What difference does it make to you?

Bobblehats

We are down to two suspects



I believe I can narrow it down further.

Boom_Bap

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I said I believe you.

Those with you will of course be proud of you. Your crying daughter wouldn't bother you. Your angry girlfriend will say nothing herself or to you. Your mother will commend you for being a great son.

Well see, the people around me know that it's best to walk away from confrontation rather than aggravate a situation which could potentially lead to violence.
My daughter would trust my judgement, my girlfriend would trust my judgement, my mother would trust my judgement. That's just the type of support system that is built around me.

ArrBee

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Well see, the people around me know that it's best to walk away from confrontation rather than aggravate a situation which could potentially lead to violence.
My daughter would trust my judgement, my girlfriend would trust my judgement, my mother would trust my judgement. That's just the type of support system that is built around me.

What about your wife tho?

Effects

I think Ray Palmer is just a complete troll. He's probably just the bog standard Irish man he pretends he's railing against.

Boom_Bap

ArrBee wrote: »

What about your wife tho?

Never have your wife and girlfriend together when walking through areas of pepped up scum looking for confrontation.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Well see, the people around me know that it's best to walk away from confrontation rather than aggravate a situation which could potentially lead to violence.
My daughter would trust my judgement, my girlfriend would trust my judgement, my mother would trust my judgement. That's just the type of support system that is built around me.

I'd also add to this Ray, if by chance I was walking down the street with you and someone started gesturing towards you or being vocal or uncivil towards you about something, I would also tell you to ignore it and keep moving as it's not worth it.

Bobblehats

[QUOTE=R
ay Palmer;111817428]Those with you will of course be proud of you[/QUOTE]

Sir answer the question

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Your angry girlfriend will say nothing herself or to you..

Sir, please sir

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Your mother will commend you for being a great son.

My mother is irrelevant to this case. Sir are you, or are you not the owner of one canister of professor smith’s vintage goose-grease moustache pomade discovered at your residence.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You can put your amateur psychology skills to rest. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. This is an issue in Ireland because I don't get hassle of any kind in other countries. The UK is similar to here but it is actually have laws in place to an extent that cover this.

It's not amateur psychology, it's called common sense.

Make yourself stand out, and expect to attract attention, including from less savoury people.

It comes with the territory, you can't start blaming other people.

The choice you make to wear those clothes, or moustache or whatever, is a purely self-indulgent, attention-based one. You're just not happy that you're not getting the type of attention you probably want to get.

beejee

Pretty much what's said above, you want to be different, expect differences that won't always be positive.

Hardly mind shattering.

beejee

Or consider the valid flipside of the question, "why do you want to have a handlebar moustache? What difference does it make to you? Just go with the flow"

Ray Palmer

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm rather thankful to be living in a country that doesn't waste police resources protecting the soft ego of men who sport moustaches and imagine that everyone is being mean to them because of it. We have far greater problems!

The reason for the inclusion is because a young goth girl was beaten to death for what she was wearing. If you think that is a waste of police time that is your view.

When I was growing up in Dublin it was quite common for the track suit wearing members of society would regularly attack the hippies, goths, rockers etc... I assume that still remains part of the society young people grow up in now.

I also mentioned people making comments to me as if I was gay which is also a hate crime.

While you think this is just me complaining about comments because I want to get attention there is real world dangers. I know people who lost teeth, broken bones and have scars from these types of things.

Say if your child decides to dress differently do you want them to be in danger?

I get this is after hours but a lot of you really haven't considered the full context and want to make it all about me being sensitive. I am old enough and experienced enough to know if I let somebody intimidate me they will do it again. So I don't put up with it.

Ray Palmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not amateur psychology, it's called common sense.

Make yourself stand out, and expect to attract attention, including from less savoury people.

It comes with the territory, you can't start blaming other people.

The choice you make to wear those clothes, or moustache or whatever, is a purely self-indulgent, attention-based one. You're just not happy that you're not getting the type of attention you probably want to get.

No it isn't common sense it is you telling me why I do what I do because you have decided you can tell what I am thinking. You think you can analyse my thoughts.

I would expect you to be the type of person that get angry with people because you think they are trying to get attention. So the type to make a snide remark about what somebody is wearing because you want to take them down a peg or two in your eyes.

The reason I say that is directly because of your assumptions on me which seems to be why people make those comments. They dislike what they are assuming and what they are assume is also wrong.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No it isn't common sense it is you telling me why I do what I do because you have decided you can tell what I am thinking. You think you can analyse my thoughts.

I would expect you to be the type of person that get angry with people because you think they are trying to get attention. So the type to make a snide remark about what somebody is wearing because you want to take them down a peg or two in your eyes.

The reason I say that is directly because of your assumptions on me which seems to be why people make those comments. They dislike what they are assuming and what they are assume is also wrong.

