If he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim.

Now you can't use that argument that was in your head. We will miss out on your faux-indignation at being labelled as gay hating when you don't hate gays do you. You just think that we shod be open to the possibility the ones we don't like might have only achieved what they and because of their sexuality and you'll certainly be there to defend someone if they were to for instance use a homophobic slur in a workplace and criticise all these SJW's making a big deal about it.

I knew we'd get there eventually. Seems like you can now add me to Smokey's list of homophobic posters on RLFans.

What was it that gave me away as a "[igay hater[/i", Smokey?

Was it me saying I don't think we're seeing positive discrimination when it comes to James Child?
Or was it me calling you an SJW and calling you out for insulting anyone who has a different opinion to you?

are you saying you wouldnt expect the RFL to investigate? Or that Child should be 'knocked'? Or should be told he can't make that claim?

The previous poster who came up with the scenario said it would be ridiculous for Child to do it, not me.

This isn't the first time this allegation has been made by superted, it's not the first time you and the printer vociferously defended it. I also remember your reaction when Hardaker directed a homophobic slur at Child.

Odd isn't it how the not at all homophobic three think it more than fair to lob allegations of positive discrimination without any evidence but will diminish, obfuscate and defend actual discrimination which was proven and caught on camera.

I haven't called you homophobic, you are free to tell on yourself.

I also didn't call you a gay-hater I said that would be a label you would hide behind. Something you immediately proceeded to do. That's also why you wanted me to call you a homophobe and why you got so weirdly upset that I havent.

It would be ridiculous. It was a ridiculous scenario deliberately made ridiculous to show how ridiculous your scenario is.

I'm asking those questions on the basis of your response to that ridiculous scenario

I haven't vociferously defended anything, on this thread or any other similar threads so please stop lying. I even said I don't think we're seeing positive discrimination in this one. All i've really done is called you out for once again resorting to insults and calling people homophobic.

Your response to that is to call me a "gay hater". Nice.

What was my reaction over Hardaker? I doubt it was positive but it won't have been to call for him to be kicked out of the game and stoned to death either.



You're a very sad individual Smokey and I hope the mods of this board will finally take action as I really don't appreciate being labelled a gay hater or homophobic.

Mods, i'll report his earlier post then leave it in your hands.



.

So if Child claimed he was negatively discriminated on you'd think he was being ridiculous?

You were absolutely desperate to be called homophobic just so we could see this faux-indignation. Pathetic cry-bully tactics.



It's also hilarious to see your hypocrisy in trying to stand as a bulwark against insulting people who disagree with you.

I think we should all just agree what a great and upstanding citizen Smokey is, accept that anyone who dares to have a conversation about something he doesn't agree with is a discriminatory Luddite and lock the thread - there's no point continuing the discussion.

No I would expect the RFL to investigate. I wouldn't expect Child to be 'knocked' for making the allegation and I think he is allowed to make the allegation. These are the things you seemed to infer you wouldn t want. I'm asking you if the things you said the people attacking you would want

I[if he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim[/i

Are different from what you would want?


I think the specific instance in that example was a deliberately ridiculous scenario.

It's not just me who doesn't agree with you. Just like it wasn't just me the first time you made this allegation. Just like it wasn't me the 2nd time you made this allegation. Just like it wasn't just me when in response to Hardaker being charged with actual homophobic abuse you called everyone fags and told them to go watch the antiques roadshow.

Not at all. What I wanted was for you to stop beating around the bush with phrases like "tell on yourself" so that you'd show your true colours.

Which you well and truly did when you called me a gay hater.

You're a pathetic human being.

Someone tried to link a person's sexuality to something that has nothing to do with sexuality. That is homophobic. Homophobia doesn't mean you 'hate' gay people, it means you view them differently. Same with any other type of phobia or prejudice. If you see a black guy walking down the street and grab your wallet that's racism, you don't have to 'hate' the guy or want bad things to happen to him for it to be racist.

No I didn't say or infer I wouldn't want them, I just pointed out how I expect the poster who asked the question would react when he tried to say it'd be ridicilous, which suggests he'd dismiss Child's claim as similarly he's dismissed the positive discrimination idea.

Try taking 2 minutes to read people's posts properly instead of jumping in head first in urgent desperation to criticise them.

Thanks for the info.

Not sure what it's got to do with Smokey calling me homophobic and a gay hater, though.

I'm not too interested in your argument with Smokey, it has to do with the fact that you seem to have taken objection to a homophobic person being rightly called homophobic.

No what you said was
If he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim

Now I get that this is how you think others would react to that situatuon. I even agreed I would want an investigation I wouldn t knock him or say he couldn't make that claim. My question remains what would your reaction be to that situation the same as mine and you expect others, or different?

Well if you're not interested in someone's argument then don't go posting patronising comments on it.

Cheers.

the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Yeah, unfortunately this is a public forum and people are free to comment in any thread they wish.

Not sure why you think it was patronising BTW, if you already know and understand the things I said then why are you maintaining the same viewpoint and continuing to attack someone for correctly pointing out homophobia?

Still trying that hoping it will get some traction aren't you.

cry-bully and not even a very good one.

I'd be asking the similar questions as I'm asking now when I think positive discrimination could be possible. Is this a possibility? and yes it should be looked into further.

So you think all gay people, and all other minorities, should be constantly subject to job evaluations to see if they are being promoted beyond their capabilities based on positive discrimination?