James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Mar 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    No no don't stop now. Do tell us about all the "freaks" whose right to worship you oppose. Let me guess, he runs a charity? Is head of an organisation that promotes religious harmony? I can see how someone who believes that Jesus the alien will transport believing Christians to heaven while wiping out the rest of the world can be suspicious of such sentiments.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please don't stop now, we've only just started addressing the issues you have with Muslims
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Really did need pictures!

    The very same Muslim commentators who would view you as being a non-Muslim?

    Do you even know who Kaffirs are?

    You do not identify yourself as a non-Muslim now?

    You obviously do not get it.

    Pagan and heretics are words that are commonly used. Hell, Pagans are a virtual movement..

    Are you mad?

    Your words and meaning were explicitly clear. You found it offensive in Arabic and when spoken by devout Muslims.

    This whole thread is about you being offended by an Arabic word for non-Muslim Geoff.

    Oh, I read and understood your comment and I found it offensive that you spoke in French and made it seem so snide.

    I was deeply offended Geoff.

    The term is deemed offensive to black Africans. You are not a black African! You are also NOT a Muslim. And I will assume you are not a citrus fruit. In no way, shape or form could that term be discriminatory torwards you.

    I followed your example.

    You think Chi is an extremist and too devout?

    The man is so far from an extremist or even truly devout, it's not even funny!

    Actually, yes, it is funny.

    How dare he accuse you of being a non-Muslim!

    Quite a bit actually.

    See what you started? See how what you started has turned into an ugly step child?

    Oh, we're a team and we're here for you, Geoff.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm becoming hysterical?

    You became hysterical because someone dared to 'accuse' you of being a 'non-Muslim' and you then went on about how it's offensive if said by a devout Muslim and then went on about how you were attacked by being told that you are a non-Muslim and then, because if that wasn't enough, you then went on about its nefarious spelling..

    How is it even remotely possible to have a decent discussion about this?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The similarities are frightening!

    There there Geoff. I'll make the big bad Muslim devil woman leave you alone now..

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    And not only that:

    0.06 sec.
    n. 1. A member of the Bantu race comprising the Zulus and the Kaffirs.
    Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

    Seems to me, for a supposed pejorative, its rather widely used non-pejoratively. One wonders what would happen if the SA government were to actually censor it. What would the Zulu-bleeps think about being classed as a slur?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: SAM has been banned for 3 days from sciforums for goading and flaming.

    To all: please try to avoid calling each other "bigot". Also tried to avoid attributing views to others that they have not expressed (for example, hatred of all Muslims).

    Note: 1 infraction point means SAM qualifies for a 7 day ban. I am using my discretion to reduce that to 3 days in this instance.
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    The pictures didn't help.

    Oh, certainly. But they might choose a more enlightened term than "kaffir", cos' it's a naughty word.

    Which has what to do with this? And it's me that "doesn't get it"? Oy vey.

    Yet there's no need to start labeling other people as "pagans" or "infidels" or the like. It's offensive. Find another term.

    My words and meaning were "clear clear"? Okay. You've dodged the point that it carries negative connotations even in Arabic, but that's okay also.

    Je desolee. :bawl:

    "Too" devout...interesting. Is this another herring? I think he's devout and an extremist.

    Oh noes - it is all me, being mean about an offensive word (devote a little time to comprehending that link sometime), instead of about an offensive word. Oh noes.

    Well, yes. It certainly seems that way. I mean, there's several things: i) you're meandering around with the term, posting every other conceivable usage except, you know, the one that's in discussion here. ii) You made kind of a strange dodge (I'm not even sure what kind of dodge it was) about the fact that some Muslim religious authorities are discouraging the word for the very reason I mention. Maybe I should mention it here: it's not me that started the whole conceptualization of this word being offensive, you realize? I just want this to be clear: I didn't invent this phenomenon. It started long before this thread. iii) You're leaning on a number of totally unrelated issues in your series of personal attacks, including the "no Arabic on the forums!" venue, which nobody was calling for in this thread or anywhere else.

    ...both he and I are people you hate? :shrug:

    I....I will just have to try to find a way to carry on.
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    I asked a Buddhist if he objected to being referred to as a Heretic or Infidel by Christians. He said they didn't seem very helpful.

    Seems reasonable enough?
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I think he was being pretty kind about it.

