Journalism is ruining Politics

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 3:05 PM............................But the problem with Muslim peadophiles is Veronica which is obvious to me is that they the Muslim peadophiles 99% of the time specifically target not just any young girls but white young girls which makes the abuse they inflict on innocent children a little different in my book ... Its a little like saying Catholic Priest abuses boy , well why do we need to say Catholic Priest ? we don't say mechanic or engineer abuses boy do we ? ... Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ? ... The description is used time and again to the victims ... Its a little like saying in-breeding isn't a problem with Muslims or high criminality when the truth tells a different story ... The info is easy to find just possibly not in The Guardian

Well, I guess it had to get around to Muslims and paedophiles at some stage! :-)

 

Yes, there is a religious and racial connotation to those crimes. However, because some Asian Muslim men abused young, vulnerable, white, British girls, it does not follow that all Asian Muslim men do this. You say above "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?" No recognition of the fact that this is not a crime unique to Muslims, Asians - or any other identifiable group (except men). The truth is that it was those Muslim men who did that, not, as you seem to imply, that all Muslim men do so. In that sentence you omitted to mention that they were Asian, so broaden the claim to include all Muslims of whatever ethnicity. I don't know if that was deliberate, but it seems to me even more unfair.

 

I've argued before that these things can be discussed openly, without being shouted down by the so-called "PC brigade", providing one is very careful to use language with care, sensitivity, and precision. It is a an obvious minefield, and in a minefield one has to tread with great care.

 

That is how the allegations of bigotry, or racism, or whatever, originate. It is because what is written is open to interpretation by everyone who reads it, and some identify those traits in what they read, and are offended. If what people understand when they read is not what the writer intended, the writer needs to clarify his meaning. In truth, if the communication goes wrong it is no good blaming the audience, it is the communicator who is at fault. I think that is really what Stuart is on about regarding the media. He sees an excess of PC censorship and political bias in what is published. So, I expect, do you and I, though I doubt we'd all agree on where the middle ground and fair comment lies. So, one person's PC censorship or political bias becomes someone else's appropriate restraint, or fair comment. Good thing we're not all the same, isn't it? How dull it would be. :-D

[pepe63xnotuse]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 5:00 PM

 

Well, I guess it had to get around to Muslims and paedophiles at some stage! :-)

 

 

Antony hasn't posted for a while, so it did take a couple of posts for him to get back up to speed....

 

Brian, I think you are being charitable with your "open to interruption" approach but as I've said before If something does little else but repeatedly quack like a duck; and seemingly relishes doing so, then it's only got itself to blame when others start to refer it as a duck.

 

 

[antony1969]

pepe63 - 2017-07-18 5:22 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 5:00 PM

 

Well, I guess it had to get around to Muslims and paedophiles at some stage! :-)

 

 

Antony hasn't posted for a while, so it did take a couple of posts for him to get back up to speed....

 

Brian, I think you are being charitable with your "open to interruption" approach but as I've said before If something does little else but repeatedly quack like a duck; and seemingly relishes doing so, then it's only got itself to blame when others start to refer it as a duck.

 

 

Quackers ... Absolutely quackers ... Funny how some are happy to forever talk about Brexit , The Tories , Labour and so on and so on but mention Muslims and your public enemy numero uno ... I presume the site still has moderators ? ... If I am doing something wrong them I am sure I would be informed by those who run the site if not ignore my posts ... Really is that simple , I do it with Johns Royal Family posts or Bullets obsession with POTUS Trump

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-18 5:00 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 3:05 PM............................But the problem with Muslim peadophiles is Veronica which is obvious to me is that they the Muslim peadophiles 99% of the time specifically target not just any young girls but white young girls which makes the abuse they inflict on innocent children a little different in my book ... Its a little like saying Catholic Priest abuses boy , well why do we need to say Catholic Priest ? we don't say mechanic or engineer abuses boy do we ? ... Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ? ... The description is used time and again to the victims ... Its a little like saying in-breeding isn't a problem with Muslims or high criminality when the truth tells a different story ... The info is easy to find just possibly not in The Guardian

Well, I guess it had to get around to Muslims and paedophiles at some stage! :-)

 

Yes, there is a religious and racial connotation to those crimes. However, because some Asian Muslim men abused young, vulnerable, white, British girls, it does not follow that all Asian Muslim men do this. You say above "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?" No recognition of the fact that this is not a crime unique to Muslims, Asians - or any other identifiable group (except men). The truth is that it was those Muslim men who did that, not, as you seem to imply, that all Muslim men do so. In that sentence you omitted to mention that they were Asian, so broaden the claim to include all Muslims of whatever ethnicity. I don't know if that was deliberate, but it seems to me even more unfair.

