Buce Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 39 minutes ago, MPH said: No offence but i'll take the dictionary over you.... race2 [reys] Spell Syllables noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. (no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions ofhumankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, andNegro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universalphysical characteristics. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especiallyformerly, based on any or a combination of various physicalcharacteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and nowfrequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. a socially constructed category of identification based on physicalcharacteristics, ancestry, historical affiliation, or shared culture: Her parents wanted her to marry within her race. a human population partially isolated reproductively from otherpopulations, whose members share a greater degree of physical andgenetic similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. Kind of makes his point, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 This is equally as deplorable as any other attack on innocent life - anyone trying to justify it as anything other is a prize bell. FFS - why can't we all just get along? Who has the time to be consumed with all of this hatred in our small insignificant time on this planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 1 hour ago, Countryfox said: I know what you're saying, but ... mine doesn't flush properly ... any ideas ?? You probably need to wait for it to rain, CF.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Looks like the attacker owes his life to the Imam of the Muslim Welfare House. How ironic. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/19/imam-praised-for-protecting-finsbury-park-suspect-from-crowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 35 minutes ago, Buce said: Kind of makes his point, really. It covers both, actually. If you can only pick out the information that he was referring to from that list then you have your own agenda. But what it does do is confirm that in the context of the the discussion we were having and the question i originally responded to, i was 100% accurate in my response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 1 hour ago, MPH said: 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic lineage: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. You are simultaneously proving my point and disproving yours. 4 and 5 could easily apply to muslims and as such an attack on Muslims could be considered racist, whilst they come from different backgrounds there is an inherent cultural link between all muslims. The modern usage of race has evolved from a scientific definition to include the ethnic and cultural groups that we seek to distinguish from others. 6 and 7 prove my point that from a scientific point of view there is no racial subspecies within the human race, we are all one. It is a bug bear of mine, that this word that should unite us has come to describe the actions of division and is actually just sowing more seeds of division. There is only one human race, these other definitions exist solely to divide us. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html Anyway, this is not the thread to argue semantics, read the link, think what you like, racism, prejudice, hate crimes, bigotry, whatever the label it is all disgusting and never more so when it leads to the loss of innocent lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 4 minutes ago, Captain... said: You are simultaneously proving my point and disproving yours. 4 and 5 could easily apply to muslims and as such an attack on Muslims could be considered racist, whilst they come from different backgrounds there is an inherent cultural link between all muslims. The modern usage of race has evolved from a scientific definition to include the ethnic and cultural groups that we seek to distinguish from others. 6 and 7 prove my point that from a scientific point of view there is no racial subspecies within the human race, we are all one. It is a bug bear of mine, that this word that should unite us has come to describe the actions of division and is actually just sowing more seeds of division. There is only one human race, these other definitions exist solely to divide us. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html Anyway, this is not the thread to argue semantics, read the link, think what you like, racism, prejudice, hate crimes, bigotry, whatever the label it is all disgusting and never more so when it leads to the loss of innocent lives. you clearly have your own agenda to prove and must be looking for an argument to remove the other points.. But shameful actually to be looking for an argument over a subject like this. but yeah lets just use a daily newspaper as our source for the accurate use of English and not the dictionary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 7 minutes ago, MPH said: It covers both, actually. If you can only pick out the information that he was referring to from that list then you have your own agenda. But what it does do is confirm that in the context of the the discussion we were having and the question i originally responded to, i was 100% accurate in my response. I have no agenda - it was you who introduced the dictionary to support your argument, which ultimately it didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 1 minute ago, MPH said: you clearly have your own agenda to prove and must be looking for an argument to remove the other points.. But shameful actually to be looking for an argument over a subject like this. but yeah lets just use a daily newspaper as our source for the accurate use of English and not the dictionary... Not looking for an argument, I only removed the other points because I try not to quote long posts, and they didn't seem relevant. The simple fact is an attack on muslims is classed as a racist attack, it can also be a terrorist attack, it can also be islamophobia and a hate crime. To state that muslims aren't a race because they come from different backgrounds and so it can't be a racist attack is wrong. The rest was just a personal bug bear of mine about how the language has evolved needlessly and causes division. I wasn't meaning to come across as argumentative, I probably should have thrown in a few smileys but it didn't seem appropriate in this thread. Not much to smile about at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Do we really need to use this thread to nitpick about semantics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 3 minutes ago, Buce said: I have no agenda - it was you who introduced the dictionary to support your argument, which ultimately it didn't. a human population partially isolated reproductively from otherpopulations, whose members share a greater degree of physical andgenetic similarity with one another than with other humans. you must be blind to come to that conclusiuon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 6 minutes ago, Finnegan said: Do we really need to use this thread to nitpick about semantics? This. That being said, at the very least this is a reasonably obvious hate crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fox Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Hate will only breed more hate, and an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind! People