    What a pointless throw-down, though, eh? It's amazing.
  11. thechunk Registered Member

    Did anyone fail to mention that apart from the Arabic "Kafir" the whites in South African used it as a derogitory name for the black population during aparthied !! Some people do find it incredibly insulting.
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Yup, we got that one.
  13. Bells Staff Member


    Because apparently those people are a "naughty word"..

    How would you describe them if you were ever asked to? Since Kaffir is such a dirty and "naughty word" now, how exactly would you go about describing them with a more "enlightened term"?

    Are you for real?

    Pagans describe themselves as Pagan. What part of 'it's a whole movement and religion' didn't you quite grasp? You're telling me that we should tell Pagans they should never describe themselves as Pagans because "it's offensive"? You'd best start emailing the thousand of Pagan groups around the world and tell them that they should not label themselves as Pagans because it is apparently now offensive. You can start with Pagans United.

    So what other term can be used for Pagans?

    Care to name a few that we can suggest Pagans now use to describe themselves, because you know, it's so offensive and all..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I mean if I were to call you a dumbarse, twat, cunt, dipshit, for example.. then yes, that would be offensive. And obviously I would not call you that. Because it is so offensive. But Pagan?


    And apparently Pagan carries negative connotations in English..


    And yes, your words were very clear Geoff. You stated yourself that you found it offensive because it was uttered to you in this forum by a devout Muslim. Very clear. Gustav actually manages to turn it into an insult and you found it funny as hell and partook in joking with him about it. But a Muslim says you are a Kaffir (non-Muslim), you act like he has ripped out your kidneys and raped your women folk.

    I have asked you to stop.

    Are you unable to follow simple moderator instructions about only using the English language on this forum since the use of other languages can be deemed insulting? You expect others to follow such a rule when it applies to you, so I would strongly suggest you follow that rule in general.

    You also think that Muslims are planning on taking over the WTC site by building a recreation centre a few blocks away.

    Not to mention you feel that the term Pagan is insulting..

    Frankly, I think what you think is obviously so far out there that you are not all present in the thinking department.

    Geoff, you just said Pagan was an offensive word.

    I think it is becoming very clear that you are one of those people who probably scream 'racism' at baa baa black sheep.

    In short, you are a ridiculous human being.

    Refer to above. I really see no need to rehash this with you since you are such a over sensitive human being with little understanding or grasp of the cultures or languages of others. You are also a hysterical human being who sees conspiracy theories in many things pertaining to Muslims and this is just one of them. You think he is an extremist, a very harsh accusation without any proof and because you think he is an extremist, his using a valid term to describe you, a non-Muslim suddenly makes that term insulting. You have gone to the ridiculous point of viewing the term Pagan as being offensive..

    I think it is fair to say that for someone who deems the word Kaffir as being so offensive, you have also used it 2 times more than he has on this forum. Yes, that's right, I counted. You also found it so offensive that you have refered to yourself as a "dirty Kaffir" more than he, since he has not once called you by that term.

    Personal attacks? The only thing that could constitute a personal attack from me in this thread was when I called you a ridiculous human being.

    Unless of course you are again going to claim that you are a Muslim woman.. which was a term I used towards Sam, NOT you.

    Oh no, I think Glenn Beck is the best thing to happen to the Conservative movement.

    Oh, don't worry..

    You see Geoff, it is having to cater to member such as yourself, hyper-sensitive members who wish to see actual words banned from this site, that has lowered the standards of this site. Because we have to cater to individuals such as yourself, I mean people who thinks the word "Pagan" is offensive, we have seen a decline of posters who actually provided some value to this site. In the days gone by, had you lodged a protest about words like "Kaffir" or "Pagan", you'd have been laughed off the forum. Thankfully for you and unfortunately for the rest of us, those days are gone and instead, we have to spend our time and energy on this forum protecting people like you and calming your hysterical whines.

    Well congratulations Geoff.

    You have managed to get a word banned on this site. To date, the only word that is not used on this site has been "St*rmfr*nt", due to the fact that it could attract white supremacists to this site. That has been the only term that has not been used or deemed acceptable. But you? Oh you went further.

    You know, I'll be very honest. This is probably one of the lowest points for this forum. You've managed to drag it this low. And now you wish to add Pagan to the "offensive" list.

    So congratulations. You have managed to take this forum to one of its lowest and most stupid points. And we are all the losers for it because we are now one of those forums that bans perfectly legitimate words like Kaffir and Pagan.. Having been a member of this site since 2001, today is a sad day for me because you have managed to drag us to this point. So rejoice.
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    That is is some impressive distortion of a point there. People are a naughty word.

