What's justice?

[RED-DOG]

I personally didn't like the idea of a thread solely designed to persecute a group. ANY group.

Fair enough.

I guess we cant mock losing poker players anymore! 

he said GROUP flushy, not individual, YOU FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISH

lol ok.

So as long as i don't say "oh yeah in the gutshot they are all fish" i am not persecuting anyone?

I am off for a break, a few bad beats and this thread are close to pushing me over the edge!

You know the difference Flushy. Anyone can ridicule a good argument by suggesting that it encompasses nonsensical extremes.

I had a valid point and you conceded it. Have the good grace to leave it at that instead of adding nit-picking proviso's

[Swordpoker]

But that's kinda my point, Red. I think you've gone to a non-sensical extreme. Just because we've slagged a 'group' of people off, doesn't mean that everyone who was ever called a chav should take offence.

[thetank]

Not really for us to decide who should and who shouldn't take offence.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[bolt pp]

But that's kinda my point, Red. I think you've gone to a non-sensical extreme. Just because we've slagged a 'group' of people off, doesn't mean that everyone who was ever called a chav should take offence.

ive never been called a chav, though i took a natural offence to the thread upon reading the first page.

[Swordpoker]

I disagree. If I want to offend someone, they usually know about it. But if I say something in innocence and someone takes offence then I don't think I have done anything wrong.

[RED-DOG]

But that's kinda my point, Red. I think you've gone to a non-sensical extreme. Just because we've slagged a 'group' of people off, doesn't mean that everyone who was ever called a chav should take offence.

People loath and fear the people they perceve as Chavs, sometimes to the extent that they would do them physical harm if they got the chance. Not so losing poker players.

[thetank]

I disagree. If I want to offend someone, they usually know about it. But if I say something in innocence and someone takes offence then I don't think I have done anything wrong.

Yes, but there's maybe still a need to apologise I think.

Like if you accidentally knock some young lady over on a train. She drops all her eggs.
It may have been no fault of yours, but you should probably give her a handy up, an apologetic word, and maybe some advice on scrambling.

[Swordpoker]

I disagree. If I want to offend someone, they usually know about it. But if I say something in innocence and someone takes offence then I don't think I have done anything wrong.

Yes, but there's maybe still a need to apologise I think.

Like if you accidentally knock some young lady over on a train. She drops all her eggs.
It may have been no fault of yours, but you should probably give her a handy up, an apologetic word, and maybe some advice on scrambling.

lol

I would apologise out of politeness. Though, technically, I would be apologising for the miscommunication and not for what I said.

[RED-DOG]

I wiil say though, It's great to see such emotive subjects debated in such a civilised manner.

Only on blonde. Thank you.

[SupaMonkey]

Actually tank, i agree with Swordpoker.

If someone called you a thief and then i started a thread titled 'all thieves are scum', would you be angry with me for starting a thread titled like that or at the person who called you a thief.

[RED-DOG]

Actually tank, i agree with Swordpoker.

If someone called you a thief and then i started a thread titled 'all thieves are scum', would you be angry with me for starting a thread titled like that or at the person who called you a thief.

Only if you suggested what a typical thief would wear, and how he would talk.

[Swordpoker]

Actually tank, i agree with Swordpoker.

If someone called you a thief and then i started a thread titled 'all thieves are scum', would you be angry with me for starting a thread titled like that or at the person who called you a thief.

Only if you suggested what a typical thief would wear, and how he would talk.

Then you would have to consider yourself to be a 'typical' thief AND have made the judgement that the remark was directed at you personally

[Royal Flush]

I had a valid point and you conceded it.

I didn't know i had!

Anyway no more from me! I have to stop posting in these types of threads, lol.

[The Dundonian]

Surely a chav/ned/scally defines himself by his actions, not by his race, creed , colour or financial background. The word we used growing up was a yob, people who made other peoples lives a misery by there actions, petty crime, theft, breaking into cars and houses, noisey rowdy behavior in residential areas, basically people who don't give a monkeys f#ck about anyone else but themselves and there habits.
I strongly agree with the majorities view about persecuting individual groups who are defined by ethniticity or class. This is so wrong as to be repugnant, however when your bad behaviour towards others categorises you into a group outwith the norm of society, then that is no ones fault but your own.

I also grew up in a rough working class housing estate in Dundee and I'm very proud of the fact.

[RED-DOG]

If you put a man in a suit, and a man in tracky bottoms and trainers side by side and asked the general public to say which one was a chav, what do you think the majority would say?