Racism about islam can't exist: islam isn't a race: Poll

[Hermit]

A clear case of the Hemingway virus. Nothing can be done for the patient...

Turns out to be a faux-Hemingway virus. Copypasta from a member residing in another forum. The meeting place was established by an outfit that sells flannelette shirts but does not stock shaving gear. No women there, which does not surprise at all once you've perused it for a few minutes.

[pErvinalia]

Can we get back to calling each other racists and trolls please?

[Svartalf]

Why, the faux Hemingway is nice.

and there's nothing to debate about, islam is not a race, and a disgust for it, like for all religions, is fully justified.

[pErvinalia]

Racist!

[Svartalf]

troll

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]

I take it that you are declining my invitation to justify your assertions? No obligation, no matter. Your silence makes as strong a case as your postings.

If you could come up for air from all the verbosity and just say what you meant by philocratic I'd be grateful.

To repeat a semantic token which, I believe, is considered common and appropriate parlance among the more youthful members of the forum, "lolz".

Having already encouraged you to take a reading of that term in context, and notwithstanding that I also provided two links to forthright definitions of the morphonomic device employed, you now seem to be making this issue a condition of your continuing engagement on this matter. So let me be explicit.

In post #1645145 you stated, that...

As with the dualism of "criticize the idea, not the person", this islam-muslim separation has philosophically religious roots.

... which, you went on to intone, was a notion, a construct, or a conceit which gave (presumably members of this forum - yourself excepted of course, because your 'concerns' invariably only relate to the attitudes and modes of expression of others) free licence "to act in a discriminatory way". I do not think I have misrepresented your basic thrust here, but please feel free to correct me if some important nuance needs bringing to the fore.

Nonetheless, in my response, which in itself was quite detailed, I parsed the portmanteau 'philocratic', a portmanteau being, according Messers Webster and Merriam, "a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms."

Holding your phrase "philosophically religious roots" in mind, I offer this brief exposition on the inferred meaning of "philocratic".

• It is derived through a conjunction of 'philosophy' and 'theocracy'.
• Where 'philosophy' is concerned with truth and reason and 'theology', in the religious rather than the purely academic sense, is concerned with excuses, 'theocracy' is concerned with authorisation and control by officiates and/or institutions which claim or are regarded to be divinely guided, inspired and/or empowered.
• I employed the portmanteau 'philocratic' in lieu of 'Philosophically religious', a term which, one would hope, conveys the non-sequitorial nature of either an implicit or objective claim to a rational foundation in truth and reason for justifications which promote the imposition of authoritarian control on the basis of divine guidance, command, inspiration, or empowerment.

I'll grant that this may not have been totally transparent at first glance, but even accepting the fact that 'philocratic' was used in the context of a direct response to your assertion that any distinction between an individual and their ideas is necessarily and (one presumes) fatally undermined by its 'philosophically religious roots,' at least you have it now and can turn a more charitable focus toward addressing my remarks.

In the meantime, consider this word a gift; a jewel, if you like - one with which to bedeck your robes of erudition and enhancing their lustre. Integrate it into your personal lexicon. Deploy it formal and social settings with alacrity and wilful enthusiasm. It's use will surely astound your friend and most likely render you more appealing to those whom you wish to enchant.

As for your basic point, that the nature, structure, and/or content of my vernacular forecloses on any discursive obligations you may have to respond to reasonable challenges and requests for apposite qualification in kind, I would just say this: who elected you King Of The Forum: the ultimate arbiter who issues binding decrees, no doubt from some self-appointed throne of righteous judgement, on the appropriate manner and mode in which others must couch the expression of their ideas?

Take heart though. I am not deterred or daunted, and await your reply in eagerness, in earnest, and (at the moment) in the cosy onesie my Daughter gave me this Christmas last.





edit: took a little something out and stuck a little something in

[pErvinalia]

pwned!

[rachelbean]

In the meantime, consider this word a gift; a jewel, if you like - one with which to bedeck your robes of erudition and enhancing their lustre. Integrate it into your personal lexicon. Deploy it formal and social settings with alacrity and wilful enthusiasm. It's use will surely astound your friend and most likely render you more appealing to those whom you wish to enchant.