shouldn't hold this against any racial or religious group that the attacker belongs to (that being white by color or Jewish/Christian/Catholic by religion) I except that there will be those kind of people everywhere and pointing fingers at each other isn't helping. While they are plotting to murder more people, both parties effected are just deflecting the blame to look the "nicest" instead of standing together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 I was at work on the South Bank when the Westminster Bridge attack happened. I was in Southwark enjoying drinks with friends, 10 mins walk away during the London Bridge attack. But now this happens, literally at the end of the road I live on. I walk past the Welfare House on the way to and from Finsbury Park station twice a day. It's a fantastic area to live in, it's culturally diverse and friendly community and I've never, ever had any trouble whatsoever from anyone and it's shocking to have a terror attack take place on your own doorstep. It's interesting to see how the media have handled it, but make no mistake: sh*t-rags like the Mail or the Sun are vessels of hate & prejudice, and with c**ts like Tommy Robinson and Katy Hopkins still being given platforms to spew their bile; it's no wonder that we're seeing far-right radicalisation. They are no different to the hate preachers like Abu Hamza who used to spew his own bile just around the corner, that they are so quick to point out. Also... Strange to see that there's been no word from the great leader of our free world, either? Seems he cares about terror only when the culprits - not the victims - are Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 14 minutes ago, the fox said: Hate will only breed more hate, and an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind! Half blind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 4 minutes ago, RoboFox said: It's interesting to see how the media have handled it, but make no mistake: sh*t-rags like the Mail or the Sun are vessels of hate & prejudice, and with c**ts like Tommy Robinson and Katy Hopkins still being given platforms to spew their bile; it's no wonder that we're seeing far-right radicalisation. They are no different to the hate preachers like Abu Hamza who used to spew his own bile just around the corner, that they are so quick to point out. They are very different, you might not like Hopkins and Robinson but I don't think they have ever called for innocent people to be killed or tried to justify or legitimise terrorist attacks on any basis. Let's not lose our minds over this. Finsbury Park Mosque got away with what should have been some serious questioning over why Abu Hamza preached there for so long but those are now in the past and not for a day like today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 19 minutes ago, Captain... said: Not looking for an argument, I only removed the other points because I try not to quote long posts, and they didn't seem relevant. The simple fact is an attack on muslims is classed as a racist attack, it can also be a terrorist attack, it can also be islamophobia and a hate crime. To state that muslims aren't a race because they come from different backgrounds and so it can't be a racist attack is wrong. The rest was just a personal bug bear of mine about how the language has evolved needlessly and causes division. I wasn't meaning to come across as argumentative, I probably should have thrown in a few smileys but it didn't seem appropriate in this thread. Not much to smile about at the moment. No i never said Muslims are not a race, i said they come from several different races and i used the dictionary to explain why - in response to why someone was questioning the reason for it being considered a terrorist attack and not a race attack. And again, i wasn't saying it was not a racist attack and couldn't be considered one, but was tryiong to explain why its considered a terroist attack. Part of the problem really is that the government are damned if they do and damned if they dont... If they call something a terrorist attack that targets people of different nationalities on London bridge but refuse to call something a terroist attack that attacks Muslims from different nationalities at a Mosuqe then there's a chance people will complian. And you're right, not much to smile about at the moment and i really didnt want to take this thread off topic over whats really just splitting hairs on the many definitions and contexts of the word 'Race' so i'll just leave it there and finish with what is quite a heart warming story for me... a quote from the Finsbury park Mosque Imam " We arrived at the scene within minutes and we found the assailant on the floor. He had been restrained by around three people. We found a group of people quickly started to collect around the assailant. And some tried to hit him, either kicks or punches. By God’s grace we manage to surround him and to protect him from any harm. We stopped all forms of attack and abuse towards him that were coming from every angle. A police van drove past so we flagged them down we told them the situation. There’s a man he’s restrained. He mowed down a group of people and there’s a mob attempting to hurt him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 5 minutes ago, MattP said: They are very different, you might not like Hopkins and Robinson but I don't think they have ever called for innocent people to be killed or tried to justify or legitimise terrorist attacks on any basis. Let's not lose our minds over this. Finsbury Park Mosque got away with what should have been some serious questioning over why Abu Hamza preached there for so long but those are now in the past and not for a day like today. Hopkins advocated sinking boats full of refugees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11550357/Katie-Hopkins-I-would-use-gunships-against-migrants-boats.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 31 minutes ago, Finnegan said: Do we really need to use this thread to nitpick about semantics? Should 'nitpick' be hyphenated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Should 'nitpick' be hyphenated? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Awful attack, I can't understand why people would do such a thing to innocent people........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 10 minutes ago, Buce said: Hopkins advocated sinking boats full of refugees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11550357/Katie-Hopkins-I-would-use-gunships-against-migrants-boats.html She didn't. Read the article. "Would tow the boats back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Why even bother quoting Katie Hopkins? She's just a professional troll that's only famous because people like to be outraged. Taking her alleged opinion (I'm pretty sure she subscribes to the Adrian Durham policy of not actually giving her own opinion, just the opinion she thinks is the most offensive) on something seriously is like expecting Jeremy Clarkson's columns to be insightful and intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 19 June 2017 Share Posted 19 June 2017 Quoting / using KH as a source for anything instantly diminishes credibility to zero. She is a professional troll - nothing that exits her mouth should be taken seriously. Unfortunately there are lots of very simple people out there who actually buy into her awful rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.