    Non-Muslim is the (very) obvious term in English. You'll have to ask Sam what a non-pejorative equivalent in Arabic would be. She'll be back soon.

    Then try "heathen".

    Very trolling. We've been over this.

    Well, let's ask ourselves a question: is Chi calling other people 'kafirs' have the same intent as Gustav's clownery, which is obviously clownery?

    Desolee encore. Il viole quelle regle? ("Sorry again. Which rule is it violating?")

    I pray you see the difference there.

    Straw man.

    Ad hominem.

    Ad hominem and straw man.

    Well, I found some support for my description of Chi as an extremist in http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2700976&postcount=34]this post. Crazy the things you find on the internet, non?

    Perhaps you should go after the person who made that post.

    Most of the rest of your post was concerned with the confusion over speaker and intent: you'll note that I didn't object to you calling yourself a "k-word". Ditto pagan. Really, Bells, the point about intent and offensive terminology is obvious. I would go so far as to say it's impossible to miss.

    And the comments above. A couple others, probably.

    "Muslim woman" is a phrase. You also picked the wrong sentence again out of the two choices you had.

    :shrug: Okay. I could hardly care less about Beck or your opinion of him, I guess.

    Yeah, because that's a perfect parallel of how it came out. You know, when I reported myself for insulting...myself. Or Gustav, for his clowning usage. Or Sam, or you, for discussing the word; for even mentioning it. Right?

    (PS: the paragraph above? Sarcasm. FYI.)

    I guess it's not irony when the other person is avoiding the actual issues. But here's the actual train of events, and what it all actually means:

    Chi freaks out and lets his supremacist side show, describes non-Muslims as "filthy" and so on. I go "hey, that's not nice, and pretty offensive". Bells posts about Westerners wearing dirty underwear, otherwise supports him, ignores actually, quantifiably bigoted perspective of Chi. Chi starts calling people "k-word", which is offensive. I gripe. Chi banned. Fraggle points out that use of word on forums at all might get SF banned in certain countries: particularly, African ones for the obvious reason. (Geoff goes: huh. All rightie.) Bells starts complaining word banned because of Geoff, attacks Geoff in usual ways, forgetting Geoff complained about usage based on intent. Bells say: no matter! Details not important! Sam say: no matter! Details not important! Word good, despite evidence from own religious sources! Stupid bigot! Sam banned.

    Answer question: how Geoff ban word?
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Hey, the word is apparently "naughty" and offensive. There are people who are Kaffirs, in that they identify themselves as Kaffirs. Best hop on that plane to Sri Lanka and tell those former Muslims that they are using a "naughty" word to describe themselves.

    The term in Arabic is Kaffir.

    Should they alter their language to suit your delicate sensibility?

    So you want Pagans to describe themselves as 'heathens' now because you think Pagan is offensive?

    Those were your words, not mine.

    If you don't like an argument, don't god damn make it.

    I don't know. From where I was sitting, Chi called you a Kaffir because he sees you as being a non-Muslim and Gustav appeared to be calling you that because it was a more polite term than something like 'twat' for example.

    In short, he turned it into an offense by the way he started calling you that. And he was clear that this is the kind of stuff that this site had been reduced to and how sad it was. And I agree with him. This is a sad time for this forum.

    The rule you deemed that Arabic was offensive when used on this forum Geoff.

    Now cease and desist from speaking in French in such an insulting and sarcastic manner on this forum.

    That was your argument at the time.

    I will fully buy that. Without a single regret.

    I mean you are now saying that Pagan is offensive..

    You are ridiculous!

    Retreat behind that as much as you want, it still does not take away the simple fact that this is how you have acted and behaved on this forum.

    You do know the difference between a supremacist and an extremist?

    You're carrying on like he is about to come after your women and precious metals because he use the term "kaffir" to describe you, the non-Muslim.

    Geoff.. You said that Pagan is an offensive term.

    It is not.

    Nor is Kaffir when it is used to describe non-Muslims. Had you been a black man, I would have supported you 100%. But you are not a black man and the term, as Chi used it, was to describe you as being a non-Muslim.

    What? Where I said you were a non-Muslim?

    Comprehension is obviously not your strong point.

    I'd suggest you go back and read what I said originally and your original response to it, which was to say that you felt insulted by my post about "Muslim devil woman", to which I asked you how you could be offended by that seeing that you are not a Muslim or a woman.

    You reported someone for refering to you as a non-Muslim with the term of Kaffir. Apparently this is insulting because you are not a Muslim.. ermm okay..

