Perhaps you could have a go at explaining the contradiction between "defending the right to say it", yet attacking the person for "saying it"?
John Cleese criticised for saying London is 'no longer an English city'
- Thread starter festive
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps you could have a go at explaining the contradiction between "defending the right to say it", yet attacking the person for "saying it"?
Sponsored Links
Are you referring to the recent attacks on BAS. Motivated by, I assume, those who want to stop him trying to prevent the promulgation of absurd, dangerous and divisive comments?
Or are you referring to BAS's attempts to stop such promulgation of divisive, bigoted comments?
I think BAS has many times explained his reasons for his methods, because he believes, and I do not disagree with him, the anonymity afforded by social media should not be exploited for the promulgation of dangerous and divisive ideas.
I suspect that if there were Muslim radicals posting on this site, their comments would be quickly and rigorously deleted, their persona would be vociferously attacked and their reputation discredited by multiple abusive insults made by many other posters.
Yet right-wing, bigoted comments are allowed, and supported, and attempts made to discredit anyone who objects to them.
Sponsored Links
You do it.
I asked you this question:
You replied wih this:
Any "rights" which a person has to say something means that they are under no prior restraint and face no risk of prosecution.
It does not mean that the operator of any platform, be it a newspaper, a website or a village hall notice board, is compelled to give that person space to say it, nor that they may not remove what they say after the event, nor, if it can be done, that they may not deny the person all access to the platform.
Nor does it mean that other people, if they find what the person has said is unacceptable, may not be as vociferous as they like in condemning it, telling him how wrong he is, and that he should cease saying it.
So now you start lying again, you just can't tell enough lies can you, I have never said the any of the words in the above quote. In fact I have never heard the word "paresh's" and have no idea where it comes from or what it means.
So be nice, act like a man and apologise.
Last edited:
As for BAS ? He should be thrown out the country
You can't do that, it would start a war with whichever country he landed in.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 400
- Country
Anyway we digress. The point of my original post is it seems ok to comment how expats or groups of foreigners have ruined parts of other countries.
But mention it here in England you're a racist.
Fly the union Jack or st George you're not patriotic you're a neo Nazi whatever one of those is.
I've moved away from London because the rate at which my hometown was changing for the worse i didn't like at all affected by ethnic majorities effectively taking over.
I don't agree with being accused of being racist as it's not about race. I don't accept todays modern society here in the UK is or should be the dominance of anything none culturally British or English.
But mention it here in England you're a racist.
Fly the union Jack or st George you're not patriotic you're a neo Nazi whatever one of those is.
I've moved away from London because the rate at which my hometown was changing for the worse i didn't like at all affected by ethnic majorities effectively taking over.
I don't agree with being accused of being racist as it's not about race. I don't accept todays modern society here in the UK is or should be the dominance of anything none culturally British or English.
No and yes.
You are quite right that you didn't say those things.
But it wasn't a lie - it was a mistake. I accept the error was entirely mine and that I was careless, but I didn't knowingly write a falsehood.
I apologise.So be nice, act like a man and apologise.
I apologise for making a mistake, and alleging you said something which you did not.
I trust that you will likewise be nice, act like a man and apologise whenever you make false allegations.
Thank you
Why do you not state the origin of the two parts of this word? I.e. what 'phobia' actually means.
Is it because it would verify that the term 'islamophobia' does not mean the common incorrect usage?
Why are you so willing to accept the incorrect usage and not what the words actually mean?
What do you mean, my definition? That is what the word means.
Homo - same; phobia - an irrational fear (a mental condition leading to panic attacks brought on by everyday objects and situations).
You cannot change the meanings of the Latin or Greek parts of words. They mean what they mean. You can only use them correctly or wrongly.
Probably, if I understood correctly.
Islamophibia does not mean someone who hates muslims. Why do the experts not use the correct term which would be misislamist or misoislamist (whatever would be the correct spelling and whatever the Greek for islam is).
They are quite happy with anti-semitist (even though they use that wrongly); why not just anti-islamist?
Are you happy that people with mental conditions (genuine phobias) are called the same as racist thugs?
Did the yob in the cat-kicking thread have a phobia of cats? No. He is just a yob who kicks cats.
As for your points about words changing meanings, they do, but I maintain this is mostly through ignorance - including by so-called experts - and should be discouraged. The alternative is that they do it on purpose, either to lessen or increase the seriousness of the events. Criticising the Israeli Government is called anti-semitism so as to allow the term racist to be used.
I realise discussion with you is futile - and I have come to the conclusion that you, yourself, have an agenda of some kind, have managed to recruit Bas, and are contributing to the present politics of confusion.
Last edited:
Of course you can. When the parts are combined they form a new word.
According to you a "woodcock" would be a cock made of wood.
A "cowslip" would be a trip by a bovine female.
A "bluebell" would be ......you've guessed it, a blue bell.
You disagree that there is a need for a unified definition of a word?
That that definition ought to be arrived at by so-called experts?
And, sometimes that definition may be required to evolve with constant and everyday usage?
Thanks for the entertainment.
I'm sure BAS is his own person, and anything I suggest, he is very capable of forming his own opinion. Otherwise he might have succumbed to be recruited by you or andy. Which, I'm think you will agree, is equally absurd.
Do you not think it is probably the reason allocated for the change, that could be the racist part, rather than the locality?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,207
- Reaction score
- 400
- Country
Where did i mention race?
- Status
Sponsored Links