Eminem?

[Tugger2k]

I think we have come to a dead end. Neither of us can sink any lower. Therefore, in the name of Glastonbury, peace and love - I offer a truce to you, you argumentative pig f**ker.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Tugger2k

[Langdale Wolf]

go f**k yourself. your jealous of ampersand when he goes to gigs

[The Nal]

go f**k yourself. your jealous of ampersand when he goes to gigs

[Tugger2k]

<retreats from thread a broken man>

[Langdale Wolf]

greatest put down ever

ampersand, your music taste has finally proved itself useful!

[laid back in the sun]

You do realise by him having those pictures, some poor child has had to be abused right?

[Steve P]

Below a Sol Campbell/Bolton/pig sex putdown in a thread about Eminem - man, that's LOW.

[Langdale Wolf]

You must feel as bad a a man being spooned by Mick Hucknall

[laid back in the sun]

Post 163 just above.

[Tugger2k]

You must feel as bad a a man being spooned by Mick Hucknall

Edited March 4, 2010 by Tugger2k

[In transit]

If it was clear that it was a commentary and not what he believed then I'd have no issue with his lyrics.

The fact remains: he's been asked to clarify which it is on countless occasions; he's never indicated that it's a commentary he doesn't believe in himself, and has indicated (tho only indicated - I'm aware he's not stated categorically) that it is what he believes himself.

It's not contrition I would want, but clarification. He's chosen not to clarify, and the result of that choice comes back on him. His choice, his consequences.

Edited March 4, 2010 by In transit

[LondonTom]

At the end of the day Eminem is just a bloody prick who 12 year olds think is cool cos he swears alot. Why all the arguing? His not playing atm, lets all chill and agree that his just lil pirck who thinks swearing is clever.

[The Nal]

I feel like I've been violated from behind by a stream train. Awful mate. Awful.

[Tugger2k]

I think Tugger crossed the line there.......

[Langdale Wolf]

I think Tugger crossed the line there.......

[Tugger2k]

Too right. It's nothing 2 pints of real ale at the Red Flag won't solve. Cheap bastard that I am - I'm easily bought.

[Langdale Wolf]

you'll have a half of john smiths xtra smooth and be happy about it

[eFestivals]

But the default position (and my view) is that Eminem is homophobic - I don't buy the 'act' argument so we can take that as read. I'm suggesting that being homophobic is not in itself any worse than the other crimes/moral failings people have been bringing up and shouldn't be treated differently just because we have a natural revulsion towards it that perhaps does not exist towards drugs, other criminal offences and even violence.

Unlike yourself, I don't take someone else's statement - the law of this country, which is an ass - of what is right or wrong; I think for myself.

And as far as "illegal drugs" go, my opinion is the same as many of those with expertise in drugs, that the legal ones are far more dangerous than many of the illegal ones. Which is without any doubt, 100% true. And which proves the law as an ass.

As far as other things go, very often there's reasons behind them (not necessarily good reasons, but reasons why they've come about all the same). But there's no reason for homophobia, there is only hatred of humanity - and so with one measure it's as bad a crime as is possible.

I agree with the drugs offences -but I'd say that you do have a choice as to whether to drive when banned which was what he breached one of the conditions for doing.

Driving when banned is f**k all to do with his drug addiction. It's because he's a prick.

I'll have to take your word on the vagaries of licencing applications - although you'll know that under English law if something isn't appealed then it remains the law until it is, even something so totally outdated as not being able to rape your wife (a law which wasn't changed until 1991).

Yes, but that doesn't stretch as far as licence hearings - they are not a part of the criminal judicial system. They come under local govt, for which the thing you give above doesn't apply.

[In transit]

Unlike yourself, I don't take someone else's statement - the law of this country, which is an ass - of what is right or wrong; I think for myself.

[eFestivals]

And you show me any law you consider wrong and I will give you a reasoned argument why it is needed, even if I agree with you.

cannabis being illegal.

You can't make a rational argument for that law without also making a rational argument against the legality of tobacco or alcohol - so there is no rational argument in this area, the whole thing is irrational.

Ha. Got you at the first attempt.

I can make it clearer to dispense with that argument - I do not believe that Eminem's suggestions of violence against homosexuals, or indeed any other group, are genuine calls to arms and incitements to violence - do you disagree?

Not really. If they're not genuine, why make them?

If the answer is "it's art" then my response is "no, it's twattish, not art". I doubt you'd accept me (as an example) talking about f**king your mother as "art" on the same basis.

Unlike some people in this thread I haven't and won't resort to name-calling and throwing toys out of the pram and have shown on several occasions that I respect your opinion, even though I consider it to be wrong. I've also shown that I can think for myself and don't see the need for snide comments like the above - this is an interesting debate and you should extent the same courtesy to other posters as they show to you.

It wasn't snide. Your post that I made that response to implied that the law is always right, not a view I subscribe to.

