IVAN LILLEY Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/uk-and-world-news/2010/06/09/women-friendly-mosques-praised-84229-26616364/ its not perfect (seperate room etc) but its a step in the right direction "Batool Al-Toma, of the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group, said: "This project must be hailed as a welcome and useful exercise for the whole of the Muslim community in the UK" polly got a cracker:roll: everyones happy:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoddyHolder Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 You asked where you had incited hatred to spindrift and now you are changing it to colour predjudice. Trying to slither out of it I see. Come on I dont slither out of anything its not my style,When Spindrift apologises or at least admits that I have never shown any sign of colour prejudiced then I will address anything else his fantasies throw at me,I just want him to admit he lied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Come on I dont slither out of anything its not my style,When Spindrift apologises or at least admits that I have never shown any sign of colour prejudiced then I will address anything else his fantasies throw at me,I just want him to admit he lied I've posted your evidence of racist prejudice upthread. You refused to apologize for your racist remarks about asian people, your tactic appears to be to pretend you never wrote those words. Now that your claim about terrorism has been shown to be false, you are ignoring that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Ok....another question then...why are there a lot of conflicts and wars involving Muslim dominated countries? Honest question...honest answers only please. A lot by who's standards? Certainly not the USA. I read somewhere that the US had spent every year of the last 2 centuries involved in a conflict abroad, with only a few exceptions (like during the Civil War when they were fighting each other). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 We appear to be talking a different language Note: analogies don't require two situations to be the same, it requires them to have something in common. In the analogy given it is the sense of offence that the two acts have in common and that they should be condemned. It is really quite simple. Absolutely it's simple but your assumption that a person being physically assaulted (touched up) has anything in common with mocking/insulting/belittling a person long ago dead is simply flawed from the very outset. For an analogy to work there needs to be more than just a slight, tenuous connection between the issue being discussed and the analogy being used to try and prove your point. As one situation talks about a person being physically assaulted whilst being alive and the other situation talks about third parties being 'offended' on behalf of a war lord and paedophile long ago dead then I see no correlation between the two situations that make an attempted analogy work. PS. Can you provide a link for this quote please? Quote: con·text Pronunciation (kntkst) n. 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. a·nal·o·gy Pronunciation (-nl-j) n. pl. a·nal·o·gies 1. a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. offence US, offense [əˈfɛns] n 3. annoyance, displeasure, or resentment give offence (to) to cause annoyance or displeasure (to) take offence to feel injured, humiliated, or offended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Absolutely it's simple but your assumption that a person being physically assaulted (touched up) has anything in common with mocking/insulting/belittling a person long ago dead is simply flawed from the very outset. For an analogy to work there needs to be more than just a slight, tenuous connection between the issue being discussed and the analogy being used to try and prove your point. As one situation talks about a person being physically assaulted whilst being alive and the other situation talks about third parties being 'offended' on behalf of a war lord and paedophile long ago dead then I see no correlation between the two situations that make an attempted analogy work. PS. Can you provide a link for this quote please? Quote: con·text Pronunciation (kntkst) n. 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. a·nal·o·gy Pronunciation (-nl-j) n. pl. a·nal·o·gies 1. a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. offence US, offense [əˈfɛns] n 3. annoyance, displeasure, or resentment give offence (to) to cause annoyance or displeasure (to) take offence to feel injured, humiliated, or offended What there is in common is the understanding that the action causes offense. The fact one is physical the other mental only shows there is a difference of degree, not of principle. The definitions were from the free dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ btw nice photos, you have an eye for composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 What there is in common is the understanding that the action causes offense. The fact one is physical the other mental only shows there is a difference of degree, not of principle. The difference of principle would be that one is an attack on a real, living person, and the other is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoddyHolder Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 I've posted your evidence of racist prejudice upthread. You refused to apologize for your racist remarks about asian people, your tactic appears to be to pretend you never wrote those words. Now that your claim about terrorism has been shown to be false, you are ignoring that too. No you haven't ,my so called racist remarks is in saying that they dont seem to want to integrate,from personal experience I stand by that remark ..it is not racist..I don't pretend anything you are the one who posts outright lies,so why should you be believed..you are a liar but you wont admit it.Tell you what lets leave it at that,I dont argue with idiots especially lying ones like you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 The difference of principle would be that one is an attack on a real, living person, and the other is not. PT and muslims that take offense at people that deliberately set out to offend them are living people. It is worth going back to look at what PT said and what it was said in response to: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6370862&postcount=503 The argument being made was basically that it is "ok to offend because it is only a joke and I think it funny". (my paraphrasing) To point out the same argument was used by people to justify a quick grope in the past is a valid and proportionate response. There are of course cases where causing offense is necessary and worthwhile. But there is a difference between pushing boundaries and jumping over the over side of the fence to show people your arse! The first is necessary for debate and freedom of speech, the later takes joy in the offense caused and is counter productive by provoking an entrenchment of opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 No you haven't ,my so called racist remarks is in saying that they dont seem to want to integrate,from personal experience I stand by that remark ..it is not racist..I don't pretend anything you are the one who posts outright lies,so why should you be believed..you are a liar but you wont admit it.Tell you what lets leave it at that,I dont argue with idiots especially lying ones like you Your evidence that asians never integrate and that most terrorists are muslims. Both statements are lies. Both statements are racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.