    You then joked about it with Gustav.. After he called you a Kaffir, the very term you found so offensive that you went crying to James about it.

    And then, you found "evil Muslim devil woman" offensive and now, Pagan joins the list.. Where does this ridiculous list end?

    Your hysterical reaction to the word has now pretty much amounted to the word being banned on this forum.

    The only person freaking out here is you.

    You became offended at something he posted in a completely different thread and you carried it with you into another thread and found a perfectly valid term to describe you as a non-Muslim, offensive. You then reported him and the term to James, which leads us to where we are now.. you still whining about it and now whining about the term Pagan as well.

    I am not attacking you Geoff. I want to know why you are like this. I want to know why you are the type of person that gets words banned on sites like this. I want to know why you are so sensitive that you find even the word "Pagan" to be offensive. Where does this end?

    And now, with your bleating about the reaction you deserve in this thread, another member has been banned for laughing at your foolish sensitivities.

    And the forum drags itself down further into the dumbed down slime it has been slowly sinking into because of having to cater to people who take political correctness to a whole new level.

    Your excuse is ridiculous. His intent was to call you a non-Muslim, which you are.. But apparently that is offensive as well now.. And Pagans..

    I have to ask, where does this end?

    How far do we have to dumb down this forum for you so that you do not get offended and spam the report button and get people banned? How far Geoff?
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Ahhh - then you're (possibly deliberately) confusing the issue about the ban. See my comments at the end of my previous post.

    The term in Arabic is pejorative. So sure. English has modified itself. Seems fair enough.


    A Foleyesque interpretation.

    Quelle facon sarcasique? ("What sarcastic manner?") Which rules am I breaking, Bells? Let me know.

    It's not a retreat. It's a dismissal of irrelevancy.

    Hehe. I thought you might try that one. OK, Bells: what's the difference? How do they fall out morally? Personally, I would have thought supremacist was worse, but let's see what you make of it.

    That certainly explains this:

    Forgetting that you've offered up several insulting phrases to pick from. There were two at least that I could have selected from. Bonne chance, as they say.

    So now it's "pretty much" banned. Presumably my comments about context are becoming evident.

    Well, one obvious point would be where the ad hominem, slandering and misrepresentation stops just about every time I comment. All of those do indeed violate forum rules, and my personal space, and as I explained to you earlier: it stops here, as far as I'm involved. Frankly, Bells, I can accept the odd insult - even though I dare not respond, with you as a moderator and seemingly subject to some impressive abilities of misrepresentation - including some of your choice mots above. After a while, I suppose it could become tiresome, but I realize this is what you want to say, which I could ungenerously say would be in lieu of your argument. It's when the attacks get into character assassination - bigotry, racism, etc - that I call halt, or where I'm labeled with a discriminatory group term. If other people tolerate it, or want to discuss the term itself: whatever. (Although I would advise you to at least glance at Fraggle's comment on page 1 or 2.) When you accuse me of it: problem. So don't do it. Okay?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I noted your comments above about sensitivity, and the whys and wherefores. Well, now you have them; not sensitivity, but reasonability. Enough is enough.

    And by the by: Sam is a huge troll, as far as a plurality of posters on here are concerned. Chi's contribution was to take the Moses road. These are suddenly of huge value?
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This could be a good thing

    How about we call them according to their particular tradition.

    Neo-Gardenarian Faery Witches.

    (Insert South American or African Tribe) Animists.

    Post-Judaic Quasi-Qabalists.

    Post-Gaelic Coven Practicioners.

    Pseudo-Teutonic Symbolists.

    Modified Germanic Post-Qabalistic Societal Occultists.

    (Insert Tradition) Santeria.

    Blended Christian Sorcery.

    Meanwhile, we ought to stop using words like "Muslim", "Jew", and "Christian" without modifiers. Same with "Buddhist". To wit, why call them "Christian"? Why not Baptist, Quaker, Catholic, Episcopal, Latter Day Saint, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, or otherwise? To call them all "Christians" makes them sound the same when they're not.

    After all, we say "Muslim", and few care about the difference between Asharia, Sabiya, Zaidi. How many who complain about "Muslims" can tell us the difference between an Ismaili and a Twelver? No, no, you don't get to look it up. Speak, now, wise ones. Tell us. They don't know, do they? Even I don't know the details; I've never needed to, except perhaps in the context of reminding bigots that Islam is not a monolithic culture.

    So if Pagan is offensive, so are Christian, Muslim, and Jew. Let's start addressing people according to what they are.