 

I've argued before that these things can be discussed openly, without being shouted down by the so-called "PC brigade", providing one is very careful to use language with care, sensitivity, and precision. It is a an obvious minefield, and in a minefield one has to tread with great care.

 

That is how the allegations of bigotry, or racism, or whatever, originate. It is because what is written is open to interpretation by everyone who reads it, and some identify those traits in what they read, and are offended. If what people understand when they read is not what the writer intended, the writer needs to clarify his meaning. In truth, if the communication goes wrong it is no good blaming the audience, it is the communicator who is at fault. I think that is really what Stuart is on about regarding the media. He sees an excess of PC censorship and political bias in what is published. So, I expect, do you and I, though I doubt we'd all agree on where the middle ground and fair comment lies. So, one person's PC censorship or political bias becomes someone else's appropriate restraint, or fair comment. Good thing we're not all the same, isn't it? How dull it would be. :-D

 

Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 6:35 AM

StuartO - 2017-07-18 12:39 PM ...What I'm annoyed by is people who have become almost professional complainers, keen to pick up any and every politically incorrect thing, often as a way of riding their hobby horse issue and lacking any respect for other peoples' right to an opinion.

Sorry Stuart, but can't resist. Pot and kettle? :-D

 

Don't follow.  Are you saying that challenging an opinion (as irrational, invalid, whatever ...) amounts to lack of respect for the opionator's right to have that opinion?

 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-07-19 8:04 AM

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 6:35 AM

StuartO - 2017-07-18 12:39 PM ...What I'm annoyed by is people who have become almost professional complainers, keen to pick up any and every politically incorrect thing, often as a way of riding their hobby horse issue and lacking any respect for other peoples' right to an opinion.

Sorry Stuart, but can't resist. Pot and kettle? :-D

 

Don't follow.  Are you saying that challenging an opinion (as irrational, invalid, whatever ...) amounts to lack of respect for the opionator's right to have that opinion?

No, just that it seems to me to put both in roughly the same place! :-) It's the same general argument as I have with Antony. You wouldn't crack Irish jokes in an Irish bar for fear of the consequences. Why then would it be OK to crack them in a English bar, where they might offend the odd Irish customer?I appreciate that your main point is not dodgy jokes, but honest reportage being neutered by omission of topics that may offend some, and to some extent I agree with that. But, if people refrain from drawing conclusions based on chop-logic, and express their opinions with due care and sensitivity, it should be possible to report, or comment upon, any topic without being shouted down. Anyone commenting on contentious issues must expect some backlash - it is an inevitable risk. However, unless the backlash becomes a crescendo of disapproval from all sides, the backlash doesn't indicate that a serious transgression has been made. It is just imperative to strike the right balance.Taking the Bradford and Halifax paedophile ring as an example, although there was clearly a disgraceful failure to take the girls' claims of abuse seriously at all levels, and to draw a veil over the issue, once the truth came out in court it was very widely reported in all media. Too little too late, of course, but the topic itself wasn't brushed under the carpet, and the case has prompted a lot of (I think rather overdue) soul-searching among decent members of both the ethnic, and religious, groups from which the offenders came.The problem with investigative journalism, the absence of which I also rue, is that it is time consuming and risky, and consequently costly, and only the increasingly struggling broadsheets, mainly the Sunday's, ever really indulged. They are now finding their sales falling, and can't find viable ways to replace the lost revenue, because people are increasingly turning to free instant media sources for their news. As I understand it, it is the free instant media that is making proper investigative journalism disappear, and it seems that trend will continue. It is authenticated news vs alternative news, and the alternative news is winning. In an age of alternative news-fed populism, how does democracy, which is based on people exercising informed choice, survive? Blowed if I know!

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

 

Nice try Antony ;-)

 

How about this one then “Yorkshiremen specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?” -oops I forgot to put “some” in front of Yorkshiremen (of which Peter Sutcliffe was a prime example as well as those notorious child abusers in Rotherham elsewhere). Offended yet?

