sammym:
Freight Dog:
newmercman:
They’re trying to make zebra crossings in rainbow colours in parts of Canada to support the LGBTQ community and apparently mankind, female, woman and women are now considered to be sexist terms.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
It’s a load of ■■■■■■■■. Why not just get on and do what you want in private. There’s no friggin pavements painted to celebrate heterosexuality. Being a bloke I don’t get a monk on when the ladies toilets is called “the ladies” and has a picture of a figure wearing a dress.
If You want to call yourself “non gender” , a giraffe, whatever. That’s their thing. But I won’t be forced to ditch scientific facts and use non ■■■ terms to shut up people’s whims. Anymore than I’d tolerate being forced to acknowledge someone is a unicorn.
Anyway. I’m pulling this thread off topic. Sorry 
There are not too many places in the world where it’s illegal to be heterosexual though. I don’t personally know of any place where you can be executed for being heterosexual. And we don’t have a history in this country of criminalizing heterosexuality. Heck - it’s unlikely you will get your head kicked in for simply being heterosexual in some parts of the UK.
Now generally I agree with you. I don’t care what someone is or isn’t. I don’t care about their personal life - I’m more focused on my own and the people I love. However, if I can make someone a bit happier by doing something trivial then I’ll happily do it. If homosexual people feel more accepted (given the disgusting way they have been treated) if they can celebrate their ■■■■■■■■■ it’s all good with me. And if a person wants to dress in a none conventional way then they can crack on.
And if someone wants to be called a unicorn then that’s okay as well. Life is too short to worry about what makes someone else happy. We arn’t changing Science by using those names. Any more than a security guard/forklift driver is changing your name when they call you ‘drive’.
Telling people what they want to hear to not hurt their feelings is always the easy and weak option though.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Captain Caveman 76:
Freight Dog:
I do agree with you though with regards to current thinking. Things have swung too far, teachers being punished for misgendering, gender neutral labels on toilets etc. It’s all well and good not calling a group of girls “girls” for fear of upsetting someone, but what about the rest who wish to be identified as girls?
A perfectly reasonable counter point and one I won’t take issue with. It’s only an accessory to a point and (clearly) without much background research being taken on my evening off on the detail. In my defence as it’s rather incidental to the kernel of my personal issue. The issue which you respond to above.
All well motivated strives for acceptance, voice, equality or recognition begin from starting blocks. Starting blocks comparatively easy to define. Perhaps you are under sufferance from the legal system, or persecuted. Perhaps your gender does not have equality in the work place. Perhaps your religion is a minority.
What are less hard to define are the aims, sacrifices acceptable to achieve the aims and finally to identify the tipping point that equality exists. The apogee achieved further action would then pose risk of imbalance to others.
That is of course presuming the good faith of those behind such movements truly is equality, rather than promotion.
In absence of a mediating entity or collective self assessment there is no self awareness. Hence many pressure groups do not function for true equality at all, only a mutated version of the imbalance they vilified. This imbalance does not affect their own ideals, rather others, as casualties along the way.
In short. Get what you want, drop the bags then crack on with life with others.
Freight Dog:
Captain Caveman 76:
Freight Dog:
I do agree with you though with regards to current thinking. Things have swung too far, teachers being punished for misgendering, gender neutral labels on toilets etc. It’s all well and good not calling a group of girls “girls” for fear of upsetting someone, but what about the rest who wish to be identified as girls?
A perfectly reasonable counter point and one I won’t take issue with. It’s only an accessory to a point and (clearly) without much background research being taken on my evening off on the detail. In my defence as it’s rather incidental to the kernel of my personal issue. The issue which you respond to above.
All well motivated strives for acceptance, voice, equality or recognition begin from starting blocks. Starting blocks comparatively easy to define. Perhaps you are under sufferance from the legal system, or persecuted. Perhaps your gender does not have equality in the work place. Perhaps your religion is a minority.
What are less hard to define are the aims, sacrifices acceptable to achieve the aims and finally to identify the tipping point that equality exists. The apogee achieved further action would then pose risk of imbalance to others.
That is of course presuming the good faith of those behind such movements truly is equality, rather than promotion.
In absence of a mediating entity or collective self assessment there is no self awareness. Hence many pressure groups do not function for true equality at all, only a mutated version of the imbalance they vilified. This imbalance does not affect their own ideals, rather others, as casualties along the way.
In short. Get what you want, drop the bags then crack on with life with others.
True equality can never exist because to reach that point, one section of society must be treated more favourably than another.