You're damn right I hate attention-seekers, narcissists, and those with no concept of self-awareness.

"Oh I want to do something different, but don't want people to see/notice/comment; but I'll do it anyway, then complain when they do, so I'll do it even more in future and hope they'll change their mind".

LaFuton

Fart With Abandon

bodhrandude

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The point is people commenting and being violent if they don't like what you are wearing. Not sure why there is any element of 'within reason ' because to some that would mean anything outside the norm is not reasonable.

So what do I not have a point about?

Like the Mods and the Rockers, used to be a metaller for a while back in the early eighties, Quadrophenia made its second big comeback and all the wee neds and skangers in Glasgow started wearing mod parkas and attacking us metal and rock fans (even though the Who were practically metal or heavy rock at that stage) as we queued for gigs. Found it quite funny myself, but could be freaky at times.

Antares35

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The reason for the inclusion is because a young goth girl was beaten to death for what she was wearing. If you think that is a waste of police time that is your view.

When I was growing up in Dublin it was quite common for the track suit wearing members of society would regularly attack the hippies, goths, rockers etc... I assume that still remains part of the society young people grow up in now.

I also mentioned people making comments to me as if I was gay which is also a hate crime.

While you think this is just me complaining about comments because I want to get attention there is real world dangers. I know people who lost teeth, broken bones and have scars from these types of things.

Say if your child decides to dress differently do you want them to be in danger?

I get this is after hours but a lot of you really haven't considered the full context and want to make it all about me being sensitive. I am old enough and experienced enough to know if I let somebody intimidate me they will do it again. So I don't put up with it.

I'm going to ignore your accusation that I am ok with anyone being killed, and hope that it was a knee jerk reaction.

So, how doe we legislate against people having a go at you? Some kind of "don't be mean to people" provision? We already have laws in place against assault, harm, manslaughter, murder etc. which cover off all of the examples you have provided. If these laws are not being enforced, then that is something that needs to be looked at, not even more legislation to protect your ego.

Ray Palmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're damn right I hate attention-seekers, narcissists, and those with no concept of self-awareness.

"Oh I want to do something different, but don't want people to see/notice/comment; but I'll do it anyway, then complain when they do, so I'll do it even more in future and hope they'll change their mind".

So you hate somebody doing nothing to you. Then I can take it you are the person who would say something to a person you personally decided is an attention seeker.

What if it traditional dress from another country?

Why is your view so important that you decide what is or is not acceptable for people to wear without being hassled? This equates back to harassing women for what they are wearing. You are basically saying this is acceptable and you think it is right because they didn't listen to the harrasers.

Ray Palmer

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm going to ignore your accusation that I am ok with anyone being killed, and hope that it was a knee jerk reaction.

So, how doe we legislate against people having a go at you? Some kind of "don't be mean to people" provision? We already have laws in place against assault, harm, manslaughter, murder etc. which cover off all of the examples you have provided. If these laws are not being enforced, then that is something that needs to be looked at, not even more legislation to protect your ego.

No you take ownership of dismissing the reality that people have been killed for their clothes. Here you are again saying how this harassment is somehow unimportant. You are saying you are fine with harassment and threats of violence.

It is considered a hate crime in the UK. The other laws are there but hate crime was brought in because it leads to other criminal acts.

So in you view somebody being assaulted is the exact same as somebody being assaulted because of their race? The law doesn't see it that way and I believe rightly so. The addition in the UK to include social sub cultures is completely valid to me.

You are condoning harassment of people whether you acknowledge it or not.

the beer revolu

I had a handlebar moustache for 3 or 4 years and had a very different experience to the OP.
In my experience,most people loved it. It made them smile. People would regularly tell me how much they liked it. Older people, though, tended to not really like it - my mum in particular. I never had a stranger say anything negative about it.
Got rid of it around 5 years ago - they were starting to get a bit common.;)
That made my mother happy.

sbsquarepants

Jesus Ray are you always this melodramatic?

You aren't fighting some righteous battle against oppression, you just like to wear dodgy clothes and have a bit of a chip on your shoulder (or maybe its an epaulette? Are you feeling like Napoleon today or something?);)

Antares35

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No you take ownership of dismissing the reality that people have been killed for their clothes. Here you are again saying how this harassment is somehow unimportant. You are saying you are fine with harassment and threats of violence.

It is considered a hate crime in the UK. The other laws are there but hate crime was brought in because it leads to other criminal acts.

So in you view somebody being assaulted is the exact same as somebody being assaulted because of their race? The law doesn't see it that way and I believe rightly so. The addition in the UK to include social sub cultures is completely valid to me.

You are condoning harassment of people whether you acknowledge it or not.

