John Cleese criticised for saying London is 'no longer an English city'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would you expect anyone to quote an incorrect number and say that they didn't care what the truth was?
Is this in the wrong discussion?
Does it belong in the Big Red Bus discussion? ;)

I suppose someone would quote a number, to prove a point.
Then, if proven wrong, claim that they didn't care anyway. So why quote the number in the first place?
Next time, they should say, "a lot", or "a few". Whichever is appropriate.
 
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
I don't accept this as a word
Of course you don't - you and your fellow swivel-eyed nutcases do not accept truth and facts.

and if I were called it I wouldn't take it as an accusation of any wrongdoing.
Of course you wouldn't as you have no decency, no morality, no humanity, and not a shred of anything which merits you living in a civilised society.


If I were to accept the word, I'd say that it couldn't possibly be a crime to be "Islamophobic". A phobia is a fear, and since when has it been a crime to be afraid of anything - especially when that thing is genuinely frightening? I think fear, or at the very least caution, would be any reasonable person's reaction to Islam.
No - that would not be the reaction of a reasonable person - it would be the reaction of an unreasonable sub-human stain on the fabric of society.
 
Of course you don't - you and your fellow swivel-eyed nutcases do not accept truth and facts.
Of course you wouldn't as you have no decency, no morality, no humanity, and not a shred of anything which merits you living in a civilised society.
No - that would not be the reaction of a reasonable person - it would be the reaction of an unreasonable sub-human stain on the fabric of society.
All that because someone disputes the meaning of a word.
 
R.I.P.

upload_2019-5-31_22-13-11.png
 
Will the two members of the Thought Police on here please look up the meanings of -

Misogyny and Gynophobia.

Then explain why the correct terms are not used with regard to islam (and other things) is this enlightened age.

Homophobia - an irrational fear of the same.
 
Misogyny -

Gynophobia. -

Homophobia - an irrational fear of the same.

Misogyny - dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women (Mid 17th century: from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman’.) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/misogyny

Gynophobia. - dislike or fear of women. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gynophobia

Homophobia - an irrational fear of the same dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia

Where did you get your definition from?

Then explain why the correct terms are not used with regard to islam (and other things) is this enlightened age.
What, in your opinion, are the correct terms?

What's your point?
Do you think that andy's interpretation of words is correct?

At one time words were derived from various origins, foreign words that had been used for centuries, words from languages that were only used in scholarly circles, etc.
Now words come into being from all sorts of unusual origins, street talk, txt spk, witty or entertaining invention, conjunctions of several words, etc.
(see the list of new words added to dictionaries each year)
Is it not part of this enlightened age that that is possible?

Sometimes, these new words can mean different things to different societies (and groups within societies). When there is a discussion about the definition of these new words, and a common definition is called for, possibly for legal reasons, e.g. islamophobia, then learned people research, discuss, formulate and recommend an acceptable definition.
Usually people accept that pseudo-legal definition. There may be some who, for their own personal agenda, such as andy, refuse to accept that definition. It does not change or affect the accepted definition. Their refusal to accept the pseudo-legal definition may have some soothing affect on their psyche, for instance, some imbalance in their psyche created by contradiction in their life.
 
Last edited:
Are you happy with religious fundamentalists to be allowed to radicalise young people?
Do you argue that people should be allowed to verbally abuse others?
Is it OK for those like TR aka YL to spread division and hatred?
Is it permissible for politicians to use known incorrect data in support of their chosen policies?
 
Will the two members of the Thought Police on here please look up the meanings of -
If you are referring to BAS as one of the "Thought Police" then your adoption of the phrase is incorrect.
I wouldn't normally bother, but as you want to be precise about the definition of words, perhaps we'll explore it a little.

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, the Thought Police are the secret police of the superstate Oceania, who discover and punish thoughtcrime, personal and political thoughts unapproved by the Party.
https://www.google.com/search?q=thought+police&rlz=1C1JZAP_enGB840GB840&oq=thogyth+p[olice&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l6.5008j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that BAS is not concerned with what andy's thoughts may contain. BAS does not want to stop andy from having as many lurid thoughts as andy likes.
It is his verbalisation of his ideas, and his exploitation of the freedom of social media to promulgate those ideas, that BAS is concerned about.

Similar, to andy's concern with fear being punishable. Of course it is not, it is the manifestation, in crime, motivated by that fear that is punishable.

Thus your adoption of the phrase "Thought Police" is totally incorrect. I assume you adopted the phrase in an attempt to discredit BAS.
 
It is his verbalisation of his ideas, and his exploitation of the freedom of social media to promulgate those ideas, that BAS is concerned about.

..... which is entirely at odds with "defending your right to say it."
 
..... which is entirely at odds with "defending your right to say it."
Perhaps you and EFLImpudence could have a joint attempt at answering my questions?
Are you happy with religious fundamentalists to be allowed to radicalise young people?
Do you argue that people should be allowed to verbally abuse others?
Is it OK for those like TR aka YL to spread division and hatred?
Is it permissible for politicians to use known incorrect data in support of their chosen policies?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top