Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

An interesting law book

Re: An interesting law book

Postby shootist » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:20 pm

There is a difference between the use of the terms "Anti-Semitism", "liberal", "Snowflake" and "Islamophobia". "Anti-Semitism" in the example used by Hairy, is a real thing that can be misused. The term "liberal" is a valid description used to identify a philosophical or political belief, again, a real thing. "Snowflake" is a pejorative term used to describe someone who is weak and who will 'melt away' when faced with reality, or so I understand it to be.

Islamophobia is a made up word based upon a deliberately false idea. I don't doubt that there exist some people diagnosed medically as genuine Islamophobics who are literally terrified at the sight of a minaret, will run away screaming in genuine terror from anyone wearing a burkha, or who break out in a sweating fever at the sound of the morning call to prayer. In this country I doubt there are more than a handful. (For the record, none of these things apply to me) The word is deliberately conjured to save people of a certain mind set from having to actually debate and discuss certain issues that they are most often in ignorance about in respect of Islam. For instance, the obligatory circumcision of both men and women, the inferior status of women as witnesses, the amputation of assorted parts of the body for the crime of theft (first offence or not), the killing of apostates, the paying of Jizya, Taqiyya, the rights of slaves, how people may be enslaved, the very young age at which a female may be obliged to have sex with her husband, and quite a bit more.

To avoid discussing such unpleasantness, all that is necessary is to point and say "Islamophobe' and all these worries disappear into thin air, leaving a vague odour of self righteous satisfaction in their place. I am quite certain that none of these subjects will be discussed in any detail. All that will be discussed is issues concerning me, which are obviously much more important. To some.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3555
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: An interesting law book

Postby atticus » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:52 pm

You raised concerns about the use of a word; those concerns were then discussed.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19831
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: An interesting law book

Postby shootist » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:05 pm

Did I say they shouldn't be discussed? I merely made observations on what was discussed. I do not take offence at the use of the word "Islamophobia" because it is nonsense, IMO a lie favoured by the weak minded. I just hope to point out the falseness of using this word.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3555
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: An interesting law book

Postby theycantdothat » Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:53 am

When added to the end of another word "-phobia" can mean "hatred of" as much as if not more than "irrational or excessive fear of". "Islamaphobia" is a word like "homophobia" and does not describe an anxiety disorder like "arachnophobia".
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: An interesting law book

Postby shootist » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:34 am

theycantdothat wrote:When added to the end of another word "-phobia" can mean "hatred of" as much as if not more than "irrational or excessive fear of". "Islamaphobia" is a word like "homophobia" and does not describe an anxiety disorder like "arachnophobia".


I have not seen such a reference as yet, other than from people bending then meaning of the word to suit their own definition in order to excuse it's use. I have encountered genuine homophobia from my days on Vice Squad, where some officers accepted they could not volunteer for that duty because they were simply unable to face homosexuals without an excessive degree of revulsion and indeed fear, although the fear aspect was less often acknowledged (machismo and all that). When asked they couldn't explain why, it was just something they couldn't cope with, irrational and hence 'phobia'. A person may say that they 'hate' spiders, but that hatred is born of an irrational fear. That is just semantics.

But if a person hated Islam, in the same way as a person might hate Naziism or Thugee, he may well be able to provide rational and logical reasons for doing so. (N.B. this can be done without hating Muslims). I accept hate is only ever a negative emotion, but so can love (widely known to be blind) be negative. Many people at one time loved Adolf Hitler, right to the bitter end, which no rational person could consider a good thing.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3555
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: An interesting law book

Postby Voldemort » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:26 am

It’s quite nauseating and childish when people have to defend their flavour of hate by having long winded debates on semantics and definitions.

“oh erm the aforementioned bile can’t be racist because the subject of my hate isn’t a race, so na-nana-naa-nah”, or “It can’t be irrational hatred when I’m quivering in a dark corner having panic attacks about my muslimaniac neighbour forcing me to wear her gucci headscarf and eat all that halal food they keep sending over, noooooooooo!” etc.
Voldemort
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:28 am

Re: An interesting law book

Postby shootist » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:25 am

Voldemort wrote:It’s quite nauseating and childish when people have to defend their flavour of hate by having long winded debates on semantics and definitions.


So, you prefer the "It's hate because I say it is and that's enough" approach?

Voldemort wrote:“oh erm the aforementioned bile can’t be racist because the subject of my hate isn’t a race, so na-nana-naa-nah”, or “It can’t be irrational hatred when I’m quivering in a dark corner having panic attacks about my muslimaniac neighbour forcing me to wear her gucci headscarf and eat all that halal food they keep sending over, noooooooooo!” etc.


As spouting bollocks goes, your words I quote above are simply magnificent. A wonderfully, viciously humorous but hateful diatribe that neatly avoids contributing anything at all rational to the discussion or remotely addressing the issue at hand while signalling your own impeccable virtue. I find it equally nauseating and childish, but with more justification, that the most important matter facing this world since the growth of the Nazi party and all of what followed cannot be discussed openly and any attempt to do so is met with personal attacks.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3555
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Previous

Return to Other Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest