Well, I did read all your words. That's why I used equivocate: because I figured you were probably either messing about, or planning on sliding out of it somewhere.
Can we get back on the discussion now, or is the reading plan more English 101?
James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
- Status
Well, I did read all your words. That's why I used equivocate: because I figured you were probably either messing about, or planning on sliding out of it somewhere.
Can we get back on the discussion now, or is the reading plan more English 101?
Yes let us return to well thought out arguments like "cleverly constructed shit" - its in English so it can't possibly be considered offensive.
Do carry on
Ooh - a new digression? Sorry: when is all this considered trolling, anyway?
Actually, to be fair, I don't honestly see the point of continuing the OP subject. You can't or won't accept my arguments, and you can't refute them, so far as I can tell, and there appears to be a pretty authoritative argument from my side. Anything left to do?
Gee. You'll use a neutral term instead of a loaded, offensive one. I really bent your back over, eh? Darth Maududi will not be pleased; but, I suppose I see some of the philosophical area you share with him.
I also remind you that contempt is more effectively delivered from a position above your target; and sheer hubris will not carry you that high.
Bonsoir.
I also remind you that contempt is more effectively delivered from a position above your target; and sheer hubris will not carry you that high.
Bonsoir.
Bells
Staff member
Nefarious spellings?
AHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Jesus fucking wept, you're getting worse.
Kaffir is not an offensive term.
Tell me, if you actually met a Kaffir, would you scream in horror and tell them they were offensive? Have you ever been to a Thai restaurant? Do you get all huffy and puffy and tell them that they are offending you for daring to use such a "nefarious" term on their menu?
Do you even have a slight comprehension of just how silly you are being about this?
You're a kaffir. You're not a Muslim and therefore, you are a Kaffir. Just as I am a kaffir because I am not a Muslim and a non-believer.
It can only be deemed discriminatory if you were a black man, which you are not.
Otherwise, its meaning is non-believer of the Muslim faith.. Are you so conceited that you expect Arab speaking people to alter their language to suit your sensitivities? Is this how you respect the different languages and cultures of others?
What? Because it's not in English, it is suddenly offensive to you?
I am concerned that as a result of your hysteria about a god damn word that you are the cause of words being banned from this forum. That your hysteria about being told you are viewed as a Kaffir (non-Muslim) by a wannabe Muslim on this forum, that others are now being banned for using a word that isn't offensive at all. I am concerned that you have clearly stated that you only find it offensive if it is used by devout Muslims and that this is apparently acceptable.
Well we've had people making excuses for you as to why it may have been offensive to you. How are you offended by being refered to as a non-Muslim using the original Arabic word for it.
Are you offended by Arabic words? Are you offended that Arabs use their language on this forum like you use your first language on this forum? Are you offended that you were refered to as something you have often and repeatedly called yourself on this forum?
How was Chi saying you are a kaffir discriminatory to you Geoff? How were you discriminated against?
Since you have set the standard that only English is acceptable on this forum as the use of other languages is offensive, I find your snide manner of asking me a question in French to be highly offensive.
I forget.
Only non devout Muslims are allowed to be sarcastic when using the term on this forum. If a Muslim dares to be devout to their faith, then they are automatically offensive, correct?
Ah, classic disingenous Geoff with his brand of intellectual dishonesty rides yet again.
Unless you're a black African, I really do not see how it can be discriminatory towards you Geoff.
1 + 1 = 3?
Would it be reasonable for me to say that you rape children or condone raping children because you are a Catholic? Or would that be a bit of a leap?
And I think it is hysterical responses from those like you that result in even innocent words suddenly becoming dirty and 'insulting'.
You stated yourself, clearly and explicitly that it was offensive to you because it was typed by a devout Muslim.
So good luck with the slander accusation.
His intent was clearly to refer to you as a non-Muslim.
So you agree that Gustav's ban was not required since his use was meant to be comical or absurd and kind of pointless? Oh, that's right, because he's not a devout Muslim.
