Argus Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Who argued that? The Liberal Party of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Those are insults. The term racist has nothing to do with insults (at least, not necessarily. It is used here as an insult by people incapable of intelligent or rational debate. And are you saying there is no such thing as a moron? I can post the definition if you like. And I actually think some of the people here ARE morons, so I would be being completely honest and truthful in describing them so. Edited June 25, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Anyone who uses the word 'racist' is intending to belittle a person and imply their argument is not worth considering because it is 'racist'. It is childish tactic that simply shows that the person using the word does not wish to or is unable to understand nuanced arguments. You can see it all over the BREXIT discussion, where those who voted leave are denigrated as racists and xenophobes, sneered at as people who should be ignored and whose opinions don't matter - even if they are the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 The Liberal Party of Canada. Not likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 You can see it all over the BREXIT discussion, where those who voted leave are denigrated as racists and xenophobes, sneered at as people who should be ignored and whose opinions don't matter - even if they are the majority. Mostly for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Mostly for a reason. Because they're arrogant, elitist progressives who have fixated on one part of the Brexit discussion - a discussion they completely ignored while it was going on and know almost nothing about, and a people who live in another country who have issues with a EU government they also know virtually nothing about. Almost all the people who had flooded into Britain because of the EU were white, for one thing. Do people not even understand what 'racism' means? How do you accuse white people of being racist because they resent a flood of new white people? Edited June 25, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 The concept here is quite simple, if you choose to describe an creature which "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" then you must use "that creature that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck" - since you can't use "duck". I notice that it continues to be the identified racists and xenophobes who are doing most of the squawking. OOPS! What I meant was that it continues to be the identified persons who believes that a particular race is superior to another who are doing most of the squawking. The poster doth protest too much, methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 A warning? And what are you warning them about? That if you're not allowed to call people names you'll leave? Leave. You are free to interpret and assume in the unique manner which has inhibited your understanding of issues. Why should this be any different. Notwithstanding that Argus has shared with us that he is a self made multi millionaire and is sharing the secrets of his unique and courageous views of his world I still assess Argus 1 Big Guy warning point for unsolicited advice. Continued negative behavior may lead to posterioristicism on this board. People who believe that a particular race is superior to another or that a particular race is inferior to another will be assessed Big Guy warning points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 People who believe that a particular race is superior to another or that a particular race is inferior to another will be assessed Big Guy warning points. Nobody here that I'm aware of has ever postulated one race is or is not superior or inferior to another. Not that that's ever stopped you. In fact, the closest to anyone using racially charged language would be those who talk about wiping our hands of Israel and how evil Zionists are, and post daily updates on their loathing for Israel and Zionists (ie, Jews). Disagreeing with you in immigration does not make a person a racist, notwithstanding your inability to produce any kind of meaningful, intelligent, or factual rebuttal to their views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 Hey, I'm okay with you calling me names all you want as long as I get to return the favour. You're a vegetarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 What argument? I can't remember. How come I get notified whenever anyone else quotes me, but not when you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Cooler Mode While under suspension, members are still able to post in the forums but their posts are hidden from view and only visible to folks under suspension. Members will only be able to make 1 hidden post per suspension. The cost of posting while suspended will be a doubling of the suspension time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Come again? You can post while suspended but it extends your suspension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Cooler Mode Fascinating....Cool Hand Luke informs us well in this regard: Dragline: He ain't in the box because of the joke played on him. He back-sassed a free man. They got their rules. We ain't got nothin' to do with that. Would probably have happened to him sooner or later anyway - a complainer like him. He gotta learn the rules the same as anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Come again?Just an idea. It is not available. I should probably be posting these suggestions with the software company but if you know anbody who wants to capitalize on it, let him know. You read it here. You can post while suspended but it extends your suspension?Yes but your posts are not visible to public view. Posts while suspended are only visible to folks under suspension. To put it an other way, disabled posting activates X-ray goggles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Posts while suspended are only visible to folks under suspension. Kinda makes you want to be bad so you can see what is happening in the dark alleys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Cooler Mode While under suspension, members are still able to post in the forums but their posts are hidden from view and only visible to folks under suspension. Members will only be able to make 1 hidden post per suspension. The cost of posting while suspended will be a doubling of the suspension time. Will you at least provide a glove and ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Perhaps warning points and suspensions should be dealt with similar to bit coins. Posters could trade so many warnings for a suspension and vice versa. Brave New World! