Homophobic attack on London bus - mod warning, please see OP

Nobelium

DubInMeath wrote: »

Got any evidence that the police are labeling the crime incorrectly, that's what the question was, your still dodging it.

What question ?

Simple fact 1 :Calling a crime homophobic, is not proof that the actual motive was homophobia.

Simple fact 2 : No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic

- Have you got any yet post it up . . but as usual you haven't

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

What question ?

Simple fact 1 :Calling a crime homophobic, is not proof that the actual motive was homophobia.

Simple fact 2 : No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic

- Have you got any yet post it up . . but as usual you haven't

So your saying that the police are incorrectly labeling the attack.

Nobelium

DubInMeath wrote: »

So your saying that the police are incorrectly labeling the crime.

lol . . "so your saying" again . .

so your saying . . .

Calling a crime homophobic, is not proof that the actual motive was homophobia.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

lol . . "so your saying" again . .

so your saying . . .

Calling a crime homophobic, is not proof that the actual motive was homophobia.

Really any evidence of this, because most police forces are very careful about what they label an crime.

Nobelium

DubInMeath wrote: »

Really any evidence of this, because most police forces are very careful about what they label an crime.

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia.

- No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic.

- Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

Nobelium

Nobelium wrote: »

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia.

- No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic.

- Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

The police are saying that it was, have you any evidence that it wasn't, post it up if you have.

Odhinn

Nobelium wrote: »

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia.

- No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic.

- Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

You're acting the maggot at this stage. It's blatantly obvious it was homophobic in nature.

klaaaz

What's that Canadian Jordan Peterson got to do with the bus attack, was he a witness or something? :P

Larbre34

Nobelium wrote: »

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia.

- No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic.

- Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

The victims said the group began harassing them when they kissed in their seat on the bus.

The important detail here is that the two women were viciously assaulted and that is what these pieces of shyt will be punished for. I've no doubt that these scum did this before and probably do it with little qualm, but this one was homophobic, whatever other motivations they might have had.

blinding

Nobelium wrote: »

lol . . "so your saying" again . .

so your saying . . .

Calling a crime homophobic, is not proof that the actual motive was homophobia.

These wee scumbags would have been likely to mess with anyone they thought were vulnerable . They also robbed their victims .

Nobelium

Larbre34 wrote: »

The victims said the group began harassing them when they kissed in their seat on the bus.

The important detail here is that the two women were viciously assaulted and that is what these pieces of shyt will be punished for. I've no doubt that these scum did this before and probably do it with little qualm, but this one was homophobic, whatever other motivations they might have had.

Let me get this right, it was a homophobic attack even if the scumbags motivation was not homophobic . . .hmmm.

Nobelium

Odhinn wrote: »

You're acting the maggot at this stage. It's blatantly obvious it was homophobic in nature.

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia. No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic. Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

Odhinn

Nobelium wrote: »

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia. No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic. Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

It's in the crime itself, as mentioned in the reportage. They tried to make the women kiss.

Skylinehead

Nobelium wrote: »

Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence that the motivation was homophobia. No evidence has been presented yet that their motivation was homophobic. Have you got any actual evidence yet ? post it up.

Mod: The victims said it was. The police said it was. If your next post isn't sufficiently sourcing your claims that it isn't homophobic, I will ban you for clogging this thread up with your shit.

Nobelium

Skylinehead wrote: »

Mod: The victims said it was. The police said it was. If your next post isn't sufficiently sourcing your claims that it isn't homophobic, I will ban you for clogging this thread up with your shit.

I didn't say it was or wasn't homophobic. What I said was I've yet to see any evidence that their actual motivation was homophobia, if you've got any you are welcome to contribute. Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence their motivation was homophobia.

Nobelium

Odhinn wrote: »

It's in the crime itself, as mentioned in the reportage. They tried to make the women kiss.

making someone do something isn't homophobia

Skylinehead

Nobelium wrote: »

I didn't say it was or wasn't homophobic. What I said was I've yet to see any evidence that their actual motivation was homophobia, if you've got any you are welcome to contribute. Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence their motivation was homophobia.

Well, I warned you. Goodbye.

martingriff

Nobelium wrote: »

I didn't say it was or wasn't homophobic. What I said was I've yet to see any evidence that their actual motivation was homophobia, if you've got any you are welcome to contribute. Calling something homophobic is not actual evidence their motivation was homophobia.

