This man needs to be banged up

[EFLImpudence]

But you have provided no logical reason or argument to dismiss them,

Logic.
Jewish - a religion.
Semitic - nothing to do with religion.
Antisemitic - therefore can have nothing to do with religion.

As recent events prove, it is easy to hoodwink the world.

End of.

 

[Bodd]

Then maybe you should take his advice:

What was it again?

 

[Bodd]

This is why we need a new word. Racist is dated and doesn't cover all corners.

There needs to be a word that describes actions of hate and prejudice against colours religion, ethic identity size, disabilities, colour of hair and spots.

And it needs to be equal, so if a Black man call me a ginger spotty little ****, then I can call him a black so and so...If I so like. (that's if he's not built like a brick house)

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Jewish - a religion.

Judaism is the religion, not Jewish.
Jews see being Jewish as predominantly a matter of ancestry and culture, rather than religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew?

Semitic - nothing to do with religion.

An obsolete word, persistently used by you, and no-one else these days, except in the collective name for some historic languages.

Antisemitic - therefore can have nothing to do with religion.

It is partly to do with religion, and culture, and ethnicity and nationality, (as considered in the biblical sense.)

Therefore your supposed recourse to logic is illogical.

The remainder of your comment was irrelevant so omitted.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

This is why we need a new word. Racist is dated and doesn't cover all corners.

Insulting? Abusive? Offensive? Unequal? Discriminative, Prejudicial?

Then we need a collective word for all of them.
Hmmm, how about racism?

 

[Bodd]

Insulting? Abusive? Offensive? Unequal? Discriminative, Prejudicial?

Then we need a collective word for all of them.
Hmmm, how about racism?

Insulting? Abusive? Offensive? Unequal? Discriminative, Prejudicial?
Racist may work if it's aimed black on white or white on black ect ect.
Racism doesn't work if the Insulting? Abusive? Offensive? Unequal? Discriminative, Prejudicial? language is aimed at someone because they are fat, ugly, disabled

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Insulting? Abusive? Offensive? Unequal? Discriminative, Prejudicial?
Racist may work if it's aimed black on white or white on black ect ect.
Racism doesn't work if the Insulting? Abusive? Offensive? Unequal? Discriminative, Prejudicial? language is aimed at someone because they are fat, ugly, disabled

I don't think fat or ugly is a protected characteristic.
Disability discrimination is covered, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/disability-discrimination but the reason is not because of their ethnicity.
So why do you think racism ought be changed for a new all-encompassing word, if the motives of the discrimination are different?
What's wrong with specifying the motive for the offence?
We have burglary, theft, stealing, purloining, shoplift, pilfer, loot, etc. Do you think all those words need to be retired for a new all-encompassing word?
Don't you think it will make the language less interesting if we reduce the 40,000 odd words to a few thousand.

 

[avvicci]

I think you should all start a debate over the current debate going on in this thread on the joke told by BOD.
I dont believe the four of you have debated enough on alot of the stuff currently debated for over eight pages since the joke was told.

(Like watching the house of commons but in subtitles only)

 

[noseall]

This is why we need a new word.

Gammon?

 

[durhamplumber]

Gammon?

You are freekin obsessed with that word.

 

[noseall]

that word.

Hits the mark though.

 

[durhamplumber]

Hits the mark though.

Does it bolox..

 

[securespark]

You can do both.

Think for yourself and agree with someone.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You can do both.

Think for yourself and agree with someone.

Of course you can. Hardly likely in this scenario though:

I got lost 2 pages back.... Yet I agree with EFL....

 

[Vinty]

You're making the same mistake of taking apart a whole word and assuming that its constituent parts added together to mean the conjoined meaning..
That is the same as pretending that manholes are purely for men, or that womanhood is a hat for a woman, or that understand is to stand under something.
Semitic, as a label for an ethnicity is largely obsolete now. I did explain that before and provided evidence to support it. If you refuse to believe it, I can't change that.

Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely obsolete outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics.​

Antisemitism has been defined numerous times. if you refuse to accept it, I can't change that. But you are the one that is out of step, not everyone else.

Your Wikipedia definition of Semite is wrong.
Wikipedia is not a scholarly source.
I would recommended the Oxford English dictionary.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/semite
Example. He was a Middle Easterner, you know, and he was a Semite.’