 

My conscience tells me that you would be due a retraction had I written that. Go on -have the good grace to do the same rather then wriggle like a worm on a hook.

 

Veronica

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:00 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

 

Nice try Antony ;-)

 

How about this one then “Yorkshiremen specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?” -oops I forgot to put “some” in front of Yorkshiremen (of which Peter Sutcliffe was a prime example as well as those notorious child abusers in Rotherham elsewhere). Offended yet?

 

My conscience tells me that you would be due a retraction had I written that. Go on -have the good grace to do the same rather then wriggle like a worm on a hook.

 

Veronica

 

So I think all Muslim men are peadophiles ? ... Is that what your honestly saying ... I presume I believe all Muslims are terrorists too ? ... I dislike the religion and the vile rubbish it spews but to suggest I believe half the Muslim population of 1.6 billion are peadophiles because I didn't put some is utterly bonkers

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 1:13 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:00 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

 

Nice try Antony ;-)

 

How about this one then “Yorkshiremen specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?” -oops I forgot to put “some” in front of Yorkshiremen (of which Peter Sutcliffe was a prime example as well as those notorious child abusers in Rotherham elsewhere). Offended yet?

 

My conscience tells me that you would be due a retraction had I written that. Go on -have the good grace to do the same rather then wriggle like a worm on a hook.

 

Veronica

 

So I think all Muslim men are peadophiles ? ... Is that what your honestly saying ... I presume I believe all Muslims are terrorists too ? ... I dislike the religion and the vile rubbish it spews but to suggest I believe half the Muslim population of 1.6 billion are peadophiles because I didn't put some is utterly bonkers

 

No Antony I didn't say that did I? If you have written something that is so loosely and carelessly expressed that it is quite obviously offensive whether it was intended to be or not then do the decent thing and retract it.

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:22 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 1:13 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:00 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

 

Nice try Antony ;-)

 

How about this one then “Yorkshiremen specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?” -oops I forgot to put “some” in front of Yorkshiremen (of which Peter Sutcliffe was a prime example as well as those notorious child abusers in Rotherham elsewhere). Offended yet?

 

My conscience tells me that you would be due a retraction had I written that. Go on -have the good grace to do the same rather then wriggle like a worm on a hook.

 

Veronica

 

So I think all Muslim men are peadophiles ? ... Is that what your honestly saying ... I presume I believe all Muslims are terrorists too ? ... I dislike the religion and the vile rubbish it spews but to suggest I believe half the Muslim population of 1.6 billion are peadophiles because I didn't put some is utterly bonkers

 

No Antony I didn't say that did I? If you have written something that is so loosely and carelessly expressed that it is quite obviously offensive whether it was intended to be or not then do the decent thing and retract it.

 

Its what your insinuating I meant Veronica ... Utter bonkers and I'll retract nothing ... If you and Brian believe I meant all Muslims are peadophiles then I presume you quite literally think I mean all 1.6 billion of em as I never initially said male or female or old or young ... Crazy

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 1:32 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:22 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 1:13 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:00 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

 

Nice try Antony ;-)

 

How about this one then “Yorkshiremen specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?” -oops I forgot to put “some” in front of Yorkshiremen (of which Peter Sutcliffe was a prime example as well as those notorious child abusers in Rotherham elsewhere). Offended yet?

 

My conscience tells me that you would be due a retraction had I written that. Go on -have the good grace to do the same rather then wriggle like a worm on a hook.

 

Veronica

 

 

So I think all Muslim men are peadophiles ? ... Is that what your honestly saying ... I presume I believe all Muslims are terrorists too ? ... I dislike the religion and the vile rubbish it spews but to suggest I believe half the Muslim population of 1.6 billion are peadophiles because I didn't put some is utterly bonkers

 

No Antony I didn't say that did I? If you have written something that is so loosely and carelessly expressed that it is quite obviously offensive whether it was intended to be or not then do the decent thing and retract it.