2 women on a bus were kissing. 4 thugs went over and harassed them because of it. (I doubt they would have done it otherwise) when they

refused the thugs they assaulted the. So reason for the assault was because of there sexuality.

Why the *** are you hell bent on trying to prove it was not homophobic? You have been asked this numerous times and ignore it. Please answer the question

Edit Looks like will not get an answer

Larbre34

Nobelium wrote: »

Let me get this right, it was a homophobic attack even if the scumbags motivation was not homophobic . . .hmmm.

The affectionate moment between the victims triggered it. It was a homophobic attack.

Being bottom feeding scumbags in the first place was the other cause.

Fr. Pat Noise

Father Pat here- this was just a random attack. These thugs were just looking for any reason to attack and rob them.

blinding

Fr. Pat Noise wrote: »

Father Pat here- this was just a random attack. These thugs were just looking for any reason to attack and rob them.

ok , its a guess but i’m betting these guys have form for robbing people , vulnerable people .

Scumbags that may be homophobic . These guys ain’t going to be rocket scientists .

Anyone that doesn’t know that there are numerous cameras on a London Bus won’t be questioning Einstein's theories any time soon .

Kimsang

Reading most of this is so hilarious, its like reading parody but to ban nobelium for making an argument against your narrative is childish and authoritarian.

Stop where you disagree;

Most attacks aren't silent attacks.
The majority of attacks involve the perpetrator(s) insulting the victim(s).
We only care about the insults if they are of a protected class(i.e. lgbtq, muslim, immigrant)

Were a skinny man to be attacked and the attackers called him 'lanky' or something, would the police include it in their report?
Would they say the man was attacked because he was lanky? Would you call this a clear cut case of lankophobia?
According the most of the people in this thread yes.

Were a person to be attacked and made fun of the way they spoke, would we call this, lispophobia?
Were a person to be attacked and made fun of for the way they dressed, would we call this attirophobia?

The argument being made on the other side is its nearly impossible to prove intent. It could be opportunistic. Unless these attackers had diaries in their rooms that showed they had plans to attack gay people because they were gay.

The introduction of hate laws is unfathomably ridiculous. We have enough laws to prosecute people like this.

There was a time when we, the public, suspended our opinions until verdicts were given. That was a better time.

Kimsang

Skylinehead wrote: »

Mod: The victims said it was. The police said it was. If your next post isn't sufficiently sourcing your claims that it isn't homophobic, I will ban you for clogging this thread up with your shit.

Please take a look at these stories of some innocent men, and how the 'victims' and the police treated them.
The police said they were guilty.
The 'victims' said they were guilty.


Unfortunately, victim-hood has become ingrained in our culture.
Nothing has yet been proven in a court of law in this case.
Your authoritarianism is showing.

ILoveYourVibes

Well five teen guys have been arrested now.

Woodsie1

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Well five teen guys have been arrested now.

They were arrested since the start of the thread more or less.
Problem is...what kind of scumbags would do this and how is it happening in a city like London!
Its not normal this kind of attack.

Kimsang

martingriff wrote: »

2 women on a bus were kissing. 4 thugs went over and harassed them because of it. (I doubt they would have done it otherwise) when they

refused the thugs they assaulted the. So reason for the assault was because of there sexuality.

Why the *** are you hell bent on trying to prove it was not homophobic? You have been asked this numerous times and ignore it. Please answer the question

Edit Looks like will not get an answer

Case closed then.

Kimsang

DubInMeath wrote: »

The police are saying that it was, have you any evidence that it wasn't, post it up if you have.

The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.

There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience).

You can not prove a negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

Kimsang

Odhinn wrote: »

You're acting the maggot at this stage. It's blatantly obvious it was homophobic in nature.

Another case closed.

Kimsang

DubInMeath wrote: »

Got any evidence that the police are labeling the crime incorrectly, that's what the question was, your still dodging it.

If the police didn't label this as a homophobic crime, what do you think would happen?
The lgbt community would be out in force, outraged... etc.. etc.. Look at what's currently happening with Carlos Maza on Youtube.

Das Reich

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Well five teen guys have been arrested now.

Great. Curious to see their faces and names.