[tattuchu]

In the meantime, consider this word a gift; a jewel, if you like - one with which to bedeck your robes of erudition and enhancing their lustre. Integrate it into your personal lexicon. Deploy it formal and social settings with alacrity and wilful enthusiasm. It's use will surely astound your friend and most likely render you more appealing to those whom you wish to enchant.

But...but there's an apostrophe where one doesn't belong

[rachelbean]

Maybe if you said it

[tattuchu]

Maybe if you said it

I don't understand what you mean. Make no mistake, I think Brian's post was magnificent. It's just that the inappropriate apostrophe is making my OCD flare up

[rachelbean]

Posting while working again, bad idea. I thought you said comma (even after I quoted you). I see what you are referring to now

[Exi5tentialist]

I take it that you are declining my invitation to justify your assertions? No obligation, no matter. Your silence makes as strong a case as your postings.

If you could come up for air from all the verbosity and just say what you meant by philocratic I'd be grateful.

To repeat a semantic token which, I believe, is considered common and appropriate parlance among the more youthful members of the forum, "lolz".

Having already encouraged you to take a reading of that term in context, and notwithstanding that I also provided two links to forthright definitions of the morphonomic device employed, you now seem to be making this issue a condition of your continuing engagement on this matter. So let me be explicit.

In post #1645145 you stated, that...

As with the dualism of "criticize the idea, not the person", this islam-muslim separation has philosophically religious roots.

... which, you went on to intone, was a notion, a construct, or a conceit which gave (presumably members of this forum - yourself excepted of course, because your 'concerns' invariably only relate to the attitudes and modes of expression of others) free licence "to act in a discriminatory way". I do not think I have misrepresented your basic thrust here, but please feel free to correct me if some important nuance needs bringing to the fore.

Nonetheless, in my response, which in itself was quite detailed, I parsed the portmanteau 'philocratic', a portmanteau being, according Messers Webster and Merriam, "a word or morpheme whose form and meaning are derived from a blending of two or more distinct forms."

Holding your phrase "philosophically religious roots" in mind, I offer this brief exposition on the inferred meaning of "philocratic".

• It is derived through a conjunction of 'philosophy' and 'theocracy'.
• Where 'philosophy' is concerned with truth and reason and 'theology', in the religious rather than the purely academic sense, is concerned with excuses, 'theocracy' is concerned with authorisation and control by officiates and/or institutions which claim or are regarded to be divinely guided, inspired and/or empowered.
• I employed the portmanteau 'philocratic' in lieu of 'Philosophically religious', a term which, one would hope, conveys the non-sequitorial nature of either an implicit or objective claim to a rational foundation in truth and reason for justifications which promote the imposition of authoritarian control on the basis of divine guidance, command, inspiration, or empowerment.

I'll grant that this may not have been totally transparent at first glance, but even accepting the fact that 'philocratic' was used in the context of a direct response to your assertion that any distinction between an individual and their ideas is necessarily and (one presumes) fatally undermined by its 'philosophically religious roots,' at least you have it now and can turn a more charitable focus toward addressing my remarks.

In the meantime, consider this word a gift; a jewel, if you like - one with which to bedeck your robes of erudition and enhancing their lustre. Integrate it into your personal lexicon. Deploy it formal and social settings with alacrity and wilful enthusiasm. It's use will surely astound your friend and most likely render you more appealing to those whom you wish to enchant.

As for your basic point, that the nature, structure, and/or content of my vernacular forecloses on any discursive obligations you may have to respond to reasonable challenges and requests for apposite qualification in kind, I would just say this: who elected you King Of The Forum: the ultimate arbiter who issues binding decrees, no doubt from some self-appointed throne of righteous judgement, on the appropriate manner and mode in which others must couch the expression of their ideas?

Take heart though. I am not deterred or daunted, and await your reply in eagerness, in earnest, and (at the moment) in the cosy onesie my Daughter gave me this Christmas last.





edit: took a little something out and stuck a little something in

Well I can certainly say that your pseudo-erudite drivel, which hardly says anything, wastes a lot of time. Fortunately not mine.

[Brian Peacock]

Oh my, mortally offended am I.