Like you, I sometimes think that it isn’t about equality but about achieving the supremacy they feel they’ve been denied.
One thing that I find ironic, or hypocritical is that it’s fine to have a minority group that restricts access only to those of whichever minority that they represent, yet it’s illegal to have a group that doesn’t allow the minority in question.
Black music awards are fine, but white music awards would be racist.
Straight pride would be homophobic.
How does that even begin to make sense? Surely it’s all about promoting equality? I understand that certain groups have suffered persecution and some still do, but in my opinion focusing on trying to prove the persecutors wrong and unjust is a waste of time.
Lorries are a good example, the public hate them, yet without them life would be miserable, given the choice between sitting behind a lorry going slowly up a hill on a country lane on its way to deliver groceries to your local store or having to hunt and forage for your food, it’s safe to assume that 99.9% of lorry haters would take the first option, yet they still complain and dislike us, would it be worth the effort to convince them of our value in their lives? No, it wouldn’t change a thing, haters will still hate, whether it’s lorries, gender, race, ■■■■■■■■■, religion or whatever.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Carryfast:
newmercman:
This is the point the LGBTQ community has been trying to make surely?
Not exactly.
Now consider the school teacher,who’s comfortable with being a man but who is also comfortable to think of himself as a lesbian,who fancies his 17 year old bi ■■■■■■ pupil and she fancies him,with her not being that bothered about his specific gender nor her own anyway in all this.He’s toast because suddenly she’s now definitely a vulnerable woman who doesn’t know what she wants and he is supposed to suppress all of his feelings because he is in a position of trust.It’s all a bit bleedin selective in that regard. 
[emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]
A position of trust changes everything though, rightly so in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
Captain Caveman 76:
True equality can never exist because to reach that point, one section of society must be treated more favourably than another.
Ah. Yes. We see this, but it doesn’t mean the method is necessary. This comes under “sacrifices acceptable…”
It seems a bitten hand response to victimhood is favour. And personally I rather think it suits people on the quiet -a level of equality not being desired at all, rather promotion and subconsciously dominance to “make up for it”.
EasyJet had a Female pilot only recruitment drive. Now, this would fall neatly under your statement. On the face, in order to achieve “equality” others (Male pilots) are treated less favourably by this positive discrimination. Positive is a curious word to use in that sense.
That clearly was not any level of equality; the method and mechanism leading to equal numbers is based on anything but equality. Equal numbers of people does not mean equality.
What would be equal is this. And some consider this incredibly unpopular to say. The system as it is. All aviation schools are open to Women. All aviation jobs are open to Women. There are no gender pay differentials in the UK aviation Pilot industry. There are no differences between the paths open to Male and Female aircrew. That… …is equal. All paths open and free will left to play it’s part.
An aside, the one aspect I would not qualify is Women do not take up the role as it’s perceived as not Female friendly. I really don’t buy into that; it’s a cop out. Women have far more about them, and aviation isn’t exactly coal mining.
True equality can’t be achieved in a scientific sense within society, not least you’d have to have a pretty good handle on how you define that. Society has to always be in a state of flux with equality. It is actually nature’s way to not have equality. But the mechanisms when ironing out predjudice do not have to follow the same path.
Freight Dog:
Captain Caveman 76:
True equality can never exist because to reach that point, one section of society must be treated more favourably than another.
Ah. Yes. We see this, but it doesn’t mean the method is necessary. This comes under “sacrifices acceptable…”
It seems a bitten hand response to victimhood is favour. And personally I rather think it suits people on the quiet -a level of equality not being desired at all, rather promotion and subconsciously dominance to “make up for it”.
EasyJet had a Female pilot only recruitment drive. Now, this would fall neatly under your statement. On the face, in order to achieve “equality” others (Male pilots) are treated less favourably by this positive discrimination. Positive is a curious word to use in that sense.
That clearly was not any level of equality; the method and mechanism leading to equal numbers is based on anything but equality. Equal numbers of people does not mean equality.
What would be equal is this. And some consider this incredibly unpopular to say. The system as it is. All aviation schools are open to Women. All aviation jobs are open to Women. There are no gender pay differentials in the UK aviation Pilot industry. There are no differences between the paths open to Male and Female aircrew. That… …is equal. All paths open and free will left to play it’s part.
An aside, the one aspect I would not qualify is Women do not take up the role as it’s perceived as not Female friendly. I really don’t buy into that; it’s a cop out. Women have far more about them, and aviation isn’t exactly coal mining.
True equality can’t be achieved in a scientific sense within society, not least you’d have to have a pretty good handle on how you define that. Society has to always be in a state of flux with equality. It is actually nature’s way to not have equality. But the mechanisms when ironing out predjudice do not have to follow the same path.
