely I mean no offense but it looks like you doing what a lot of people(particularly conservatives) do and are taking educational instructions for kids to protect themselves from sex abuse as personal insult on your virtue as a parent.

 

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You not understanding the difference between what Fox is actually saying and your imagined version of what he’s saying just tells me you don’t have children and spend too much time on the internet.

Please Take a breath and  Calm down.

Lets try and keep things civil and in good faith.

Also please don’t ever pretend all parents think x conservative’s statement or talking point is right.

Its really silly,

Edited March 25, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What did he actually say?

'Consent is 'don't a touch a stranger's private parts'. Don't touch, invade someone's space like that, but I'm your father'. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Lets try and keep things civil and in good faith.

 

 

I massively disagree with him on almost everything, and don't always think his arguments are good-faith either, but I've got to say, you often argue with HoI by taking the worst possible conservative position on a given subject and acting as if he holds it whether it bears any resemblance to what he's said or not. So he's probably not gonna take this in good faith. 

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

'Consent is 'don't a touch a stranger's private parts'. Don't touch, invade someone's space like that, but I'm your father'. 

Right, and with this statement do you think he is saying that because he’s a father it’s ok to invade spaces and touch private parts? Or that it doesn’t apply to non strangers??

Edited March 25, 2023 by Heartofice

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

with this statement do you think he is saying that because he’s a father it’s ok to invade spaces and touch private parts? Or that it doesn’t apply to non strangers??

 

I don't have to think anything. That's what that statement means. He didn't intend to say that, but words means things. 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

I don't have to think anything. That's what that statement means. He didn't intend to say that, but words means things. 

Only if you take his statement in the absolutely worst faith way and purposefully disregard the context of what he is saying 

 

You even acknowledge that you understood the context and intent of his statement, yet somehow suggest his words mean something different.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Heartofice

[Varysblackfyre321]

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Right, and with this statement do you think he is saying that because he’s a father it’s ok to invade spaces and touch private parts?

Do you understand how a child may receive what’s been explicitly told to him differently than an adult?

 

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Only if you take his statement in the absolutely worst faith way and purposefully disregard the context of what he is saying 

The context of him talking to his young child whose lesson on consent focused on strangers ended with “but I’m your dad” 
 

He by his words just wanted a kiss on the cheek or hug when giving his lesson. 
The action he wanted to engage in was benign, and his intentions pure.

But a child after taking a “lesson” like his as stated could find themselves not knowing when they’re being touched inappropriately by a trusted authority (I’m your brother, your dad’s friend, a prince of england) they can protest it as wrong.

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

even acknowledge that you understood the context and intent of his statement,

You must understand you are talking to adults instead Fox who was talking to a young child who’d more likely take what he said at face value.

Please. You must realize this.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Raja]

I feel bad for the kids that have fathers like Fox. Thankfully one can outgrow their parents and realize what massive morons they are.

[Spockydog]

****BULLSHIT CLAXON*****

Erm, just gonna chuck this out there. Does anyone actually believe this happened? Methinks Lozza is just doing his usual performative bollocks.

 

[BigFatCoward]

I can't believe that gobshite has generated about 40 posts in 4 hours.  

[Derfel Cadarn]

Worth noting his son is or turns 11 this year according to wiki.

 

[Spockydog]

So apparently all the gullible, Brexit-voting numpties actually chose to be poorer. They were 'given a choice' and they decided that Britain should once again become the sick man of Europe.

These fucking people.

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Spockydog

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Hmmm, so he’s not a groomer, he’s just talking like a groomer. Ok I see. Yeah I see what you are doing. I’ll note that down for later. 

Are you genuinely unable to tell the difference between "You said something groomers say" and "You are a groomer"?

I guess you aren't, because you routinely react to "Person said a racist thing" with "OMG you called Person a racist, why must you blame everything on racism?!?" and either you don't see the difference or you just do it for cheap rhetorical advantage and to muddle discussion.

There is, in fact, a difference between criticizing a person's actions or words, and attacking them as a person. It's a difference that is observed in this forum, where "that was a stupid thing to say" is generally tolerated but "you're stupid" is not.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Are you genuinely unable to tell the difference between "You said something groomers say" and "You are a groomer"?

I guess you aren't, because you routinely react to "Person said a racist thing" with "OMG you called Person a racist, why must you blame everything on racism?!?" and either you don't see the difference or you just do it for cheap rhetorical advantage and to muddle discussion.

There is, in fact, a difference between criticizing a person's actions or words, and attacking them as a person. It's a difference that is observed in this forum, where "that was a stupid thing to say" is generally tolerated but "you're stupid" is not.

Can you think of an occasion where someone has been called out for saying ‘something a racist would say’ without the implicit implication that they are racist? 

[DanteGabriel]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Can you think of an occasion where someone has been called out for saying ‘something a racist would say’ without the implicit implication that they are racist? 

Yeah. Here. I used a racial term in a sarcastic way that other people found disagreeable, and they told me so, and I accepted it and changed my behavior. I didn't try to inflame it into an attack on my character or claim victimhood.

I've also been on the other side. I politely informed a fellow poster on the NFL thread that we had stopped using gendered insults, and everybody went on with their lives.

Just the fact that you're asking, and in that way, tells me you are actively assuming the worst intent of others, which i have called out before, or you are looking for chances to claim persecution.