Theo Bekkers:
> "Jose Rizal" <_@no-spam> who hides behind a fake address wrote
>
> > 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,
> > 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?
> 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?
> 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....
> 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.
> 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?
> 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?
> I have some words of advice for a person as anally PC such as
> yourself. Get a fucking 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 *fucking* life", or "get a fucking *life* "?
Mark Lee:
>
> "John L" <jlawren1@no-spam> wrote in message
> > Jose resides in La La Land, home of the trolls, nowhere near
> > Australia.
> >
>
> |:^)
>
> I enjoyed that!
> Mark Lee
>
I thought you promised to just go away, Mark....
John Staines:
> Where about's in Australia are you Jose?
Why, do you want a date?
"Jose Rizal" wrote
> Theo Bekkers:
> > 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.
I would suggest you do some research. Australian aborigenes are indeed
classified as part of the Caucasian race. Now why did that upset you?
Didn't like to be bracketed there? :-)
> 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.
Well, yes, I am pigment deficient. You may describe me as white. But
not totally North-European white. My pigmentation is probably more
like that of a person who called Jose who lives in Spain. Isn't it
amazing how far north the Spanish conquest went in medieval Europe. I
think they left some of their seed in my family 4 or 500 years ago.
> So why have you used that as a comparison, you four-eyed,
> grey-haired, balding, shortish, old geezer?
There you go. A wonderful attempt at a put-down. It actually made me
smile.
> This from someone who has just spent a considerable amount of time
> spewing the above rhubarb... hilarious.
Wonderful! You got it?
> Thanks, but your advice, like your opinions, is worth SFA.
Damn it, for just a second I thought you saw the point of my post. Oh
well.
Cheers
Theo
Theo Bekkers:
> "Jose Rizal" wrote
> > Theo Bekkers:
>
> > > 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.
>
> I would suggest you do some research. Australian aborigenes are indeed
> classified as part of the Caucasian race.
I would suggest you pick up a real book instead of reading pop magazines
for your information. You're still spouting from your bum.
> Now why did that upset you?
> Didn't like to be bracketed there? :-)
Uh? Can you try to make sense at least?
> > 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.
> Well, yes, I am pigment deficient. You may describe me as white. But
> not totally North-European white. My pigmentation is probably more
> like that of a person who called Jose who lives in Spain. Isn't it
> amazing how far north the Spanish conquest went in medieval Europe. I
> think they left some of their seed in my family 4 or 500 years ago.
Hint: no one cares about your particulars. You missed the point yet
again. Look beyond your own little world, and instead of centering
everything around you, concentrate on what the issue of the thread has
been all about. Your defensive stance on everything but the issue
precludes any understanding of anything except justification of your
shoulder chips.
> > So why have you used that as a comparison, you four-eyed,
> > grey-haired, balding, shortish, old geezer?
>
> There you go. A wonderful attempt at a put-down. It actually made me
> smile.
Better than resorting to witty responses like "get a fucking life" and
using phrases like "anal retentive" in place of credible arguments? You
can recognise that, at least. There may be hope for you, but I'm still
sceptical.
> > This from someone who has just spent a considerable amount of time
> > spewing the above rhubarb... hilarious.
> Wonderful! You got it?
Indeed I did, but you obviously didn't.
> > Thanks, but your advice, like your opinions, is worth SFA.
>
> Damn it, for just a second I thought you saw the point of my post. Oh
> well.
Oh, I got it. I wasted time responding to your post, thinking you had
the ability to understand what the issue was about. Instead I saw a lot
of whining, self-justification of entrenched behaviour consistent with
ignorance, poor knowledge, and childish insults showing a particular
fixation with the anus.
Now go join your idiot friends and stand on the corner.
> Cheers
>
> Theo