 

Its what your insinuating I meant Veronica ... Utter bonkers and I'll retract nothing ... If you and Brian believe I meant all Muslims are peadophiles then I presume you quite literally think I mean all 1.6 billion of em as I never initially said male or female or old or young ... Crazy

 

Antony I hope that I have never insinuated or directly expressed anything that amounts to a personal attack on you or given an erroneous representation of your beliefs about Muslims or anyone or anything. My only point is that on this occasion you expressed your views in a slapdash and inappropriate way. That sounds harsh but I am not saying that I am not also guilty of that from time to time. When it is pointed out that a comment is inappropriate for any reason then a “mea culpa” from the person who posted the comment helps to restore some civility to our debates. Brian has already provided an exposition of what was wrong with the phrase you used better than I have. Although this is a public forum with a limited audience there are still standards to be observed about how we express our views. I will continue to listen to and give all that you have to say due consideration in light of your particular knowledge and experience. We really don't need to fall out about this and if anything I have said has caused you offence then I am sorry.

 

Veronica

 

 

 

[RogerC]

Common sense and a degree of latitude would clearly allow the reader of the post that appears to have got Brian and Veronica into a twisted knickers state to understand and accept that Anthony 'clearly' did not mean or insinuate 'all' muslim men.  Unfortunately it appears to me at least that both have an element of pedantry in their reading of the post that has brought about this unwarranted accusation.  

Cut the guy some slack people.....knot everwun kan writ in prefek engerlish u no.  :-)-

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 3:38 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 1:32 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:22 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 1:13 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-07-19 1:00 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 11:41 AM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-18 7:37 PM..........................Please show me where I have implied or openly said that all Muslim men are peadophiles because if you can't then your put down comment is exactly what I am on about

Apologies Antony, but here: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they ?" How else is that statement to be understood?

 

It doesn't say some Muslim men. It doesn't say some Asian Muslim men. That is all I'm trying to explain. Whether you mean to or not, you are implying that all Muslim men, from wherever, see young white girls in that way. It is just a huge, sweeping, indiscriminate, generalisation against Muslims (and by implication Muslim men) in general.

 

Is it then surprising if readers take that just as it is written, conclude that the author is prejudiced against that religion or ethnic group, and say so in equally blunt terms? If you happened to be a Muslim motorhomer reading this forum, how would react to reading that?

 

But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

 

Nice try Antony ;-)

 

How about this one then “Yorkshiremen specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?” -oops I forgot to put “some” in front of Yorkshiremen (of which Peter Sutcliffe was a prime example as well as those notorious child abusers in Rotherham elsewhere). Offended yet?

 

My conscience tells me that you would be due a retraction had I written that. Go on -have the good grace to do the same rather then wriggle like a worm on a hook.

 

Veronica

 

 

So I think all Muslim men are peadophiles ? ... Is that what your honestly saying ... I presume I believe all Muslims are terrorists too ? ... I dislike the religion and the vile rubbish it spews but to suggest I believe half the Muslim population of 1.6 billion are peadophiles because I didn't put some is utterly bonkers

 

No Antony I didn't say that did I? If you have written something that is so loosely and carelessly expressed that it is quite obviously offensive whether it was intended to be or not then do the decent thing and retract it.

 

Its what your insinuating I meant Veronica ... Utter bonkers and I'll retract nothing ... If you and Brian believe I meant all Muslims are peadophiles then I presume you quite literally think I mean all 1.6 billion of em as I never initially said male or female or old or young ... Crazy

 

Antony I hope that I have never insinuated or directly expressed anything that amounts to a personal attack on you or given an erroneous representation of your beliefs about Muslims or anyone or anything. My only point is that on this occasion you expressed your views in a slapdash and inappropriate way. That sounds harsh but I am not saying that I am not also guilty of that from time to time. When it is pointed out that a comment is inappropriate for any reason then a “mea culpa” from the person who posted the comment helps to restore some civility to our debates. Brian has already provided an exposition of what was wrong with the phrase you used better than I have. Although this is a public forum with a limited audience there are still standards to be observed about how we express our views. I will continue to listen to and give all that you have to say due consideration in light of your particular knowledge and experience. We really don't need to fall out about this and if anything I have said has caused you offence then I am sorry.

 

Veronica

 

 

 

Falling outs for families Veronica and certainly not with your good self or Brian ... As I say I didn't originally put the word some in front of anything , wether that be some male Muslims , some female Muslims , some gay Muslims ... Yours and Brians argument means that I meant the whole of the 1.6 billion Muslim population and that surely is bordering on the ridiculous ... Thankyou Roger for your kind words , made me cry

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM....................But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

But the omission of "all" wasn't my point. It would in any case be irrelevant, because what you said was just "Muslim men". "Muslim men" excludes no-one: it automatically includes all who are a) Muslim, and b) men, which was my point. They are all included, irrespective of race or colour. The chief prosecutor for the CPS, who brought these cases to court, is also a Muslim man. Muslim men therefore includes him. That, IMO, is beyond unreasonable. That is what I mean.