I'll thank you to stop accusing me of saying things I have not said

So, I will try again. We already have laws in place for violent crime, hate crime etc. If people are still experiencing violence (which for the record I do not and never have condoned) then clearly those laws are not being properly enforced. This is where the problem is. You suggested that we enact some kind of law to stop people from experiencing these attacks. I am simply pointing out that such laws already exist, and asking you what additional legislation you think we need. You haven't been able to answer that. By all means state that we need more laws - but be able to elaborate on your statement to explain what laws (additional to what we already have) they would be.

For the avoidance of doubt, lest you read in anything else to my posts, I do not condone violence towards anybody

Ray Palmer

Antares35 wrote: »

I'll thank you to stop accusing me of saying things I have not said

So, I will try again. We already have laws in place for violent crime, hate crime etc. If people are still experiencing violence (which for the record I do not and never have condoned) then clearly those laws are not being properly enforced. This is where the problem is. You suggested that we enact some kind of law to stop people from experiencing these attacks. I am simply pointing out that such laws already exist, and asking you what additional legislation you think we need. You haven't been able to answer that. By all means state that we need more laws - but be able to elaborate on your statement to explain what laws (additional to what we already have) they would be.

For the avoidance of doubt, lest you read in anything else to my posts, I do not condone violence towards anybody

I didn't accuse you of saying anything you didn't say. I commented on the ramifications of your attitude and what it means.

We do not in Ireland have this classed as hate crime so we dont have the laws in place here. It is not covered by laws here. We don't have hate crime laws here at all.

So you wring to say we have laws covering this.

Antares35

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of saying anything you didn't say. I commented on the ramifications of your attitude and what it means.

We do not in Ireland have this classed as hate crime so we dont have the laws in place here. It is not covered by laws here. We don't have hate crime laws here at all.

So you wring to say we have laws covering this.

This is impressive verbal gymnastics Ray. You did tell me that I condone violence and that I am dismissive of hate crimes etc.

I said we have laws covering assault, manslaughter etc. That is a statement of fact.

What do you want classed as hate crime? I am seeking clarification.

El Weirdo

El Weirdo wrote: »

Has me dripping like a f*cked fridge, too.

Youd want to get that looked at

sbsquarepants

Antares35 wrote: »

What do you want classed as hate crime? I am seeking clarification.

The scourge of mustache mockery i think:)

Effects

Ray Palmer wrote: »

We do not in Ireland have this classed as hate crime so we don't have the laws in place here. It is not covered by laws here.

I can just imagine how you'd get treated in the Garda Station, making a complaint because someone laughed at your moustache.

jimgoose

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The scourge of mustache mockery i think:)

There was a chap in the office here with an immaculately-styled twirly mustache, some of the lads nicknamed him Go Compare... :pac:

Ray, does it make any difference if someone is arrested and charged with assault if the motivation for said assault was robbery, verbal provocation or someone's clothing and/or mustache?

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Why is your view so important that you decide what is or is not acceptable for people to wear without being hassled? This equates back to harassing women for what they are wearing. You are basically saying this is acceptable and you think it is right because they didn't listen to the harrasers.

Nowhere in my comments will you find sanction for harassing women.

However, we must accept a stark reality: that not everyone in society is civil and reasonable and unable to cause violence or harassment.

Knowing these people exist means that women must be responsible - accepting that these violent thugs exist and that, by drawing attention to themselves, they increase the risk that these thugs will attack.

It's the same with violent thugs generally. If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you. Often, swallowing pride and walking away is the far more responsible approach.

Same with what women wear. The woman who stands out most, will also stand out most to violent thugs.

It doesn't take much of a logical leap to suggest that perhaps women shouldn't stand out to these thugs if they want to entirely avoid their attention/behavior. The thug is responsible for their crimes, but the woman can do much to eschew their attention.

Ray Palmer

Effects wrote: »

I can just imagine how you'd get treated in the Garda Station, making a complaint because someone laughed at your moustache.

Pay attention. I did not say because somebody mocks a moustache but because they assault people and threaten them. I also didn't single out a moustache just mentioned it in passing as a thing people may comment on and if you don't accept it as they want they can be violent.

So it isn't the comment it is the intimidation with threats of violence that are the issue.

Funny how people are going out of there way to make up what I said to mock the points I am making yet a person saying they HATE people who wear what they consider outlandish. No condemnation for that but suggesting that people shouldn't be attacked is laughed at.

Must tell my friend who has to wear dentures because he had his teeth kicked in he was looking for trouble and it was his own fault. How about my friend who has a scar on his cheek from being cut with a Stanley knife because he was a "hippy" and was walking home?

Sure they should just laugh off these serious assaults.

the beer revolu

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the same with violent thugs generally. If you do something to attract their attention, whatever it is, you cannot be held entirely guiltless for what may happen to you.

Is that you, Mr. Hook?

So how much of the blame should the skimpily dressed woman take for her rape?