But Chi, a Jewish man you deemed to be a devout Muslim meant it from a religious sense.. ERmm how were you religiously discriminated against again?
The moderators Geoff.
You see, we are here to protect you when you hysterically claim that people are being mean to you because they said you were not a Muslim.
He attacked you and James?
By saying that you are both non-Muslims?
AHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Your posts and your use of the word were clear enough.
Which "group"? Muslims who pray 5 times a day?
Not at all.
Please be careful what words you use in your conversations with Geoff. He finds offense in many things and the last thing I want is to see words like "alien" and "abduction" being banned because it is being spoken by a devout Muslim and thus, is automatically insulting.Sam said:
Also, do not be mean to the dear man. He is very sensitive and thus requires that we treat him as the special Geoff he is.
Not to worry "Geoff the non-Muslim", I believe in giving people exactly what they ask for.
Indeed, and a la Maududi I do not intend to forget "GeoffP the non-Muslim's" arguments re: the "mosque" ie community center in New York [for all Americans, but run by American Muslims] which ran along the lines of I have nothing against blacks and mexicans I just don't want them in my neighborhood This oh so high position of his from where his well reasoned arguments on the "cleverly constructed shit" of Muslims will come floating to the top of the pool
Last edited:
Sorry, but it is. As I said, even Muslim religious commentators feel much the same. It's something to be got away from.
Fascinating: how would a sudden, unexplained revulsion at meeting a non-Muslim factor into your argument about the offensiveness of the word being applied to non-Muslims as now interpreted. Or how would I connect the offensiveness of this term with their being offensive, in some completely obscure way? Come on, Bells.
Well, I suppose you're at liberty to self-identify that way if you absolutely must. I disagree, and I object to the term.
Look: here's the thing. I get why you're pissed. Chi got a ban. Hey, I'm sorry about that - well, somewhat, because I think it was justified - or at least I'm sorry you feel bad about it. But the guy is a flake and the word is offensive; and Chi's usage was offensive.
Because using the words "pagan" and "heretic" to describe non-Christian faiths is a meme we need to stick with? Am I now expecting English to alter it's language to suit my sensibilities? No: lots of others feel the same. Come on.
How does this even follow?
I ignored the parts about "making excuses" and the other issues you were trying to drag into this, because "making excuses" is a little too subjective and because the other stuff has been gone over ad nauseam.
No, only by straw men.
Oh? Was that my point? Maybe you should re-read my comment.
Wait: so you think that the use of such a word is an expression of devotion in the Islamic faith? This is a very myopic view. I've already explained the issue about "devout" previously. Come on, Bells, this is trolling. Enough already.
Actually, I quoted two sentences in there, Bells. Tell me which one I consider insulting or belittling. Your chances are 50:50, a priori.
This is also kind of trolling again. I mean, it's pretty clear you know which word we're actually discussing.
Well, that parallel is an impressive enough leap, actually.
Actually, 'devout' and 'extremist' don't overlap completely, Bells: that Gustav isn't a 'devout' Muslim was merely a first pass, which is what I intended. The second is that he would have to be an extremist. I would make little sense for someone to use a term implying their religious superiority without actually belonging to that religion. I hope this is clear.
It was more accusatory, sorry.
Non sequitur. Sorry: what have I to do with Gustav's ban, anyway? What part of this are you trying to argue?
So you're speaking for all the moderators now? Or some of them? Or just you?
Well, the above is more and more outlandish, and also completely disingenuous. Every time we start discussing an issue, you appear to start becoming hysterical. I'm trying to be fair with you, and what I get is insult, radical tangents, trolling and straw men so huge that the organizers of the Burning Man festival would be shamed into submission. You're turning this into a massive flamewar, yet I'm being completely frank and honest and fair with you.
I expect you won't consider anything I'm saying for more than a moment, but I really am trying to have a decent discussion about this.