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Just an idea. It is not available. I should probably be posting these suggestions with the software company but if you know anbody who wants to capitalize on it, let him know. You read it here. Yes but your posts are not visible to public view. Posts while suspended are only visible to folks under suspension. To put it an other way, disabled posting activates X-ray goggles. But if you're allowed to post while under suspension - why are they being penalized for it? I thought the point for suspension is not only to protect the forum, but also to give the offending poster a chance to cool down? Also..... If a poster is suspended, naturally he'd be angry about it - wouldn't he be more likely to lash out in anger in his post while suspended? Instead of helping him to cool down....isn't that like throwing gas to flame? Then, you've got all these suspended posters posting........feeding off each other, in anger! I find it humorous just thinking about it. All those furious click-clackings on the keyboards. Edited July 1, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I agree. Labelling someone as racist is not derogatory. It's simply applying a definition to their posts. If you're applying the definition to their post.....then, it's their statement that's racist. A person can make a statement that's considered racist, and yet he's not a racist. Example: Islamic terrorists are Muslims. Given the current situations, don't we talk about Islamic terrorists with disdain? Ridicule? Don't we think of them as insanely barbaric? Inferior? Isn't that a statement of fact? Yes or no? Though the statement falls under your definition of racist - it doesn't mean the poster is actually racist! Therefore, you have no legitimate reason to say that the poster is racist, based simply on that statement. What makes a person truly a racist, isn't as simple as falling under that definition. If you truly think that statement automatically makes a person, racist...... then that only suggests you've got a very narrow way of thinking, not to mention, quite shallow in your understanding of humanity. That, in turn, reflects back on how you're perceived. Because of your post, I may think you're just another stupid leftie, but I wouldn't publicly label you that! Anyway..... Labelling that person a racist not only deters people from freely expressing their views in a forum....but you're also turning the discussion into a trashy level by making a personal attack. Of course anyone who's being personally attacked would fire back! It inevitably leads to thread drift, not to say to a series of personal attacks! And then people get suspended. And they whine about their suspension. And the unfairness. And moderators have to recite the same old mantra - report and ignore. See how it's like a row of dominoes? And it all started because of that initial ignorant personal attack! Having said all that......if you want to use the term racist, you should be allowed to do so. If you think it is a racist comment, then to you, it is. You should be able to express that. Free expression shouldn't be compromised. However...... Label the statement, not the poster. Edited July 1, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Yes - "You are not a bad child but you did a bad thing". It sure works with children! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Betsy: Given the current situations, don't we talk about Islamic terrorists with disdain? Ridicule? Don't we think of them as insanely barbaric? Inferior? Isn't that a statement of fact? Yes or no? Yes and No. Is it the terrorist act that invites disdain and ridicule etc? Would it matter one whit if the terrorist was of one religion or another? Is it necessary for terrorists to be muslim for your words to be true? or will any terrorist do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Betsy: Yes and No. Is it the terrorist act that invites disdain and ridicule etc? You're deflecting, and evading the issue! Read what you quoted: Given the current situations, don't we talk about Islamic terrorists with disdain? Ridicule? Don't we think of them as insanely barbaric? Inferior? Isn't that a statement of fact? Yes or no? Islamic terrorists are Muslims! Isn't that a statement of fact? Yes or no! Peter F Would it matter one whit if the terrorist was of one religion or another? Islamic terrorists are Muslims. Why can't you face that? You seem so afraid to commit to a factual statement! What are you on about other religions? Have you heard of a Buddhist or a Christian, who recently committed any jihad in the name of Allah? Your response is irrational. Is it necessary for terrorists to be muslim for your words to be true? or will any terrorist do? What's with you guys and your problems with reading? And comprehension? You're doing selective reading - you totally ignored the first four words of my statement! Again, read what you quoted: betsy Given the current situations...... don't we talk about Islamic terrorists with disdain? Obviously, I'm referring to Islamic terrorists and the global terrorism they do! What other current situation do you think I'm talking about if not the recent succession of Islamic terrorist activities - from Paris to Turkey? Who do you think killed Canadians in the Philippines? Christians? My goodness..... Isn't that a statement of fact? Yes or no? Don't be afraid to commit to a straight answer. It's not like as if a bolt of lightning will strike you dead. Edited July 1, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) Betsy, you missed Peter's point so much that you're in a different timezone. Edited July 3, 2016 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2016 Report Share Posted July 3, 2016 I missed it too. It seems to be that the actual religion of the terrorists is not important. If it isn't, then there really ought to be no objection to naming it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.