 

And to Roger's point I would just say this. Yes I am being is pedantic, because English is pedantic. With my apologies to Antony for talking about, rather than to, him, he frequently makes such sweeping generalisations where certain topics arise, and not infrequently introduces those topics to discussions, such as this one, where they were not previously "front and centre" of the discussion. Those sweeping generalisations frequently unleash trenchant responses, to which Antony then objects, claiming he is being unfairly accused of having base motives.

 

So far as I am concerned, the "slack" was cut a long time ago. Confucius is supposed to have said (among many things! :-)) "it is not shameful for a man to trip over a stone, but for a man to trip over the same stone twice is unpardonable", or some such. The more often such generalisations are made, and are questioned, the more difficult it becomes to accept that they may be accidental.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 4:22 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 11:51 AM....................But if I had meant all Muslim men wouldn't I have simply put all Muslim men ? ... Had I meant all young white girls I surely would have put all young white girls ? ... Sorry but I expect a little better than that from you

But the omission of "all" wasn't my point. It would in any case be irrelevant, because what you said was just "Muslim men". "Muslim men" excludes no-one: it automatically includes all who are a) Muslim, and b) men, which was my point. They are all included, irrespective of race or colour. The chief prosecutor for the CPS, who brought these cases to court, is also a Muslim man. Muslim men therefore includes him. That, IMO, is beyond unreasonable. That is what I mean.

 

And to Roger's point I would just say this. Yes I am being is pedantic, because English is pedantic. With my apologies to Antony for talking about, rather than to, him, he frequently makes such sweeping generalisations where certain topics arise, and not infrequently introduces those topics to discussions, such as this one, where they were not previously "front and centre" of the discussion. Those sweeping generalisations frequently unleash trenchant responses, to which Antony then objects, claiming he is being unfairly accused of having base motives.

 

So far as I am concerned, the "slack" was cut a long time ago. Confucius is supposed to have said (among many things! :-)) "it is not shameful for a man to trip over a stone, but for a man to trip over the same stone twice is unpardonable", or some such. The more often such generalisations are made, and are questioned, the more difficult it becomes to accept that they may be accidental.

 

But my OP that you feel so offended by didn't say "Muslim men" it said Muslims ... So by your reckoning because I didn't specifically hit on my target I must therefore believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims are peadophiles ... You can't have your cake and eat it Brian ... This is a rather tedious exchange between us for something that surely was so obvious , but please carry on if you must ... As for the "slack" you cut me a long time ago well thanks for that

[StuartO]

It should be obvious to anyone who is not riding a pedantic hobby horse that Anthoy was referring to the gangs of men (all of whom were muslims) who were abusing white girls because they regarded them as white trash to be exploited, rather than muslim men of the whole Country or the whole world.  To accuse him of attacking muslims as a whole based on extrapolated interpretation of posts in this thread is silly, so please stop it.

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-20 3:23 AM

StuartO - 2017-07-19 8:04 AM

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 6:35 AM

StuartO - 2017-07-18 12:39 PM ...What I'm annoyed by is people who have become almost professional complainers, keen to pick up any and every politically incorrect thing, often as a way of riding their hobby horse issue and lacking any respect for other peoples' right to an opinion.

Sorry Stuart, but can't resist. Pot and kettle? :-D

 

Don't follow.  Are you saying that challenging an opinion (as irrational, invalid, whatever ...) amounts to lack of respect for the opionator's right to have that opinion?

No, just that it seems to me to put both in roughly the same place! :-) It's the same general argument as I have with Antony. You wouldn't crack Irish jokes in an Irish bar for fear of the consequences. Why then would it be OK to crack them in a English bar, where they might offend the odd Irish customer? ....

 

But my reason for not cracking Irish jokes in an Irish Bar is a question of manners and appropriateness, although as it happens I probably would also fear the consequences - but that would niot have been a consideration in my decision.  If the odd Irishman was somewhere else and got offended by Irish jokes being told I would tell him not to be so thin-skinned.

