Mintball wrote:Any attempt to answer the second part of the question?
I thought i had. My definition of terrorist is personal to me. Whatever Maggie says is irrelevant.
Quote:Now you're conflating your personal opinion ("according to me") with "we". Is that the royal 'we', perchance?
It seemed to be you asking me to hide that fact. Thats why its we,
Quote:We can take a post on the basis of what is written – and not on the basis of what we believe may be written at some point in the future. You chose the latter.
we can also take into account what has been said before.
Quote:No. I am attempting to show you that that you decided that you could 'predict' how the thread would go – not had gone at that stage, but would go – and therefore could step in to deflect the thread from the OP and, in effect, rubbish it from that point.
No I addressed the point in a much longer part of the same post, the vast majority of my post addressed the OP, on its merits, at face value. A small part of it mentioned the bias from which said poster took their standpoint.
Quote:It was you who decided, based on telepathy, presumably, that you could simply trash the subject of the thread without actually dealing with said subject of the thread.
You said:
"Oh good another chance for you [DG, presumably] to prattle on in support of terrorists and how brave they are.
And another chance for people to say anti-semitic things and then complain that you ‘cant say anything these days without being accused of being anti-semitic’".
No 'ifs' there at all..
Remarkably, you've illustrated precisely what the OP raised.
For which, congratulations and thank you.
You may possibly have a point, if it didnt mean that you would need to ignore the majority of the same quote. I addressed the OP on the basis of his bias, and of the way i expected the thread to go. I also addressed, in the vast majority of the post, the OP on face value, on its own merits.
I didnt say anyone particularly was anti-semitic, i didnt say the OP was, I didnt say that the OP had no merit because of anti-semitism, i didnt address the argument in the context of anybody commenting being anti-semitic. I said that the thread would go on to become a mud-slinging excercise, mentioned the OP's support of terrorists, and made the same point that Kosh did, that people will defend anti-semitic statements by hiding behind a pretence of a criticism of Israel. I didnt say everyone would do that and i didnt even say they would be wrong to do it, just that it would be boring.
I also said
Quote:The cartoon is offensive, how do I know? Because it offended people.
If the Sunday times was happy to offend people then it should stand by it. Its pretty clear that that wasn’t their intention and as such they have apologised for not being careful in how they communicated the point. That is fine, it is right and it is a sign of a healthy democracy.
The Sunday times was and is free to print offensive things, as we have seen, people are and will be free to be offended by them, This is a good thing, this is how free speech works. You are free to make these comments and draw these pictures, and people are free to judge you on your words and communications. Free speech works both ways, its not only your right to criticise the other side, but their right to criticise you.
Get over it, get over yourself. If you don’t want to be labelled an anti-semite, don’t do things which could be construed as anti-semitic. If you dont believe what you are saying to be anti-semitic then stand by it, but it is pathetic to argue people shouldn’t be offended by it, or express their offence because that would be you trying to shut down their argument by claiming they are trying to shut down, it is the height of hypocrisy.
Which you have largely ignored whilst banging on about how i havent addressed the OP's argument.
