The best defense is a good offense
I blotted out the k-word on review of Fraggle's post: he's got a point, I think. Probably bloody spider crawly-thingies everywhere.
Oh I don't know James, last time someone called saw it as being "cleverly constructed shit", it all became twisted.
Slightly misconstrued there; as an example of twisting, your interpretation was well-suited.
But I am a k***r. By every sense of the word. Are you offended on my behalf if I call myself a k***r?
Nope. I think you're being foolish if you think it's so innocuous. Are you offended if I'm offended at being called one? (Apparently, you are.) Can I decide if terms offend me? Am I allowed to think them offensive?
There there.. it's alright. The big bad Muslim fellow is gone now. He cannot hurt you no more..
Unfortunately, there is an entire body of other - as you admit - extremists who like the term, and more importantly the supremacist ideas behind it, quite well.
No no, let's have some plausible discussion about the issue, since it is you that has introduced it. You claim the term is not offensive, but imply that Chi was defending himself or the like by using it. So, clearly it has negative connotations. Should I be attacked with it, since I have presumably attacked Chi? If the latter, how the former?
By its very original definition, you are a k***r.
I suppose I should point out that we were all asked not to actually
use the term?
I am a k***r by the use of it in South Africa and by its religious connotation.
But not the same kind; a not insignificant distinction.
But it very much does scan.
A Muslim refers to you as a K***r and you take offence. A non-Muslim refers to you by the exact same term and you treat it as a joke.
So is it the word that offends you or its point of origination?
I see you have not read my post. I will simply repost the response for your purview. Let me know when you've read it.
Geoff said:
The other little trick in the can is that I don't take gustav particularly seriously, even though I respect his views and his comments. And I can assure you, at some point or other I'd decide that gustav had gone "far enough"; but you also have to understand that Gustav isn't an Islamic supremacist - whereas Chi, as you admit, is - and so the insult coming from him isn't terribly troubling. It's like an atheist calling me a heathen - a curiosity, certainly, but not much of a meaningful attack. You're attempting to try and play a racist card, but it's one that, as usual, doesn't wash.
I think you need to make that clear, lest some unwary Muslim member sees you joking about it with Gustav and mistakenly calls you that and you report him for insulting you.
Fortunately, I have done so! Fear no longer. Your penchant for forum justice will surely be sated.
So you would not be offended if a non-devout Muslim referred to you as such?
Depends on usage, Bells. As a lawyer, I assume you are familiar with the concept of
intent?
I appreciate, as I have for some time, that you have little compunction about insulting me: I would go so far as to say that you have little hesitation in assigning negative personality traits to me at opportunity. I suppose I should give your opinion as a human being some value: yet I expect a little more than snide comments from someone in your position. I have given you my honest opinion: you have turned this into personal attack. Should I be surprised, somehow?
I always assumed Chi was a Jew of some sort or other.
Chi is very much a supremacist, but is he an Islamic supremacist?
Your protestation that you don't know his predilections is not only believable, but not relevant. His philosophical bent - and, thereby, his meaning, in conjunction with his other comments - is not really in question.
I'll put you in our prayers.