 

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-07-19 3:50 PMCommon sense and a degree of latitude would clearly allow the reader of the post that appears to have got Brian and Veronica into a twisted knickers state to understand and accept that Anthony 'clearly' did not mean or insinuate 'all' muslim men.  Unfortunately it appears to me at least that both have an element of pedantry in their reading of the post that has brought about this unwarranted accusation.  

Cut the guy some slack people.....knot everwun kan writ in prefek engerlish u no.  :-)-

I've resolved to cut Antony some slack should he be prepared to reflect on what he said and how it might be received. It is easy to accuse Brian and I of pedantry but the phrase Antony used speaks of a damnation of all Muslim men as sexual predators of white girls. Whilst he may not have intended it to be perceived in that way it had the effect on myself as a reader to amount to an attack on all Muslim men. I share Antony's distaste of misogynistic attitudes towards women and girls that characterizes the beliefs of some adherents of the Islamic faith. It cannot be denied that where the Islamic faith holds sway in many countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, some women and girls are treated in the most appalling way,.The concern that such misogynistic values will be allowed to pervade our society in the UK is not without foundation. We need to be vigilant and pursue the principle that no one is above the law regardless of their birth, nationality or religion with every force that our law allows. There are Muslim men and women who would seek the same and we need to join forces with them in achieving that. If we castigate by express terms or by inference that they are all as bad as each other then the achievement of our aims will be seriously compromised. Veronica

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 5:06 PM...................But my OP that you feel so offended by didn't say "Muslim men" it said Muslims ... So by your reckoning because I didn't specifically hit on my target I must therefore believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims are peadophiles ... You can't have your cake and eat it Brian ... This is a rather tedious exchange between us for something that surely was so obvious , but please carry on if you must ... As for the "slack" you cut me a long time ago well thanks for that

 

I quote: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?"

 

So, if not the men, then who? But you are right, it is tedious, so best left.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-19 6:51 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-07-19 5:06 PM...................But my OP that you feel so offended by didn't say "Muslim men" it said Muslims ... So by your reckoning because I didn't specifically hit on my target I must therefore believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims are peadophiles ... You can't have your cake and eat it Brian ... This is a rather tedious exchange between us for something that surely was so obvious , but please carry on if you must ... As for the "slack" you cut me a long time ago well thanks for that

 

I quote: "Muslims specifically attack young white girls because they see them as worthless dirty white sluts and white slags don't they?"

 

So, if not the men, then who? But you are right, it is tedious, so best left.

 

Agreed ... Next time I shall make sure that what I believe to be obvious is made even more obvious !

[RogerC]

Pedantry is clearly alive and well with some.  Having read the replies since my last it is quite disheartening to read the nit picking posts from two who are usually quite reasoned and level headed in their responses.  To single out one....sorry Brian...but you really are coming across as a rather superior minded individual who decries another individuals turn of phrase because it is not 'specific' enough.

English language is not pedantic as you claim, rather it is full of crossed meanings, a developing process morphing day by day into who knows what.  The OED amendments and additions are clear testimony to that process.

So pedantry is being used here as a weapon based on the accused having a track record of posts regarding the behaviours/predilections/warped religious beliefs etc of fanatical adherents to a  religion that has been turned into a weapon of hatred on the West and it's values, something I find quite unpleasant.

Alternatively the attack is being delivered by those who feel the need to demonstrate offence on behalf of the unknown masses (1.6 billlion?) who they perceive to have been wrongly accused of some awful sexual preference and delivering abuse upon Western society young females. 

I think we might have noticed if 1.6 billion Muslims behaved in this way might we not?  Therefore taking the OP as intending to include 'all' Muslims as being involved in sexual abuse of white western girls is surely somewhat insane? 

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2017-07-19 9:32 PM..................So pedantry is being used here as a weapon based on the accused having a track record of posts regarding the behaviours/predilections/warped religious beliefs etc of fanatical adherents to a  religion that has been turned into a weapon of hatred on the West and it's values, something I find quite unpleasant.

 

Alternatively the attack is being delivered by those who feel the need to demonstrate offence on behalf of the unknown masses (1.6 billlion?) who they perceive to have been wrongly accused of some awful sexual preference and delivering abuse upon Western society young females. .....................

 

Try writing a contract document, Roger! :-) Like it or not, language is extremely pedantic, and unless the meaning is clear beyond misinterpretation, the contract will be liable to end up in court with someone getting sued. And before you reply that that is an extreme example, so not relevant to a forum, I agree, but am merely using it to illustrate a point.