However, I'll make clear that I consider myself no less moral in my take and actions on things than the most law abiding citizen that's ever lived - it's simply that I think for myself and arrive at my own considered conclusions.

The logical extension of that argument is the banning of all drugs (alcohol and tobacco included) or the legalisation of them all. I can see a very strong theoretical case for wholesale legalisation but there are a lot of practical reasons why it would be very difficult to make it work.

I agree. And those "practical reasons" are simply people's desire to be hypocritical.

Homophobia may well be hatred of humanity but I'd sooner someone hated me for who I was than inflicted violence on me - however badly that may sit with certain life-theories.

better than either is neither.

We don't have to accept 2nd best.

The common law is not limited to the criminal justice system and while local government doesn't operate under exactly the same rules, you'd struggle to find a serious legal academic who would argue that the principles are not the same.

Sorry, but you're talking tosh here (as said to you by a man who's done a huge amount of reading on legal issues of all kinds, whilst the long-time partner of a senior lecturer in criminal justice at a UK uni, and prior to that when she worked at the Home Office).

But to put that angle aside, it only needs brief consideration of the fact that each licencing council operates it's own criteria for licencing with no common theme across any of them to see that this is an area where legal precedence has no application or relevance. The view taken by one authority over a licence (providing that view is within the scope of the licencing law of course) cannot be used as a reason before any court for why another authority must act in the same way for another licence.

As long as any council is able to show that the view they've reached over a licence application has a sound legal basis (rather than being simply prejudice), then a court review will not over-turn it. It is a decision to be made by that local authority and not a court - which is why the licencing laws give the decision making authority to that local authority and not the courts. A court review of their decision only looks at whether that have acted within the scope of that licencing law.

Edited March 4, 2010 by eFestivals

[jameshay1]

marylin manson made me rape my dad.

[In transit]

cannabis being illegal.

You can't make a rational argument for that law without also making a rational argument against the legality of tobacco or alcohol - so there is no rational argument in this area, the whole thing is irrational.

Ha. Got you at the first attempt.

Edited March 4, 2010 by In transit

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't be quite so quick to declare victory. I said any one law - easy to make an argument for cannabis to be illegal because it is harmful. Easy to make an argument for tobacco and alcohol being legal because while it might be a good idea dogmatically to ban them the way the law has progressed means it would cause more problems in society to ban them now - bolting the stable door.

Yes, you make an argument for it but not a rational one. If cannabis is so harmful that it needs to be banned, then the same argument cannot be ignored for the far more harmful drugs of alcohol or tobacco.

But that aside, care to show me the properly researched evidence of cannabis being harmful? There is none.

(That's not me saying that it's not harmful, that's me saying that there's no properly researched evidence that it is)

So you agree with my original point then that the lyrics are shameful but not genuine espressions of a desire for violence, even if we had to go round the houses to get to it.

No, I don't agree. There's nothing aside from assumption to support that view, but of course a similar assumption, and more - the words themselves - support an opposite view.

we have laws which bar against incitement to violence - would you say these laws were wrong because they're the only ones relevant to my point?

I wouldn't say they're wrong on the basis or not of their relevance to your point.

I would say they're wrong for their inconsistencies, particularly how incitement to violence by the state is permitted within them.

Would you sell pure heroin and crack over the counter to anyone over 18 then?

I would, yes. From the angle that it's proven to lessen the bad effects on society of drugs.

Would you allow current drug-importers to do so legally or would you grant licences to companies for its import.

I'd licence it. As dangerous substances (in some cases, at least) there needs to be regulation to control quality and the like, in the same way as other dangerous substances of all kinds used by our society are controlled and regulated.

Would manufacture be allowed in Britain and if so how would you license it? Would some things still be illegal e.g. a hypothetical drug which combined say heroin with ecstasy with crack and gave people a 75% chance of dying if they took it? No problems are insurmountable but you have to be practical and consider how you would go about legalising drugs in Britain today - you'd be risking things getting a whole lot worse before they got better, if they ever did.

People will take what they'll take, control or no control - just as teenagers will shag no matter what their parents might do to try and stop them.

Your assumptions on "worse" are wrong, as proven by the facts of deregulation elsewhere.

And irrationality and unreasonableness are good grounds for judicial review. The fact that they didn't try it in this case doesn't prove that the original decision or grounds for it were wrong.

The licencing laws have four main criteria that need to be considered. One of them is an increase in crime.

It's almost impossible for any show to go ahead without an increase in crime - which was the basis for that licence refusal. So their view was justified in law, and not able to be challenged successfully thru the courts.

The courts do not have scope to say about that decision "the extra crime is low, so it should be ignored". That is outside of their powers of review. It is a council's decision alone to decide if *any* increase in crime is something they will accept within their area via the licencing of an event.

Game (or in this case, licence) over.

Edited March 4, 2010 by eFestivals

[jameshay1]

smoking cannibas gives you cancer.

why does nobody ever mention this?

[rosstopher]

smoking cannibas gives you cancer.

why does nobody ever mention this?