Theo Bekkers:
Quoted message said:"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> who hides behind a fake address wrote
Quoted message said:The most obvious difference is that ethnic descriptors are quite
exclusive, while gender ones are less so. Both genders exist in all
ethnic groups and hence are a lot more general in descriptive
nature,Quoted message said:whereas singling out a specific ethnic group and attaching anomalous
behaviour to it is specific discrimination. Couple that with an
atrocious attempt at justification by dredging up all sorts of
irrelevant, unrelated statistics such as Mark Lee had done, and no
doubts are left as to the racist overtone of the original remark.Jose, I've been reading your pleas for tolerance and understanding
ever since you placed an emphasis on the original post that the poster
did not imply and nobody else inferred.
You haven't been reading all the posts then, or are you just selectively
blind?
Quoted message said:The facts of life is that people are different, and whereas those
differences allow people to discriminate against those who are not of
their own group, it also allows people to describe other people. You
don't appear to see the difference. You would want the French to drop
the use of 'le' and 'la' and Australians to drop any gender or ethnic
descriptors from their language.
You assume this. Where have I stated such?
Quoted message said:Why not make a law preventing the use
of the word 'tall' to describe a person as it is obviously
discriminating against people of stature? Let's drop the word 'short'
as well. We could go the US way and refer to people by their surnames
only.
Here we go again, resorting to exaggerations and red herrings to try to
justify the obvious. Tiring, tiring, tiring....
Quoted message said:The most hilarious word I see used in newspapers in Australia is the
word 'Caucasian' to refer to an alleged offender. I wonder if the
editors or the readers are aware that Australian aborigines are of the
'Caucasian' race, the same as all the white people living here.
Caucasian, together with Negroid, Mongoloid, and Asiatic, are terms that
an anthropologist came up sometime in the 19th century to try to
categorise humans into "races". Caucasian has been chosen for what was
thought to be the best-looking group of people because they came from
the Caucasus region in Europe.
I guess I'm saying you're talking out of your bum.
Quoted message said:I'm quite happy for people to refer to me as that four-eyed,
grey-haired, balding, shortish, senior person, because that describes
me very well. If I had to meet a stranger in a public place that is
the kind of verbal image I would give them of myself. I do not
consider any of those descriptors to be ageist, sexist, or any
other -ist.
I'd describe you all that myself. However, if I'd added "white" as
well, I would be checking myself since I don't condone ethnocentricity.
On the other hand, you can't understand any difference between that and
all these other rhubarb issues you've tossed up, so it would all be the
same to you, wouldn't it?
Quoted message said:I suppose if somebody mugged you, you would refuse to describe them to
the Police because you might marginalise their ethnic group.
It is pretty tiring, really... was the post a description to the
police? So why have you used that as a comparison, you four-eyed,
grey-haired, balding, shortish, old geezer?
Quoted message said:I have some words of advice for a person as anally PC such as
yourself. Get a [censored] life.Theo
This from someone who has just spent a considerable amount of time
spewing the above rhubarb... hilarious. Thanks, but your advice, like
your opinions, is worth SFA.
You were doing a heroic attempt at being quasi-intelligent there, but
you couldn't quite keep it up, could you?
Ans is that "get a *[censored]* life", or "get a [censored] *life* "?