 

To your two points above, I can only reply on my own behalf, wrong on both counts.

 

I'll give you my reasoning. A person posts on a contentious topic and is misunderstood by others, resulting in allegations of, at their worst, bigotry and racism. The poster is stung by these allegations, responds that they are untrue, that he is being shouted down, that he is being denied his right to express his opinion, that his accusers are hopelessly politically correct, and displays understandable irritation. This continues over a lengthy period, across a number of topics, with always much the same results. The process disrupts debate while the exchanges over the disputed posts take a familiar path, often simply ending in acrimony. I find it tedious and unconstructive and, apparently, from their comments, so do others.

 

I there for try to persuade the poster that if he will modify his language, and take a just bit more care with what he writes, he can avoid those hurtful allegations. That he can express his opinions, if only he will do so with more tact, in recognition that clumsiness will almost inevitably result in misunderstanding and a repeat of the allegations he dislikes.

 

Speaking only for myself, I am not seeking to do either of the things you allege, but to persuade the serial poster that if he says what he wants to say with more tact and consideration, he could avoid both the allegations and the tedious arguments that follow. That all he has to do is read what he has written before he posts, consider where he may be misunderstood, and re-word or qualify his post as necessary so as to avoid the next uninformative spat.

 

It just takes a little longer, and a little more care. I do this, I'm sure you do, and plainly others do. We all fall below our own standards at times, and must take the consequences when we do, but surely we owe it to other readers and posters to at least try? If one wants to be properly understood, one must get the message right, especially with politically or socially contentious issues. As things stand, he merely sows dragon's teeth, again and again.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-07-20 3:43 PM

 

RogerC - 2017-07-19 9:32 PM..................So pedantry is being used here as a weapon based on the accused having a track record of posts regarding the behaviours/predilections/warped religious beliefs etc of fanatical adherents to a  religion that has been turned into a weapon of hatred on the West and it's values, something I find quite unpleasant.

 

Alternatively the attack is being delivered by those who feel the need to demonstrate offence on behalf of the unknown masses (1.6 billlion?) who they perceive to have been wrongly accused of some awful sexual preference and delivering abuse upon Western society young females. .....................

 

Try writing a contract document, Roger! :-) Like it or not, language is extremely pedantic, and unless the meaning is clear beyond misinterpretation, the contract will be liable to end up in court with someone getting sued. And before you reply that that is an extreme example, so not relevant to a forum, I agree, but am merely using it to illustrate a point.

 

To your two points above, I can only reply on my own behalf, wrong on both counts.

 

I'll give you my reasoning. A person posts on a contentious topic and is misunderstood by others, resulting in allegations of, at their worst, bigotry and racism. The poster is stung by these allegations, responds that they are untrue, that he is being shouted down, that he is being denied his right to express his opinion, that his accusers are hopelessly politically correct, and displays understandable irritation. This continues over a lengthy period, across a number of topics, with always much the same results. The process disrupts debate while the exchanges over the disputed posts take a familiar path, often simply ending in acrimony. I find it tedious and unconstructive and, apparently, from their comments, so do others.

 

I there for try to persuade the poster that if he will modify his language, and take a just bit more care with what he writes, he can avoid those hurtful allegations. That he can express his opinions, if only he will do so with more tact, in recognition that clumsiness will almost inevitably result in misunderstanding and a repeat of the allegations he dislikes.

 

Speaking only for myself, I am not seeking to do either of the things you allege, but to persuade the serial poster that if he says what he wants to say with more tact and consideration, he could avoid both the allegations and the tedious arguments that follow. That all he has to do is read what he has written before he posts, consider where he may be misunderstood, and re-word or qualify his post as necessary so as to avoid the next uninformative spat.

 

It just takes a little longer, and a little more care. I do this, I'm sure you do, and plainly others do. We all fall below our own standards at times, and must take the consequences when we do, but surely we owe it to other readers and posters to at least try? If one wants to be properly understood, one must get the message right, especially with politically or socially contentious issues. As things stand, he merely sows dragon's teeth, again and again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand ... Are you having a go at me as its unclear ... You need to be a little clearer Brian ... I thought you'd ended this tedious debate that only you and Veronica misunderstood ? obviously not ... Could this go down as officially the most pathetic spat of all time after Clive and Franks I earn more than you do dispute