There’s nothing in there that I can argue with.
I second that, Freight Dog you’ve summed it up nicely, there’s nothing stopping anyone from being gay, cross dressing, being gender fluid or anything else that they want to be, only the perceived notion that there is and that’s only from the “victims”. Sure there will be a few raised eyebrows and the odd bigot, but by and large nobody cares.
Making a big deal out of it seems to be the main reason some people enter into a particular lifestyle, just jumping on the bandwagon. I mean people are choosing to change their ■■■■■■ persuasion and I have a problem with that, my understanding is that you have no control over that, you are genetically wired up to like one or the other, or even a bit of both, but you can’t be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual when the mood takes you, to me that insults true homosexuals that have no choice in who flicks their switch more than it insults heterosexuals.
It’s all attention seeking and most of it is a consequence of lazy parenting, emphasised by the fact that it’s almost exclusively confined to “millennials”.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
switchlogic:
Amazing how many people think that being gay is just about ■■■…
Well it is isn’t it, the only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is which ■■■ they are attracted to and which one they practice the act with. Or do I have that wrong?
Stop for a moment and think about that, maybe think about it in the context of your own relationships and you can probably answer that for yourself
Ok, humour me, what other differences are there? A love for the theatre? A penchant for pink shirts? Of course I’m being flippant, but surely the whole point of the gay movement was to prove that apart from what flicks your switch, we’re all the same?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Ok, humour me, what other differences are there? A love for the theatre? A penchant for pink shirts? Of course I’m being flippant, but surely the whole point of the gay movement was to prove that apart from what flicks your switch, we’re all the same?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
You’ve clearly completely missed my point and are now changing it. I simply took exception to all that ‘what you do in the bedroom’ and ‘what you do in private’ nonsense. Just like your relationship with your wife or girlfriend a gay persons relationships extend beyond the bedroom. Hence ‘think about it in the context of your own relationships’. Be you gay or straight your whole life is defined by your ■■■■■■■■■ and reducing that to ‘what you do the bedroom’ is a little daft.
Where the hell has this thread gone , I fail to see what the demise of Toys R Us and Maplins got to do with LBGT etc . Shame to see a moderator participating in this drivel . Take it to whatever internet sites apply , Trucknetuk doesn’t .
You missed my point, you and I both drive lorries, does your being gay make you do things differently to me?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
rigsby:
Where the hell has this thread gone , I fail to see what the demise of Toys R Us and Maplins got to do with LBGT etc . Shame to see a moderator participating in this drivel . Take it to whatever internet sites apply , Trucknetuk doesn’t .
It’s in Bully’s, it doesn’t have to be lorry related in here. You don’t like it, don’t read it. My status as moderator is irrelevant until site rules are broken and so far they haven’t been.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
rigsby:
Where the hell has this thread gone , I fail to see what the demise of Toys R Us and Maplins got to do with LBGT etc . Shame to see a moderator participating in this drivel . Take it to whatever internet sites apply , Trucknetuk doesn’t .
As NMM stated it’s in Bully’s which is pretty much a conversation forum for all and anything. I like to think of most threads as conversations in a pub or cafe with a bunch of people, you may well start off talking about football for example, but 4 hours of that would be purgatory imo therefore conversations move on, branch off and rarely resemble the original conversation. As also said you do have the right to ignore anything you don’t like.
As an aside, I have plenty enough going on in my life before concerning myself with others likes, dislikes or whatever.
newmercman:
You missed my point, you and I both drive lorries, does your being gay make you do things differently to me?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Considering the original point was made by me I think it was in fact you who missed it…but to answer the question resulting from you missing the point it means you and I do in fact have very very different lives. Just like I have very different life to my brothers and to reduce that to ‘what I do in the bedroom’ is just daft
I’m sure we all have very different lives, but what has ■■■■■■■■■ or anything else LGBQT got to do with that? I don’t think heterosexual men wake up each morning and set out to be Chuck Norris all day, just as gay men don’t wake up thinking I’m going to be a great big ■■■■ all day.
■■■■■■■■■ doesn’t define who you are, unless you decide to make it that way. Look at Vegans as an example, you could be talking to one about the moon landings and somehow they will tell you that they’re a vegan, why? Because they want an argument about it, the same applies to LGBQT, gender fluid or anything else different, the only reason it gets brought up is to provoke confrontation so that they can assume victim mentality, let’s play our gay/gender fluid/victim card and cause a scene.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