Rather, what you prefer to think they ask for. A la Maulana, peut-etre.
I knows! I'm struggling against cogent, well-thought-out arguments.
Also, Sam and Bells are here.
I'm sorry - is that English? Because there is an Arabic word called maulana which means our lord and master
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawlānā
Please use only English so we are clear which language it is you are misrepresenting
As in "I will make the filthy unbelievers pay"?
Trolling and false association, apparently.
So, ad hominem, trolling, straw men, red herrings and non sequitur are your full repertoire?
On second thought, that's actually a pretty full toolbox, really.
There is no "false association" in an anti-Muslim bigot misrepresenting a community center as a mosque and citing "community sentiments" in his desire to oppose having it built. As you pointed out, when one is a bigot, even seemingly moderate statements should be suspect, ne c'est pas? <-- thats French not Arabic and has no association with ANY Muslims
Not surprising to hear such sentiments from an American though, since it is now the ROE of Americans to put Muslims in prison sorry, Communication Management Units for being too devout. As if it were not sufficient that they were killing and torturing them on a global basis anyway
Whoa. Daisy Khan is an anti-Muslim bigot? Okay.
And what are the "community sentiments" founded on? Their worry that the guy running the place might be a freak? Well, they solved that. They got a bigger freak to run it. So, problem solved.
However, you just represented me as a bigot again.
Sorry, I missed the point where having a mosque being seen as a "problem" does not constitute bigotry against Muslims. Because it is bigotry to oppose the construction of a mosque as well. So framing the argument that the center is a mosque as though that justifies the opposition to it, is just additional evidence of your bigotry.
Sam, you also proposed that it wasn't a mosque. I disagree. That's a proposition. I felt bound to comment on it. Sorry.
The suspicion is that it's being run by a guy with some non-liberal sentiments. I've already stated that I'd have no problem with a guy like Suleyman Schwartz or Zuhdi Jasser running it, because they're leery of the idea also; they get the sensitivity angle, too, which is considerate.
So while I consider the site insensitive - it would be like putting up a church at the site of a massacre of natives within some reasonable time frame after the massacre, even if the church wasn't associated with the massacre itself. I'd consider that particularly insensitive. So in fact by being merely skeptical on that issue, I'm actually being generous in my disagreement. In point of fact it doesn't really matter whether it's a mosque or a centre, since Saudi money and vicious religious teachings don't much care; but that Rauf denies it after Daisy claimed it is weird and suspicious.
Now, of course, the centre/mosque complex has a whole new and even freakier guy, which kind of supports some of my suspicions. So: sorry if you disagree, but it's not the way you're painting it, and you can't get there from here.
However, that was a second slanderous allegation.
The suspicion is that it's being run by a guy with some non-liberal sentiments. I've already stated that I'd have no problem with a guy like Suleyman Schwartz or Zuhdi Jasser running it, because they're leery of the idea also; they get the sensitivity angle, too, which is considerate.
So while I consider the site insensitive - it would be like putting up a church at the site of a massacre of natives within some reasonable time frame after the massacre, even if the church wasn't associated with the massacre itself. I'd consider that particularly insensitive. So in fact by being merely skeptical on that issue, I'm actually being generous in my disagreement. In point of fact it doesn't really matter whether it's a mosque or a centre, since Saudi money and vicious religious teachings don't much care; but that Rauf denies it after Daisy claimed it is weird and suspicious.
Now, of course, the centre/mosque complex has a whole new and even freakier guy, which kind of supports some of my suspicions. So: sorry if you disagree, but it's not the way you're painting it, and you can't get there from here.
However, that was a second slanderous allegation.
Do carry on. Do you also oppose synagogues by the Haredim? What about churches run by conservative Christians? Are they allowed to worship or should religious conservative Jews and Christians also be imprisoned because of their beliefs? You might want to take another look at Maududis opinions, I think the two of you will find much in common with each other
- Status