    Of course, the functional problem therein is that people will actually have to go out and figure what those labels are. And, well, that would just be unfair, wouldn't it?

    However, I think we're onto something. Christian, for instance, should no longer suffice. Indeed, Baptist and Lutheran shouldn't suffice, either. There are "Northern" and "Southern" Baptists; does one mean the evangelical, confessional, or Missouri Synod Lutherans?

    Let us go with this, then. If this valence of description is so controversial, let us simply do away with it. These are smart people, right? They don't need to sit around and keep pretending they're stupid. So let's go ahead and formalize that rule: No more pretending you're stupid.

    I should mention that one other word was automatically censored for a long time, the past tense of a verb that also constituted the name of a rival to a software product the site's founder was developing; it seems one could violate his boundaries by spamming his board with references to a competing product.

    But I think we should give Geoff and his ilk what they want. Perhaps it is ridiculous that we should prohibit words like "Pagan", "Christian", and "Jew" in order to satisfy them, but in the end I see it as a good thing. For instance, I'm one who finds Geoff an undesirable, even dangerous person. To wit, I wouldn't allow him anywhere near my daughter. Sure, it's inconvenient for more genuine people to communicate in such an environment, but at the same time we'll be able to quash some of the rank bigotry Geoff and his merry misanthropes inflict on this community because they, too, will be obliged to demonstrate that they have a clue what they're talking about.

    You and I might find this standard laughable, but for them it's actually a raising of the bar.

    And those general labels we haven't considered yet? We'll leave those to moderator discretion, that they might be added to the verboten list as circumstance demands.

    But for starters, people ought to stop using words like Christian, Muslim, and Jew when it would be more appropriate to identify sectarian boundaries.

    And if this is where Geoff and his kind want to take this community, that's fine with me. But it's an all or nothing proposition; they do not get to pick and choose. That is, if they want the general rule, they must also abide by the specific implications.
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Well, I wouldn't want to get anywhere near your daughter, so that works out well. I'll make sure my kids also give your neck of the woods plenty of distance, just in case.

    Well, that wasn't implicit in the stance at all. Good thing you found it.

    The thing I find most interesting about some of the controls on the discussion as applied now is the way in which those controls get implemented. Naturally, Bells, you and a few select others with more on-forum pull than all the 'Merry Band' (for we must be, as you infer, a collective of some kind to have arrived at a similar conclusion about certain things) put together feel it runs a certain way; and the Merry Band another, or else that the running of things is running in all directions.

    It's certainly true that the 'council of guardians' ('Guardian Council'?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) on here has no real difficulty diving into a thread and laying about with longwinded posts about the sad state of man, and the sad state of any particular Band member, along with endless allegations of some sekrit sekrit dark fact that will derail everything and usurp the usurper. That I am singled out more than anyone else may be due to a number of factors, but here's the trick: without being a fascist, bigot, racist or even an actual Myuunitarian I have amassed a really impressive amount of dialectical attack. I even impress myself; I draw all the big names. And yet, I subscribe to none of the aspersions or opinions I'm painted with. Not one. (Although Bells has, en passant, discovered that I am not a Muslim woman.) What happens is that - despite the lip service to discussion, discussion inevitably gets reduced to personal insinuation and the ever-more ludicrous seeking of some kind of material that could be levied in defense of the charge of offense by me, or other. These searches, again and again, turn up - nothing. No Nazi answers the door, no blackshirt is found behind the stereo system. Nothing happens. And so the accusations become increasingly tenuous, building on a foundation that resembles a long line of planks nailed overlapping in a Looney Tunes cartoon, the industrious crusader getting further and further from a firm foundation, and from their actual location. This thread is a good example. Yet it is ground that is trod in so frequently, one could be forgiven for thinking that it was the objective all along: to get to the magic spot, plank bridges need to be built, and quality is no object.

    So what is in that magic ground? Where are these cartoonish leads approaching? Simple. On the other set of girders is the magic hammer of prejudice: reach that, and the whole discussion - because that's not really what's wanted, when the facts are a little inconvenient - can be stamped and put aside. Achieve that far-flung locus, and you win.

    Except, of course, that the god-damned rabbit keeps prying up the boards. It's frustrating, isn't it? It's like that joke about the LA cops: a deer gets eaten by a bear in the woods. The FBI goes into the woods for two months, interviews everyone and finds no one responsible. The CIA investigates with a satellite and a Predator drone for three weeks, gives up and simply blows the shit out of the woods. No suspects found. The LA cops go into the woods for about twenty minutes and come out dragging a badly beaten rabbit, who shouts "OK! I'm a bear! I'm a bear!"

    Not a perfect parallel, but it gets the point across (and before anyone objects: see the start of the next paragraph). What's been happening is that certain parties have been trying to cram individuals on the forum into one pigeon-hole or another, with no success. You're going about the wrong way in trying to find a solution to the existence of bears, ladies and gentleman. And inevitably it looks cartoonish.

    But I absolutely adore the new rule idea: given my experience of some recent debates on here, it would be an incredibly satisfying system. No more pretending you're stupid. I can think of several discussions in which the simple application of a simple anti-simpleton rule would have turned substantially to my advantage and wasted so little of my time. The tiny flaw in the proposition - and Tiassa has raised other heads of this hydra before - is to decide who gets to decide who's playing dumb. In any normal world, I'd have little to fear, but on this forum, reason plays understudy to...not even ideology, since Tiassa claims he shares mine, but preconclusion. I'd be interested to see how you implement such a rule, given the debate that would run around such a decision (cue ominous post implying that just that will now occur, Geoooffff!); and that at no point will I be taking immoderate moderation lying down.

    You'll pardon my rhapsodical rant; Tiassa always brings out the best in me.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  19. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    This thread is like opening a (mormon) christmas gift and find 2 male grooms inside for the bride! The gift that backfired!
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    It is, kind of, isn't it?

    But then again, they all are.
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member


    If it were true that the use of the word Kaffir was ONLY as "non-Muslim" and carries with it NO negative connotations, then it should be a snap to find verses in the Qur'an were it says that Kaffirs are good, intelligent, loving people and that Muslims are in no way better human beings than Kaffirs and that actually some cases some Muslims are many times worse than some Kaffirs (Muslims murderers, rapist etc....).

    Does it say that in the Qur'an?

    Anyone who thinks that referring to Americans with an Arab cultural background as Sand-Niggers is "only a reference to their Arabic cultural back ground and is in now way a slure and misconstrued illogical asinine meme promoting Race hatred and Aryan ideals has their head completely up their ass.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We ARE now at the stage where we can start measuring physical change in the CNS of people exposed to memes like Kaffir in the Qur'an. It's still too expensive but in time it won't be. I actually can not wait until large statistical significant data can start being collected. I'm positive that we'll find 5-12% change in specific CNS nuclei in the children exposed to particular memes prevalent in the Qur'an, Bible and Torah and I hypothesize we'll find juxtapose changes in people exposed to certain Hindu and Buddhist memes.

    Exciting times

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Many White Bigots see their racism from the POV they're defending their race - no amount of logic is going to change this as the meme is actually physically wired into the CNS.
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
  22. Bells Staff Member


    I was planning on breaking down your response as per usual, but I am running out of time today and I probably won't be here for the rest of this week or possibly more. So I will make this quick.

    Do not worry Geoff. We are fast approaching the point where you will get exactly what you asked for and what you deserve.

    As for what rules you have broken. The exact same rule that was used to ban Chi, the exact same standard that was applied to Chi after your complaint. Welcome to the new world Geoff on this forum Geoff.

    You went after Chi and Sam because they are easy targets. You knew even the most stupid complaints would result in a ban and you got your wish. As I said, it is fast approaching the time where you will get what you want and what you and a select minority, deserve. We are lowering the bar to suit your standards. Well done.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    As somebody else pointed out, when it comes to insults, three things are potentially important:

    (a) the intent of the person delivering the language
    (b) the way the language is received and perceived by the recipient
    (c) the way the entire exchange is perceived by third parties who observe it

    Take a term like "nigga" (less-so "nigger"). Clearly addressing another person as "nigga" may be anything from a friendly overture to bile-spewing hatred, depending on the three factors above.

    Similarly, "pagan" may be merely a descriptive term (even self-descriptive in some instances), or it can be intended as an accusation with a hateful connotation.

    It seems to me that nobody would describe himself as "kaffir" under most circumstances, which suggests to me that if you use that word you're on shakey ground right from the word go.

    I have no intention of banning particular words on sciforums. But I will act every time on personal insults that come to my attention via reported posts. This is especially true where in the first instance the perpetrator has been asked directly to cease and desist yet stills persists with the unwelcome offensive behaviour.

    Really, I am quite surprised at the apparent difficult some people are having with coming to grips with what are quite obviously insults by intent, by perception and by effect.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page